Keep in mind the more these types of projects are allowed/approved, the less likely anything is ever going to change.

We've already seen this happen with the demolitions... Once the SandRidge thing was approved, on what grounds can the deny the same type of request from Hines or anyone else?

+1

Well, lets hope you all are right about theses buildings because they have made it very clear that they want to be as close to the Devon complex as possible and they want the corner that is closest to the gardens. Anyone that thought these two buildings werent coming down when they were purchased is fooling themselves.
If they cannot achieve this, my guess is the eventually sell off the properties.

The odds of this not happening in substantially the same manner as proposed (big garages, older buildings razed, skywalks, offset corner bldg to have a small plaza, etc.) are about the same odds of me winning the lottery drawing on Saturday without buying a ticket. Not zero, cause after all, someone might buy a ticket and mark it all up with my info and it mihgt win and all, but I don't think I'll be banking on that outcome either.

I agree there needs to be more to this project but if I have to make a choice of what is just sitting there now or their project I think I would take what they are offering. Why? Because it's better than a bunch of building sitting there rotting away.

Which is why they should have demolished Bricktown, AA, Midtown, Paseo, Uptown and the Plaza district a long time ago.

Which is why they should have demolished Bricktown, AA, Midtown, Paseo, Uptown and the Plaza district a long time ago.

Midtown was for the most part demolished, which is why to this day so much of it is sitting as grassy lots. Likewise with Bricktown, which today is still full of surface parking.

Nonetheless there really isn't any comparison between the Preftakes block and the three buildings in jeopardy there to the districts you mentioned. We are talking about a few buildings vs entire districts. I think a good question is, if preservationists are successful in saving these buildings, what then?

Nonetheless there really isn't any comparison between the Preftakes block and the three buildings in jeopardy there to the districts you mentioned.

True. The buildings in those districts were much worse off at one point than these are.


...which is why to this day so much of it is sitting as grassy lots.

Wait, there's empty lots in downtown OKC?

Which is why they should have demolished Bricktown, AA, Midtown, Paseo, Uptown and the Plaza district a long time ago.

That makes O sense. Apples to oranges.

And midtown had a bunch of crappy old junk that needed to be bulldozed. It's good that most is gone and much has or is being refurbished.

I ran in to a interesting article about the Kowloon walled City in Hong Kong.

Life inside the densest place on earth: Photos of Kowloon Walled City - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/travel/kowloon-walled-city/)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140330221527-lambot-kowloon001-horizontal-gallery.jpg

This place was Just the Facts wet dream. But wait, it was torn down!! For a............ Park! bahahahahahaha

I really think JTF and the "new urbanism" crowd thinks this place was the mecca. Seriously, it has EVERYTHING they ask for!


*this post was make jokingly, and I even agree with A LOT of what JTF says. He is just wayyy over the top extreme in his views.

I went ahead and sent my email to Lisa Chronister, hope it's not too late.
I didn't cast aside this project entirely. Just requested that the city and all parties involve take a critical look at the current proposal and consider seeing what's necessary to keep for the sake of history and character in downtown OKC. I couldn't sit idly anymore and not say something. Again, I certainly don't mean to intrude, but I have spent so much time in downtown OKC that I feel it's become part of me. I only want what's best and I don't believe tearing down EVERY structure for a couple parking garages is worth it. If there was only a way to blend the current proposal with at least one of the current structures (which I believe we've discussed is more than possible), I think all parties can be happy.

Just my two cents.

If you are interested in signing the on-line petition to save this block you can find the link here:

OKCTalk - Preservationist look to save nine downtown buildings (http://www.okctalk.com/content/90-preservationist-look-save-nine-downtown-buildings.html)

Also, you send an email to the Downtown Design Review Committee through Paula Hurst: paula.hurst@okc.gov.

And midtown had a bunch of crappy old junk that needed to be bulldozed. It's good that most is gone and much has or is being refurbished.

Much of what is or has been refurbished was much like the "crappy old junk that needed to be bulldozed".


That makes O sense. Apples to oranges.

It makes a lot of sense, but then again, at one point the idea that those places would one day be some of the most popular and vibrant spots in the city made no sense to most people in Oklahoma City.

Kind of like most people don't realize that Apples and Oranges have a lot of similarities.

I ran in to a interesting article about the Kowloon walled City in Hong Kong.

Life inside the densest place on earth: Photos of Kowloon Walled City - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/31/travel/kowloon-walled-city/)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140330221527-lambot-kowloon001-horizontal-gallery.jpg

This place was Just the Facts wet dream. But wait, it was torn down!! For a............ Park! bahahahahahaha

I really think JTF and the "new urbanism" crowd thinks this place was the mecca. Seriously, it has EVERYTHING they ask for!


*this post was make jokingly, and I even agree with A LOT of what JTF says. He is just wayyy over the top extreme in his views.

FYI - that is nothing like New Urbanism.

I wonder if a couple months worth of red tape and delay might be enough to stop this project dead in it tracks. I think one of the reason Devon has put a rush on this is to get it started before the bottom falls out of the oil market and the Wall Street types put an end to the non-core spending.

Yes, let's hope that we have a bust and we can keep everything just the way it is. Instead of wanting to work out things, let's hope we all fail. I sure if we have an oil bust that another industry will want to come in. OKC doesn't need any stinking oil money.

I wonder if a couple months worth of red tape and delay might be enough to stop this project dead in it tracks. I think one of the reason Devon has put a rush on this is to get it started before the bottom falls out of the oil market and the Wall Street types put an end to the non-core spending.

This has been in the works for quite a while.

I've heard it will move forward very quickly when/if approval is received.

I wonder if a couple months worth of red tape and delay might be enough to stop this project dead in it tracks. I think one of the reason Devon has put a rush on this is to get it started before the bottom falls out of the oil market and the Wall Street types put an end to the non-core spending.

Devon isn't doing the spending.

Devon isn't doing the spending.

That's right. It's Hines.

A compromise needs to be made. I like the building, a little bland -- but I like it. It's an architectural style that isn't represented. However, there needs to be a way to save some buildings on this site.

Also, regarding the park. Remember there will be 2 residential towers and an elementary school 1 block from the park. While the residential towers are not directly against the park, they are close enough that the people in those towers will use the park. The CC hotel may as well be considered residential, from a time-of-day population standpoint. That will be fronting the park.

There will also be the streetcar line running directly by the two Clayco business towers, the MBG, and 499 Sheridan. The streetcar line will be bringing people directly to the park, and the stops will be on the Garden side of the park. People will literally be dropped off right in the park, tourists and residents (leisure time is flexible) will be very likely to use the park, or at least walk through it on the way to where they are going.

Again, I certainly don't mean to intrude, but I have spent so much time in downtown OKC that I feel it's become part of me. I only want what's best and I don't believe tearing down EVERY structure for a couple parking garages is worth it. If there was only a way to blend the current proposal with at least one of the current structures (which I believe we've discussed is more than possible), I think all parties can be happy.

Just my two cents.

Making your opinion known isn't intruding. We need much more such intrusions in OKC. Thanks.

If you are interested in signing the on-line petition to save this block you can find the link here:

OKCTalk - Preservationist look to save nine downtown buildings (http://www.okctalk.com/content/90-preservationist-look-save-nine-downtown-buildings.html)

Also, you send an email to the Downtown Design Review Committee through Paula Hurst: paula.hurst@okc.gov.

I signed the petition and I was only number 97. Surely we can do better than that.

This project will move forward. It is just the duty of Preservation Oklahoma to make an attempt, but do they really think they will win? For that answer, one just has to look across the street. They made a mistake of presenting a case to save all buildings. Now I don't think all the building have to go, but I know some of them do. If Hines/Pickard are as smart as I think they are, they will find a way to save the Union Bus Station, on which I think they will, and that will be enough to get this pushed through.

Moreover, I thought Nick Preftakes already received the demolition permit for Carpenter Square and some of other buildings a couple years ago?

No demolition permits have been issued for any of the existing buildings.

Ok, well I could of swore he had received demolition permits for something, because everybody was making a big stink about it because we were like how could they approve a demolition permit without seeing plans.

Pete, was there ever really any plan, or at least an analysis of the potential to make the Hotel Black into residential? As I recall, at one point you thought that was going to happen? Was it actually considered or was it misdirection and dis-information?

Also, if not all the buildings can be saved, what are the buildings that DEFINITELY should be saved instead of going forward with this project. Are there any that would be deal breakers? In other words, if the Carpenter Sq building had to go but it would save the Hotel Black and motor hotel, would that be enough?

In my mind, saving Hotel Black should be first priority.

I wonder if a couple months worth of red tape and delay might be enough to stop this project dead in it tracks. I think one of the reason Devon has put a rush on this is to get it started before the bottom falls out of the oil market and the Wall Street types put an end to the non-core spending.

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

Oil was $34/bbl in 2009. Let's hope it doesn't go that low this time but if it did, it isn't uncharted territory as long as it doesn't stay there long term. Many analysts are predicting oil prices to eventually go back up to the $80-$100 range mid-term and if that happens the worrying can be over.

I thought DocThunder's post sounded a lot like soondoc.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is the first time I have been on this site in days. I decided that everyone knew my feelings about it being taller and that this and 2 parking garages just don't seem adequate, but I stopped posting about it. I even had some bozo send me private message screaming and yelling, that's pretty bad for someone to go to that level. I only want the best for this city and want it to be great not just ok.

For the bozo who emailed me, I advised that he was very immature and it wasn't warranted. I'd like to further discuss how easily it is to do a power blast double leg on someone who is 6'5 and some nice submission holds once down on the ground. :cool: Anyway, before anymore of those comments, I guess you all have a new person to deal with. In fact you can verify it with Pete if you prefer.

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

That idea was dead in the water before it even set sail. As Rover reminded me, Hines is the developer, not Devon. I have no idea what Hines' sensitivity to oil prices is.

Oil was $34/bbl in 2009. Let's hope it doesn't go that low this time but if it did, it isn't uncharted territory as long as it doesn't stay there long term. Many analysts are predicting oil prices to eventually go back up to the $80-$100 range mid-term and if that happens the worrying can be over.

Oil might have slipped lately, but natural gas is profitable. It's not doom and gloom, yet.

I'd love to see a couple of the bigger buildings saved and incorporated into the new project but its not my block or my money that is being invested. If there is historic preservation to be had, the designation should be put on and some historic preservation entity needs to buy the block for a market price. Otherwise, the owner is free to do whatever he wants to do. As Pete said, this is clearly an annex to the Devon tower. They need additional space and parking and this development serves their needs. Maintaining a 1-story bus station does not serve the owner a sufficient economic return or they would have done it. The owners made an investment and they expect to get a return for their investment. Anyone want to pony up a million or two for starters?

I'd love to see a couple of the bigger buildings saved and incorporated into the new project but its not my block or my money that is being invested. If there is historic preservation to be had, the designation should be put on and some historic preservation entity needs to buy the block for a market price. Otherwise, the owner is free to do whatever he wants to do. As Pete said, this is clearly an annex to the Devon tower. They need additional space and parking and this development serves their needs. Maintaining a 1-story bus station does not serve the owner a sufficient economic return or they would have done it. The owners made an investment and they expect to get a return for their investment. Anyone want to pony up a million or two for starters?

I disagree entirely.

First, historic preservation entities do not have the funding to outbid oil and gas companies for downtown real estate. They just don't. If that's your standard, then no building anywhere, ever, will be saved from destruction if someone wants to tear it down. Period. So that can't be the standard, because otherwise nothing is ever worth saving.

Second, the owner is not "free to do whatever he wants to do". There are many times when the government interferes with a private entity's use of its own property. I can't build a strip club across the street from your kid's school. But that's my property, right? Why can't I fulfill my dream of putting HooterTown right there where the flashing neon can be seen out the windows of Mrs. Johnson's 1st grade class? We have design guidelines in place right now that this proposal does not follow.

Third, we have ponied up a million or two. The city has made massive investments in the downtown area. We've put hundreds of millions of dollars into our downtown in an attempt to create prosperity and try to turn our downtown into a livable, walkable area. Why should we approve a development that is counter-productive to that goal?

Finally -- we, as a city, do not have an obligation to ensure that every move Devon makes is profitable. If they didn't think renovating the bus station would be profitable, then they shouldn't have bought it. The Hotel Black had tenants as recently as a few months ago. One of them posts on this board. They don't have to tear it down. Turn around and sell it to someone else if you can't make enough money off of it.

The city has an interest in promoting the highest and best use of these historic properties, NOT the highest profit margin for the owner. With your standard, someone could purchase the First National Building and then tear it down for a parking garage because "we couldn't make the numbers work otherwise", and unless a poster on this board has enough millions to convince them to sell it, we can't criticize? Screw that!

I think the pictures of the new building look really nice. A breath of fresh air. I'm sure plenty of us remember downtown as it was in the 1980's and 1990's. That's what I still remember when I see the older buildings. It was bleak.

Oil might have slipped lately, but natural gas is profitable. It's not doom and gloom, yet.

Natural gas is in bad shape right now at a bit over $3/M

Natural gas is in bad shape right now at a bit over $3/M

It's dropped 50 cents in the last 6 sessions, but I think this time next week we'll see it gain back the loss due to the upcoming arctic mass moving in. It's 36 degrees in Phoenix right now.

Here are the big changes proposed by Pickard Chiilton:

2,490 SF more retail in west garage; 1,500 SF more in the north garage.

Developers of downtown tower propose more retail in parking garages | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5379990)

Wow! Such commitment! Glad they really seem to care.

So much for a compromise.

Here are the big changes proposed by Pickard Chiilton:

2,490 SF more retail in west garage; 1,500 SF more in the north garage.

Developers of downtown tower propose more retail in parking garages | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5379990)

Not bad. However, this goes to show that Hines has absolutely no interest in compromising with preservationists at all. Even if they made an effort just to save the bus station and demolish everything else, that would still show that they cared. They have basically just given the middle finger to everyone who wants to see the historic structures preserved.

In addition, as we all know from the Devon tower, attracting retail is easier said than done. If this gets built as pictured here, can retail work there immediately or will it be something that sits vacant for years until the west side of the CBD starts to fill in with residential?

This allows them to say, "Look, we made changes at our expense!" and really do nothing much to change the project and address the bigger issues raised.

I'm sure it will sail through on Jan. 15th.

Regarding the retail space, I'm sure if they put up "for lease" signs they will get calls/interest. I don't think there's anything like that for the Devon retail spaces, which is a shame, unless I'm mistaken. IMO they should finish out the spaces and AT LEAST use them for pop up shops.

This is so frustrating! I am all for new developments but why destroy 2 buildings that don't need to be destroyed!? It is 100% because of Devon wanting their buildings next to each other! This revision is an insult, and the only reason why they didn't change anything is because we have a history of letting developers/architects/CEO's pushing us around! There are plenty of empty lots downtown for this building! There is NO need to destroy density and history! I'm disgusted!

If our market is so ripe for developments then the review committee needs to deny this and either have it scrapped our open the door for a better development!

The proposed revision is a slap in the face to any and all requesting the slightest compromise. It's actually an insult, in my opinion, what their latest proposal offers. Not even a hint of compromise anywhere. Are they obligated? Of course not. Would it be nice to see if they and Devon would actually try to see eye-to-eye with a sizable population of concerned voices? Yes.

And as stated above, retail is easier said than done. Will it be as big of a draw considering the mixed use nature of the Clayco proposal right across the street?

Heck, if they're gonna seriously throw that back at us, the least they could have done is given us another 10 feet of height.

I disagree entirely.

First, historic preservation entities do not have the funding to outbid oil and gas companies for downtown real estate. They just don't. If that's your standard, then no building anywhere, ever, will be saved from destruction if someone wants to tear it down. Period. So that can't be the standard, because otherwise nothing is ever worth saving.

Second, the owner is not "free to do whatever he wants to do". There are many times when the government interferes with a private entity's use of its own property. I can't build a strip club across the street from your kid's school. But that's my property, right? Why can't I fulfill my dream of putting HooterTown right there where the flashing neon can be seen out the windows of Mrs. Johnson's 1st grade class? We have design guidelines in place right now that this proposal does not follow.

Third, we have ponied up a million or two. The city has made massive investments in the downtown area. We've put hundreds of millions of dollars into our downtown in an attempt to create prosperity and try to turn our downtown into a livable, walkable area. Why should we approve a development that is counter-productive to that goal?

Finally -- we, as a city, do not have an obligation to ensure that every move Devon makes is profitable. If they didn't think renovating the bus station would be profitable, then they shouldn't have bought it. The Hotel Black had tenants as recently as a few months ago. One of them posts on this board. They don't have to tear it down. Turn around and sell it to someone else if you can't make enough money off of it.

The city has an interest in promoting the highest and best use of these historic properties, NOT the highest profit margin for the owner. With your standard, someone could purchase the First National Building and then tear it down for a parking garage because "we couldn't make the numbers work otherwise", and unless a poster on this board has enough millions to convince them to sell it, we can't criticize? Screw that!


:congrats::congrats::congrats:

This feels like Hines complete disregard for Downtown Design Review committee. The Downtown Design said all the right things and voiced the concerns of all citizens of Oklahoma City. I feel like they really spoke for the majority of the people.

I'm not so much concerned with the Central Business District as much as the surrounding districts. When we visit cities like San Francisco, Austin, London, Paris, and most major cities it's not about the CBD. What I take away is Piccadilly Circus, Fisherman's Wharf, 6th Street, LoDo (Denver), and those unique experiences. However, we have a chance to incorporate our CBD with our up and coming districts surrounding downtown OKC. Devon did a great job of that with their first tower, Project 180, and the park. With the addition of the street car the CBD, Midtown, Deep Duce, the river, OU Health Sciences, and the Park could really complement each other. That's why it's important that we create an identity for OKC and the Downtown Design stands up until the correct adjustments have been made.

This board (OKC Talk) is the voice of the people in OKC. There is no doubt what's discussed here has heavily impacted development and the future of OKC. It played a direct role in a building on Film Row, and influenced a decision to keep a subpar hotel from entering Bricktown.

With the momentum taking place now is the time to really change OKC into a progressive city that reflects the arts, and passion of its next generation. Not a city entrenched in the depression of an industry bust and outdated visions.
Maybe I'm going a little overboard with this one project. I just feel as though the proposed changes are spit in the face to the concerns of what I think is the majority of citizens.

These minimal changes are a pretty good indicator they plan to hold their ground and build pretty much as proposed.

And as I said, I'm sure they'll be allowed.

I'm pretty disappointed in what they didn't address, but the expansion of retail frontage and depth relieves a bunch of angst for me. If the historic structures won't be preserved, at least there's a reasonable chance the streets will be active instead of a giant inanimate slab.

The proposed revision is a slap in the face to any and all requesting the slightest compromise. It's actually an insult, in my opinion, what their latest proposal offers. Not even a hint of compromise anywhere. Are they obligated? Of course not. Would it be nice to see if they and Devon would actually try to see eye-to-eye with a sizable population of concerned voices? Yes.

And as stated above, retail is easier said than done. Will it be as big of a draw considering the mixed use nature of the Clayco proposal right across the street?

Heck, if they're gonna seriously throw that back at us, the least they could have done is given us another 10 feet of height.

Hate to say it, but I'd guess 98% of the population could care less.

I'm pretty disappointed in what they didn't address, but the expansion of retail frontage and depth relieves a bunch of angst for me. If the historic structures won't be preserved, at least there's a reasonable chance the streets will be active instead of a giant inanimate slab.

I agree, I actually like the expanded retail providing they can find a tenant.

The revisions though are still so minimal they are an insult to preservationists. Out of all the buildings, why not at least try to save the bus station?

It was bleak.

So were all the other historic districts that are now thriving.

Bland parking garages with empty retail space could be pretty bleak too.

Personally, I'd like to see the Hotel Black kept in some manner. But comparing the retail changes with what was first proposed is a giant step forward. I actually like the newer designed 'Bus Station' corner, much more than the Carpenter Square changes.

Regarding the retail space, I'm sure if they put up "for lease" signs they will get calls/interest. I don't think there's anything like that for the Devon retail spaces, which is a shame, unless I'm mistaken. IMO they should finish out the spaces and AT LEAST use them for pop up shops.

Devon doesn't have any vacant retail spaces. So there is nothing to market. Building out retail where the window boxes are. Would require construction and removal of parking.

This will be actual retail space. And I'm sure it will fill up

People who are judging this block as it sits today are judging it unfairly. It has been bought up and tenants ran out. If these properties were active on the market I'm very confident we'd see 23rd Street style proposals and projects come to this block. But no one is giving it a chance.

Yep.

Owner not only bought and sat on them, he didn't even maintain them. And of course, forced paying tenants to leave -- like the Lunch Box -- just so the building could sit idle and help their case for demolition.

All this never, ever should have been allowed in the first place.

The whole thing has been a massive manipulation and because of who is involved, nobody says a word.

Devon doesn't have any vacant retail spaces. So there is nothing to market. Building out retail where the window boxes are. Would require construction and removal of parking.

This will be actual retail space. And I'm sure it will fill up

So they lied about creating retail spaces that they would eventually want to fill?

Not bad. However, this goes to show that Hines has absolutely no interest in compromising with preservationists at all. Even if they made an effort just to save the bus station and demolish everything else, that would still show that they cared. They have basically just given the middle finger to everyone who wants to see the historic structures preserved.

In addition, as we all know from the Devon tower, attracting retail is easier said than done. If this gets built as pictured here, can retail work there immediately or will it be something that sits vacant for years until the west side of the CBD starts to fill in with residential?

Devon tower's existing garage is hardly an example of trying to attract retail, while they agreed to make it possible to put retail in the future, they did not have any immediate intent of attracting retail to the garage and probably still do not. On top of this they would have to be willing to give up parking to build the retail space when they are already having to contract with other garages to serve their current needs, with the parking being lost at ground level there is better than average chance that these spots are reserved for VIPs that might have a say in them having to accept worse parking.

Devon doesn't have any vacant retail spaces. So there is nothing to market. Building out retail where the window boxes are. Would require construction and removal of parking.

This will be actual retail space. And I'm sure it will fill up

Hard to say. Maybe this is a ruse like the Devon window box retail. It certainly wouldn't be inconsistent with their tactics to date.

Devon may have been forced to put in those window boxes but they can't be forced to build them out for retail.

BTW, don't be surprised if the same thing happens with these two garages. If you haven't noticed, all the renderings show the same window box type of design, rather than pure storefront like you see across the street in the new Main Street Garage.

Note that the Main St. Garage had pretty much all their ground floor space leased before the garage even opened. It's true most of that is office, but that still adds life to the street and there will be some retail/restaurant use.

Yep.

Owner not only bought and sat on them, he didn't even maintain them. And of course, forced paying tenants to leave -- like the Lunch Box -- just so the building could sit idle and help their case for demolition.

All this never, ever should have been allowed in the first place.

The whole thing has been a massive manipulation and because of who is involved, nobody says a word.

How do you propose stoping someone from buying a building and forcing out the tenant?

Devon may have been forced to put in those window boxes but they can't be forced to build them out for retail.

BTW, don't be surprised if the same thing happens with these two garages.

Agree. It all just seems like placating. It's not an urban minded development approach to begin with, so I don't see them having some wholesale change of mindset. If they don't see an issue with 50% of an urban block being used for parking garages, then I doubt they have any interest in making even bigger changes to incorporate more urban elements.

Look familiar?



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


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9842d1419097531-499-sheridan-hinesnow18.jpg

In no way should this be approved if it doesn't include actual retail space. Not window boxes that could be built out as retail in the future, but retail space ready to be leased upon completion of the garages.