All of those came from the attached meeting PDF available here: https://okc.primegov.com/meeting/attachment/487679.pdf?name=TIF%20Presentation%20The%20Boardwa lk. It isn't any new info, but at least the PDF has better quality. I saw this earlier, but assumed these were the known renderings and we were waiting on something more detailed/visual.

At least in the really general massing photos, the buildings don't look nearly as tall as I would have expected for the stated number of apartments. Also including less than 1 parking space per unit, excluding the public parking side, is an interesting (and encouraging!) choice.

Thank you!!

Here are the key slides:


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723a.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723b.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723c.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723d.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723e.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723f.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723g.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723h.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723i.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723j.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723k.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723l.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boardwalk070723m.jpg

I noticed this one, not sure if this is just conceptual to show the public space, but it shows a residential tower in the background.
18113

I noticed this one, not sure if this is just conceptual to show the public space, but it shows a residential tower in the background.
18113

That's an "inspiratation" image from a project in Miami.

Very Cool! I'm confused no mention of Dream Hotel?
Ok Dream to start construction after the two 28 story residential buildings start. Per Oklahoman

There is no mention of Dream in the presentation or discussion today because it can't be part of the incentives ask, which is the whole point of the first steps in this process.

Omni has a clause that prohibits hotel incentives in the downtown area.

That's an "inspiratation" image from a project in Miami.
Gotcha! Thanks Pete

Welp, we wanted more towers in Bricktown. By God will we get them!

If only we had similar developments going on at the stage center site, the area east of the park, and on the Ford lot. All at once. Crane lovers dream

Those conceptual plans are basically what Convergence was [originally] supposed to be. Multi-level shared spaces with video boards all around. I really dig it, if this gets built to the ultra-modern specs that it is claiming to be, then this is a big W. I am excited to see actual renderings.

If their timeline holds true, this would also be completed before the Olympic Games as well! If that didn't play into some aspect of their timeline, I would be shocked.

If their timeline holds true, this would also be completed before the Olympic Games as well! If that didn't play into some aspect of their timeline, I would be shocked.

I keep hearing for at least the whitewater events, the Olympics in OKC is a done deal.

Since the Alliance is at the point of the spear when it comes to incentives and economic development, there is absolutely no way this hasn't been mentioned to the developer.

was really hoping that with any new plans or conceptual images we got they would have made some changes to actually engage reno instead of ignoring it completely

i will advocate for density all day but this is a fairly disappointing proposal in terms of actual urban design

Within the next decade, how much construction will be in play with the two twin $550 million apartment towers , a new $1 billion DT arena. Core development will be twice as hectic as it was with the construction of Project 180, the Devon Tower and the Myriad Garden's renovation. Get ready for the building boom.

The renderings and site plan are not detailed enough to come to the conclusion that anything has or has not been ignored. The site plan and massing does allow for a massive pedestrian oriented courtyard between the hotel and north apartment tower. This could be lined with restaurants with outdoor patios along that water feature. It’s too early to say one way or the other. The site plan only provided massing and approximate dimensions.

According to an article by the Oklahoman, the retail and restaurant/entertainment spaces already are 100% taken. Signed LOIs all around. That is awesome! Developer said they are mostly new to market, and names people would recognize.

A few thoughts:

First and foremost, there are very few cities in this country outside of Texas that have this kind of central city ground-up development going on right now. Particularly cities the size of OKC. I hope OKC realizes what a big deal this is.

Second, I realize this is a lot of TIF money and I know there will be pushback. I won't argue that TIF can be overdone and can be a problem. But I hope the debate is balanced and opportunity cost is discussed.

Third, ground level urban form is the most important thing when it comes to a very well-planned city. I agree with the poster above that this doesn't hit all the right buttons when it comes to urban form. I personally would rather see the streets on all sides activated and will hope for movement in that direction as the plans proceed.

BUT I am encouraged by the density. This will be a real cluster of towers as opposed to being spread out. One thing OKC does have going for it in its traditional small CBD is density. This will not approach the density of the blocks around First National but will be closer than might be expected in the year 2023.

This will expand the skyline when looking from the north and the west. Imagine coming down Broadway Extension in 5 years, the panoply of buildings from BOK over to this development will begin to resemble the line of buildings in Downtown Dallas. Also coming from the west on I-40. This is a function of the fact that it is a block farther east and a couple of blocks farther south. Having said that, I don't like that is a little bit disconnected from the CBD but I'm not going to quibble.

I was very encouraged about the LOI signed by retail and entertainment that I read in the Oklahoman article this morning. That surprises me...in a good way.

Let's make this happen, OKC!

One other thing...the lagoon is cheesy, unnecessary and should be dropped in favor of moving the towers closer together. Just my opinion.

This is so massive, explains why it's taken a couple years to get to this point.

18120181211812218123

I do hope they stick to designs like this, true to the district and its history. Industrial, "modern" warehouse, brick buildings

I am also hoping that this will spur the redevelopment of the U-Haul building! Bring it back to its former glory. Would love to see something like this happen to it, maybe mixed use or residential. Hopefully they can create some beautiful plaza spaces as well.

181241812518126

One other thing...the lagoon is cheesy, unnecessary and should be dropped in favor of moving the towers closer together. Just my opinion.

Or connect it to the canal so it actually serves a purpose but agree that it's kind of pointless without the connection.

One other thing...the lagoon is cheesy, unnecessary and should be dropped in favor of moving the towers closer together. Just my opinion.

We don't even know what the lagoon will look like. Remember, there will be more to this than just 4 towers. The lagoon could be a good gathering area or something like that. Look at the lake at Chisholm Creek. It could be like that, but on a much smaller scale. I'll wait for the actual renderings to come out to pass judgment on it, rather than just looking at a top down drawing.

was really hoping that with any new plans or conceptual images we got they would have made some changes to actually engage reno instead of ignoring it completely

i will advocate for density all day but this is a fairly disappointing proposal in terms of actual urban design

You are kidding, right? With these drawings it is impossible to tell the interaction points with Reno, but it will be significant. This can be a big urban win, but I am sure there will always be detractors. Let's see what the actual detail is before condeming.

You are kidding, right? With these drawings it is impossible to tell the interaction points with Reno, but it will be significant. This can be a big urban win, but I am sure there will always be detractors. Let's see what the actual detail is before condeming.

lol the site plan THEY released literally says "DROP OFF" in that area. currently they are showing more drive and paving than actual building along reno. also didn't say i was condemning it... again i am an advocate for density and additional housing all day. its obviously a billion times better than the existing surface parking lot, but based on what they have released so far... the lack of massing along reno is a bummer.

I can see the criticism of some claiming Reno is being ignored here. I would agree with that from the available plans. If they scrapped that weird "drop off" area along reno and moved the 3-level dining w/ rooftop building to that area they would be in much better shape. There is no reason to have so many curb cuts along Reno. Also, it would make much more sense for the restaurant space to interact with the street/neighborhood rather than hiding it from the street behind a tower addressing a hokey lagoon.

Hopefully some of these issues can be rectified as the plan solidifies. I would assume with the amount of TIF requested, the developers would be open to input from the planning department.

We don't even know what the lagoon will look like. Remember, there will be more to this than just 4 towers. The lagoon could be a good gathering area or something like that. Look at the lake at Chisholm Creek. It could be like that, but on a much smaller scale. I'll wait for the actual renderings to come out to pass judgment on it, rather than just looking at a top down drawing.

I hear you but I don’t like the idea of a “gathering area” that takes people away from the street/neighborhood. The gathering area for these people should be the city at large. Chisholm Creek is a different kind of animal out in the suburbs.

Or put it another way, this development shouldn’t be an “island unto itself.” It should add to the fabric of the city. I actually hope there are zero restaurants inside this development. Restaurants and shops should be along the streets.

We don't even know what the lagoon will look like. Remember, there will be more to this than just 4 towers. The lagoon could be a good gathering area or something like that. Look at the lake at Chisholm Creek. It could be like that, but on a much smaller scale. I'll wait for the actual renderings to come out to pass judgment on it, rather than just looking at a top down drawing.

The lagoon at Chisolm Creek is also Cheesy. The reason it is there is because there isn't anything around to naturally orient toward so an artificial one had to be created. That is not the case for urban settings.

The lagoon at Chisolm Creek is also Cheesy. The reason it is there is because there isn't anything around to naturally orient toward so an artificial one had to be created. That is not the case for urban settings.

I thought it was primarily for storm water management?

The lagoon at Chisolm Creek is also Cheesy. The reason it is there is because there isn't anything around to naturally orient toward so an artificial one had to be created. That is not the case for urban settings.
I disagree. It’s actually pretty cool. I like it.

One other thing...the lagoon is cheesy, unnecessary and should be dropped in favor of moving the towers closer together. Just my opinion.

The lagoon is so Randy Hogan. Not to pick on him; he is a nice guy.

Agree with your point. However, I will try to suspend disbelief until I see a rendering. I don't mind the towers being slightly apart from a visual standpoint

One thing that didn't make sense from the article I read was the skybridge connection between the apartment building and the hotel. Why would this be necessary? Again, I will hold my fire until I see actual renderings.

I can see the criticism of some claiming Reno is being ignored here. I would agree with that from the available plans. If they scrapped that weird "drop off" area along reno and moved the 3-level dining w/ rooftop building to that area they would be in much better shape. There is no reason to have so many curb cuts along Reno. Also, it would make much more sense for the restaurant space to interact with the street/neighborhood rather than hiding it from the street behind a tower addressing a hokey lagoon.

Hopefully some of these issues can be rectified as the plan solidifies. I would assume with the amount of TIF requested, the developers would be open to input from the planning department.

yes that is exactly my wish! i will happily eat my words if final plans show what i'm asking for! but as it stands, the main thoroughfare is being largely ignored when that's where the majority of pedestrians walk.

I thought it was primarily for storm water management?

No,

The city owned land around the actual Chisolm Creek here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B035'59.5%22N+97%C2%B032'41.9%22W/@35.599847,-97.5475379,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d35.599847!4d-97.544963?entry=ttu) was dug out around 2017/2018 to accommodate storm water overflow for the surrounding area.

The usual drivel from the suburbanites over on IG... it gets sooo old, although I'm kinda with them on that 205 mil

I disagree. It’s actually pretty cool. I like it.

Yes, it’s way more cool than sitting on a patio overlooking a turnpike service road or Cabela’s parking lot. That’s why it is understandable to build this at Chisholm Creek and perplexing that one is proposed in the urban core.

Because you can't walk to Scissortail Park, Myriad Gardens, Paycom Center, Movie theaters, Bowling alleys and other downtown shops and restaurants from Chislolm Creek.

I will say, one reason to definitely drop the TIF money on this: If it's super successful, then the COOP property immediately becomes more viable, if nothing else, than because you have well over 1,000 people right across the street, plus whatever else gets built within the COOP borders.

I will say, one reason to definitely drop the TIF money on this: If it's super successful, then the COOP property immediately becomes more viable, if nothing else, than because you have well over 1,000 people right across the street, plus whatever else gets built within the COOP borders.

This is a good point. I would be behind doing just about anything to get that developed. It’s terrible. Still maybe not enough to get the brownfield issues resolved over there. And without that no one is gonna touch it

The comparables of other projects to this one (The Woodlands Pavillion, Amp in Rogers, LA LIve) show that places like these work. Do they come with embedded restaurants and shops that aren’t on the “main roads”, yes, but that is their campus like feel. It creates a destination for that area. One person may want that vs experiencing all of Bricktown. A little more generic I agree, but def helps with the tourism dollar.

definitely need this, and to get similar on the Ford lands, the Cox site with the new arena. 1-2-3 and we're a solid tier 2 city (downtown wise).

If we can also get the COOP lands (and perhaps Strawberry Fields) eventually, that'd put OKC on another planet.

IMO, OKC is sitting pretty just waiting to explode with this next building boom. I PRAY the highrise towers rent as expected so we can see many more and condo towers.

I will say, one reason to definitely drop the TIF money on this: If it's super successful, then the COOP property immediately becomes more viable, if nothing else, than because you have well over 1,000 people right across the street, plus whatever else gets built within the COOP borders.

If the city is using all that TIFF money for very high end apartments than the TIFF should be expanded to include the coop site and have the city put out RFPs for workforce housing on the COOP site. 1,000 or more affordable housing units there in the core would be good for downtown and for workers that staff all those service jobs downtown. You can maintain a strip of land by the boulevard for commercial or hotel use, but leave the main part of the site use for affordable housing.

If the city is using all that TIFF money for very high end apartments than the TIFF should be expanded to include the coop site and have the city put out RFPs for workforce housing on the COOP site. 1,000 or more affordable housing units there in the core would be good for downtown and for workers that staff all those service jobs downtown. You can maintain a strip of land by the boulevard for commercial or hotel use, but leave the main part of the site use for affordable housing.

the city can not RFP anything for land that they don't own ..

the city can not RFP anything for land that they don't own ..

That’s the reason to expand the TIFF. To buy the land.

That’s the reason to expand the TIFF. To buy the land.

the is not how TIF works ..

the is not how TIF works ..
Nope, not at all. TIF's are to help SPUR development, not buy land to be developed.

Nm. Didn’t see all the responses.

Pete,

Hope you are recovering well from your recent illness or 'bug.'

I' m sure I can speak for this board 'GET WELL, WE MISS YOU!'

^^^^

:iagree:

the is not how TIF works ..

Certainly it is:


Conditions for Using TIFs
The use of a TIF requires robust real estate and economic conditions. A TIF is most appropriately used when land uses are up-zoned and when there is strong market demand. It is also appropriate in cases when the absence of prior development interest in a site with otherwise excellent attributes is related to a site-specific impediment, such as contamination of former rail yards. In such cases, reducing upfront costs of development can make the site more attractive to developers. An example of this type of TIF case is outlined in box.

https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/17

Certainly it is:

https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/17

reading is fundamental

Certainly it is:

https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/17

For a developer to build. The govt cannot purchase the land using TIF. The govt can give TIF to a developer to develop a site like you mentioned which the COOP site def meets that criteria. To this point, no developer has wanted to pay the price for the land that is being asked which is why it is under consideration for the MAPS soccer stadium which would reduce the size of the lots surrounding the new stadium making it easier for a developer to finance.

please please PLEASE can this thread NOT be hijacked by another TIF argument...

^^Thank you.

please please PLEASE can this thread NOT be hijacked by another TIF argument...

Yes, agreed.

Thanks for the reminder to get back discussing this development.

I feel like as soon as all the T's are crossed and I's dotted this project is goign to move like what we are seeing at OAK. I think these two developments are a true testament that what is happening in OKC is very very real and not going away anytime soon. I just hope the progress is gradual, and not warp speed as from what we see in Austin. and I LOVE Austin, if money wasn't a factor I'd live there but goodness its gotten far to big way to fast. But, I digress, THIS is so exciting!

Reminder of what these towers would look like in relation to our skyline. There would actually be a 4th tower to the south.

Also, look how well-positioned the old Cox site is for a new arena and entertainment district.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/uhaul070821bx.jpg

This will be an impressive enhancement to the skyline.

Wish we could get a 1993 version of this same picture.

I think its been kicked around but the height of these buildings would be between Oklahoma Tower height and Valliance bank tower height, yeah? like 350' ish :D