Couple of points:

1. Is it really necessary to have over two spaces per residential unit?
2. Does this mean NW 3rd will dead end on the other side of the railroad tracks in DD?

1. Parking is for the entire project, not just the apartments
2. No, it will remain unchanged

BTW, a typical Sprouts takes 28,000 to 30,000 SF and I've heard they have been talking to them about taking that large commercial space.

Would be a great fit IMO.

Wow, rather solid development overall for the lot.
Sprouts, or really any other grocer there will quell the need for a downtown grocer, at least for a time. Plus, this blends in well with the existing structures just on the outskirts of the skyline, so it won't be an awkward outlier.

Seems we're still pretty far out on the time table, but I certainly wish this the best, maybe even with a couple modifications to the design, but otherwise, cool!

http://i.imgur.com/M0K6yp3.jpg

Couple of points:



1. Is it really necessary to have over two spaces per residential unit?
2. Does this mean NW 3rd will dead end on the other side of the railroad tracks in DD?

It's regulated by code to have that many parking spaces; for multiple-family residential, code says 1.5 spaces per efficiency and 1 dwelling unit, and 2 spaces per 2 or more bedroom unit.

A grocer and/or drug store makes great sense at that location because it's not only on the streetcar line, it's on the right side of the street for all the workers heading north at the end of the day.

Are those going to be apartments or condos? Also they did ask for TIF that going to be a problem?

Otherwise looks amazing.

Apartments, not condos.

10% and $10 million in TIF is a big ask; 5 to 7% is more typical.

21c got 10% but that only equated to $5.3 million, which is still twice as big as any other TIF award; so $10 million would be twice again as large.

1. Parking is for the entire project, not just the apartments
2. No, it will remain unchanged

1. Got it, makes sense.
2. Can you explain in layman's terms what the ROW and the other parcel they are looking to acquire? It sounded to me like they wanted to close all of NW 3rd and continue the project to the small space on south side of it.

It's regulated by code to have that many parking spaces; for multiple-family residential, code says 1.5 spaces per efficiency and 1 dwelling unit, and 2 spaces per 2 or more bedroom unit.

Got it, it seemed like a lot, but I guess not.

Like the layout, hate the name. Times Square sounds like us trying to be someone else. I would prefer something more OKC oriented, or just something original, like "The Chamber" with homage to what was proposed there years ago.

It's regulated by code to have that many parking spaces; for multiple-family residential, code says 1.5 spaces per efficiency and 1 dwelling unit, and 2 spaces per 2 or more bedroom unit.
There is 0 parking requirement downtown


Apartments, not condos.

10% and $10 million in TIF is a big ask; 5 to 7% is more typical.

21c got 10% but that only equated to $5.3 million, which is still twice as big as any other TIF award; so $10 million would be twice again as large.
It is a big ask. But new downtown high raise apts are new and if it also brings a downtown full service grocery then it may be worth it.



1. Got it, makes sense.
2. Can you explain in layman's terms what the ROW and the other parcel they are looking to acquire? It sounded to me like they wanted to close all of NW 3rd and continue the project to the small space on south side of it.

See middle of post 180.

The parcel labeled "B". Is the 3rd st row they want to use. 3rd street used to go direct west and not curve south connecting with ekg

The parcel labeled "c ". They just want to put a sign. The last image on post 180 also show this.

Right, it is a big ask but they are setting the market for high rise apartments so it might be worth it. They are probably only asking for 10% hoping to wind up getting 7-8%

I'm guessing "Times Square" is probably a reference to The Oklahoma City Times and/or The Oklahoma Times and/or The Oklahoma City Times/Journal, which in various iterations were located near there. But I agree; I hope it is more of a placekeeper/working title right now. Too easy to confuse with THE Times Square.

IIRC closes thing we had to a downtown full service grocery was Burger Brothers market (412 S Harvey) back in the mid 80s.

There is 0 parking requirement downtown

Can you provide a link? I'd like to read more about it.

Can you provide a link? I'd like to read more about it.

https://www.okc.gov/home/showdocument?id=4694 Page 12 is a start:

"(4) Parking. Parking is not required. However, if provided, off-street parking areas shall
meet all design standards defined within Article X, and shall meet the Parking Lot
Landscaping requirements within Article XI."

Downtown has two parking overlay districts as well that have 0 minimum. The Urban Design overlay district also requires no parking in certain portions. All in Chapter 59 of the Municipal Code: https://www.municode.com/library/ok/oklahoma_city/codes/code_of_ordinances

^^^^^

I feel like Fassler Hall was one of the newer additions that really brought this to my attention and I'm sure to others as well. Very minimal parking compared to the capacity, and after some negotiations with neighboring businesses, it seems like it has worked out well... until Midtown Renaissance builds a garage.

I'd prefer Uptown Grocery to Sprouts, mostly due to the sushi/BBQ/bistro type stuff, for the lunch crowd. Sprouts might want to integrate something like that, given the location, should they get the space.

Nice project, OKC's first modern high-rise residential in the works! However, not starting until Fall of 2018? Meh...That is a long time from now, a lot can happen between now & then, not getting my hopes up until I see dirt moving.

Nice project, OKC's first modern high-rise residential in the works! However, not starting until Fall of 2018? Meh...That is a long time from now, a lot can happen between now & then, not getting my hopes up until I see dirt moving.

The story's timeline doesn't quite add up,

It says to start by Fall 2018 and be complete by Spring 2019. Construction would take longer than that. So maybe, hopefully, they would start Fall 2017* with an expected completion of Spring 2019.

Nice project, OKC's first modern high-rise residential in the works! However, not starting until Fall of 2018? Meh...That is a long time from now, a lot can happen between now & then, not getting my hopes up until I see dirt moving.

One of which being a hopeful rise in crude prices.

The story's timeline doesn't quite add up,

It says to start by Fall 2018 and be complete by Spring 2019. Construction would take longer than that. So maybe, hopefully, they would start Fall 2017* with an expected completion of Spring 2019.

Yea, maybe there was a misunderstanding, I sure hope so. The Fall of 2017 seems more realistic.

I'm guessing "Times Square" is probably a reference to The Oklahoma City Times and/or The Oklahoma Times and/or The Oklahoma City Times/Journal, which in various iterations were located near there. But I agree; I hope it is more of a placekeeper/working title right now. Too easy to confuse with THE Times Square.

I went to the TIMES SQUARE in Honk Kong a couple months back. Never been to the NY one, but the HK one was incredible.

Read the article again, states should start BY Fall of 2018, so that would suggest at the latest, so it could be earlier.

Another little nugget I found in the article is that the conceptual design was inspired by the The Taylor, a high-rise residential tower in Dallas. So it will probably look something close to this:

12766

^^^^^

I feel like Fassler Hall was one of the newer additions that really brought this to my attention and I'm sure to others as well. Very minimal parking compared to the capacity, and after some negotiations with neighboring businesses, it seems like it has worked out well... until Midtown Renaissance builds a garage.

And I know OKC will never be as dense as some major cities, but... businesses and developers won't start finding creative solutions for parking/transportation until they're forced to. Individual businesses can make it with minimal parking because (a) less parking can translate into more dense developments with more housing and more walking/biking, and (b) the overall parking ecosystem usually has parking available once people/businesses are forced to find arrangments. Matching parking spots with individual developments/businesses is more of a suburban approach.

And just to clarify, I'm not saying parking garages are bad as this development obviously needs parking. I'm just saying that in general I hope OKC puts urban/walkable principles ahead of parking spaces in urban developments.

Hopefully this project will be a motivator to improve the sidewalks in the immediate area. A big selling point for this area is the location, and I think that the infrastructure needs to be improved to adequately sell that. Could be a win-win for the area.

At this point, I don't care about height...this is SUPER infill!

I love the project layout as in INFILL, but I hate the fact that the last major piece of land in the CBD will not be greater than 300 feet tall. I know this is the first new residential downtown but I wish OKC would be a little bit more ambitious when attempting to set-the-bar for future developments (ala Devon).

200 feet isn't going to make an impact in the skyline and really is a mid-rise. Note that the 'inspiration' for this project is NOT in Downtown Dallas yet we're putting it in OKC's CBD.

I honestly wish this same development would be built in Midtown or AAlley and this site be kept for a commercial skyscraper above 500 feet (you know, CBD) but I am happy the renaissance is moving forward and therefore just hope that they raise the height of the proposal to say 20 floors [with Russell Westbrook taking the top floor penthouse!!].

I only wish when developers propose that they consider where they are in relation to what is proposed. Perhaps this is not the best location for OKC's newest modern residential high-rise but it would be awesome if it were near Saint Anthony Hospital or in AAlley on Oklahoma Ave.

Trying not to be negative, I do like it - I just wish we were more ambitious for the location. ....

This seems like an appropriate height to me for the lot. I think this will create a nice bridge between the CBD and Deep Deuce. I think it's misplaced to call OKC's first high rise residentual project unambitious.

There are plenty of underutilized lots in the area that can host skyscrapers if companies see the need. Personally, I wouldn't care OKC ever had another 300 foot building. Quality, dense infill is much more important than the skyline.

I love the project layout as in INFILL, but I hate the fact that the last major piece of land in the CBD will not be greater than 300 feet tall. I know this is the first new residential downtown but I wish OKC would be a little bit more ambitious when attempting to set-the-bar for future developments (ala Devon).

200 feet isn't going to make an impact in the skyline and really is a mid-rise. Note that the 'inspiration' for this project is NOT in Downtown Dallas yet we're putting it in OKC's CBD.

I honestly wish this same development would be built in Midtown or AAlley and this site be kept for a commercial skyscraper above 500 feet (you know, CBD) but I am happy the renaissance is moving forward and therefore just hope that they raise the height of the proposal to say 20 floors [with Russell Westbrook taking the top floor penthouse!!].

I only wish when developers propose that they consider where they are in relation to what is proposed. Perhaps this is not the best location for OKC's newest modern residential high-rise but it would be awesome if it were near Saint Anthony Hospital or in AAlley on Oklahoma Ave.

Trying not to be negative, I do like it - I just wish we were more ambitious for the location. ....

I didn't say that OKC's first modern residential highrise was unambitious. I'm saying for this location, I think it is.

Honestly, this isn't even the first residential highrise proposal, recall that all previous ones were taller than this one: Bricktown Towers (ok, maybe not real but still, it was 40+ floors), OGE/Clayco was 26 floors, and even Millhaus was 21 floors.

Again, Im excited and want it, but for the proposed height and massing I think a better spot would be in midtown or aalley and this spot should be kept for a taller proposal like those previously announced. My opinion.

I do agree with you about the infill. and am very happy to see the low rise portion of the development - direly needed.

Only wish the highrise was a proper one given the location - my own personal 'planning' ideas. ..

Are there not plenty of spaces for highrises/skyscrapers in the CBD if someone really wants one? We could start with tearing down the new Chase Bank location... ;) Obviously kidding (not really though), but there seem to be ways to make taller buildings happen in this area. This isn't the last opportunity.

Considering what was proposed for this lot, this current project is much taller.

When the old Myriad Convention Center comes down, there will be plenty of room for high rises. Only need entities to fill them.

There's a ton of room downtown for more stuff. Hell, there's a big surface parking lot directly across the street from this location, on the NW corner of the intersection.

This building could be very important to downtown OKC. If it can show that high rise apartments are economically viable, then it could trigger a new wave of construction. Somebody has to be the first to build.

Do we know if financing is local or national? That'd be pretty significant news if it was local.

Do we know if financing is local or national? That'd be pretty significant news if it was local.

A ~$70MM loan (70% LTV) would be too big for any local bank to hold on their own. The opportunity for a local bank group to carry the entire loan is definitely a possibility, however.

There are surface lots, underutilized lots such as bank drive-ins and other low-lying stock that is not intrinsically valuable, and even grass/gravel lots from teardowns littered ALL OVER downtown. We won't be without land options for high rises in the CBD for a generation at our current rate of high rise development. And if we do run out of them, the CBD expands. Probably to the south.

Yes, and the point about the Cox Center coming down in the near future is a good one.

The Alliance commissioned a study that showed the highest and best use of that property is for the expansion of hi-rise office for the CBD.

"Times Square?" Please tell me this is a placeholder name.

I'm guessing the renderings are very rough and what we are seeing is nothing like the actual design.

"Times Square?" Please tell me this is a placeholder name.

I'm guessing the renderings are very rough and what we are seeing is nothing like the actual design.

I'd guess so, in post #206 is a building in Dallas by the same architect.

^ They almost look like the same building to me, just configured differently. The Dallas building is also 17 stories and even has the angle in it's footprint as well.

I was at the OKC Chamber Ambassadors meeting on Thursday. Roy Williams got up and spoke about what was going on in the metro area, breaking it out to DT, BT, MT, Uptown, Chisholm Creek, etc. After his presentation, he took questions and one of them was about a DT Grocery Store and he brought up Native Roots and said there is a need and they (the Chamber) are looking at it and exploring other options like a market where there is one store for cheese, one deli, one for vegetables, etc. I brought up Sprout's at this location (which Pete has discussed a few times) and he said that Sprout's does not have an urban grocery store model. The Chamber has talked about Wal-mart and Target urban grocery stores and would love for a local store like Crest or Uptown Grocery, but those stores don't have an urban model either. I hope we get a Crest, UG or Sprout's and don't have to settle for another Wal-Mart.

That's interesting.

But you don't really need an urban model to go in at this spot, which is one of the reasons they have designed the retail building as somewhat separate.

That's interesting.

But you don't really need an urban model to go in at this spot, which is one of the reasons they have designed the retail building as somewhat separate.

Right, but I think the model of a sh!t ton of surface parking is what most of these stores are built on and not having that parking makes some of them nervous, since they have not done an urban grocery store and think the money might be spent better elsewhere,

Let's assume this happens. What are they doing that is allowing them to get funding for rental. This is pretty unheard of even in larger metro areas. Or is this a "sign of the times". Are buyers drying up because of a tightening credit market. Is their support for high rental rates? Just curious, because this seems WAY out of left field. What is making this one doable.

Let's assume this happens. What are they doing that is allowing them to get funding for rental. This is pretty unheard of even in larger metro areas. Or is this a "sign of the times". Are buyers drying up because of a tightening credit market. Is their support for high rental rates? Just curious, because this seems WAY out of left field. What is making this one doable.

Not sure where you are getting this, most major metros are throwing up thousands of high rise rental units. OKC is definitely behind in this regard.

Let's assume this happens. What are they doing that is allowing them to get funding for rental. This is pretty unheard of even in larger metro areas. Or is this a "sign of the times". Are buyers drying up because of a tightening credit market. Is their support for high rental rates? Just curious, because this seems WAY out of left field. What is making this one doable.

People can't come up with the 20% down payment, but they can come up with the monthly rent payment.....They want instant gratification, instead of planning and saving.....might have something to do with huge student loan debts....

A lot of people don't care about owning.

The downtown rental market is still pretty hot, even with over a thousand new units in just the last 6 months or so.

And, developers love apartments because they can hold as a rapidly increasing investment.

The for sale market is plenty hot downtown as well.

The for sale market is plenty hot downtown as well.

As evidenced by the 701 N Hudson pricing and reserved spaces.

People can't come up with the 20% down payment, but they can come up with the monthly rent payment.....They want instant gratification, instead of planning and saving.....might have something to do with huge student loan debts....

I'm sorry but this is total bull-crap. Wages have not kept up with cost of living. My rent payment is $1,200 a month for a suburban 1 bed room 20 miles from the city center in Denver. That is equal to or more than a mortgage payment for many decent homes. If you are young, you simply cannot get ahead enough for a down payment. The system is rigged. If you go to college for a degree, you are lucky if you can afford the student loan repayments. If you don't go to college, you can't get a job that pays what the cost to live is. We are screwed either way. It's not about not wanting to save money -- it's simply not having any money left at the end of the month to save. There's simply no money left at the end of the month. We are forced into renting. I'm not alone. It's not about instant gratification -- it's about the cost of living no longer being in the ballpark of wages. I work 45-75 hours a week. We go out to eat (usually fast food) maybe twice a month. It's not about laziness or instant gratification. Most renters in my age group would love to own -- we just cannot get there as we are paying someone else's mortgage and jumping through hoops.

While I'm not going to get into why people rent (which I personally think is a function of necessity), I mostly was interested in how the developer is getting the funding. It seems like anything of this magnitude would need to be pre-sold before construction started. Even in much larger metro's it is fairly unusual to have new construction high rises that are predominantly rental units. Vertical building is significantly more expensive than low rise. And those developers are asking for handouts. How in the world is this guy going to get financing for this project?

Call me skeptical. I just don't see this happening unless the economy in OKC improves by a significant clip.

How they get financing: Work up a pro forma that shows rents and cash flow that will cover debt service, then demonstrate those rents are realistic in the market.

Downtown rent has been rising rapidly which -- combined with some public assistance -- places these pro formas in the ballpark now.

To be sure, and lender will make them jump through plenty of hoops to support the required rent numbers. I'm sure they've already floated this and feel confident they are somewhat close, otherwise they wouldn't be spending money buying more land and hiring expensive Dallas architects.

How they get financing: Work up a pro forma that shows rents and cash flow that will cover debt service, then demonstrate those rents are realistic in the market.

Downtown rent has been rising rapidly which -- combined with some public assistance -- places these pro formas in the ballpark now.

To be sure, and lender will make them jump through plenty of hoops to support the required rent numbers. I'm sure they've already floated this and feel confident they are somewhat close, otherwise they wouldn't be spending money buying more land and hiring expensive Dallas architects.

You would think. Just hard to imagine floating something like this when nothing over 5 stories has been built recently. I understand the logistics of trying to get financing. Just curious what could have possibly changed that made something like this feasible? Just seems way out in left field considering the current crop of development. It's not like they are saving huge on land, they have a huge lot. So there goes what is normally an economic savings of reduced foot print. Construction costs are likely double per square foot what it would be for low rise construction. Based on estimates it looks to be double the cost of the Edge and Level, with only 50% more capacity per acre. Heck, plop one more level on the Edge and we are talking nearly identical unit counts. This just does not seem fiscally feasible in my opinion. At best 5% chance this thing gets built.

Even in downtown LA, where I would assume land would be much more expensive than here, they are seeing a huge amount of low rise rentals going up. It's barely more dense that Level.

I mean someone has to be the first or it would be a never ending cycle...

While I'm not going to get into why people rent (which I personally think is a function of necessity), I mostly was interested in how the developer is getting the funding. It seems like anything of this magnitude would need to be pre-sold before construction started. Even in much larger metro's it is fairly unusual to have new construction high rises that are predominantly rental units. Vertical building is significantly more expensive than low rise. And those developers are asking for handouts. How in the world is this guy going to get financing for this project?

Call me skeptical. I just don't see this happening unless the economy in OKC improves by a significant clip.

Again, this is not unusual in larger metros. Maybe 10 years ago it was but not presently. Here in Denver there are probably 12-15 rental high rises currently under construction and Seattle probably has at least double that.

I'm sure its been discussed but its probably easier to get financing for rent buildings vs condos. Rent will always bring in money to the developer/owner. The condos are a one time sale then it's off their hands. Much more high risk/high reward. I know that's a simple way to look at it but its fairly accurate.