Hopefully the apartments just to the north of this and next to Phillips Murrah release much better renders that cause them to tweak the designs of these plans.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/9th02824f.jpg

Now I can be a bit of a contrarian, but I actually like the color scheme. It's different, it pops, and it does give a rather lively vibe. However, I do agree with the design and height not being as optimal as preferred. Perhaps if this was a 10-15 story complex with an adjacent parking garage providing keycard access to the building, then that would be rather nice. Just a jagged 4-story complex is so overdone in this part of town. The city needs density, and while this addresses it to a degree, it only addresses the bare minimum. People want to live in town, but limiting how many can move in while also maximizing profits for rentals can be counterproductive to the local ecosystem (I mean that in terms of the local populace).

That design isn't final and very similar to Level, with just more color.

I don't understand all the criticism... This looks modern and sharp, and color is always a nice alternative to the ubiquitous greige.

There's a little bit of a slope from 9th to 8th. Will this be like the Edge where there are below grade apartments on the lower side?

It looks fine.

It reminds me of the Classen 16 Color Scheme. At least you can reference the color section you live in. "Just park in the green section."

19111

That design isn't final and very similar to Level, with just more color.

I don't understand all the criticism... This looks modern and sharp, and color is always a nice alternative to the ubiquitous greige.

Totally agree. Splashes of color are a good simple and effective tool in architecture. Never understand when people want same old, same old.

This idea that 3-4 floors isn't high enough is silly. There are so many underused lots in the core that need infill that I actually prefer 3-4 stories in most cases. It's totally appropriate to the area.

This idea that 3-4 floors isn't high enough is silly. There are so many underused lots in the core that need infill that I actually prefer 3-4 stories in most cases. It's totally appropriate to the area.

I guess I look at it from the standpoint of "building for the future" as opposed to "build for what you have now" because you'll always outgrow these low level developments. And given the rate that OKC is growing, I don't think this would be the optimal approach to density going forward.

I guess I look at it from the standpoint of "building for the future" as opposed to "build for what you have now" because you'll always outgrow these low level developments. And given the rate that OKC is growing, I don't think this would be the optimal approach to density going forward.

I don’t agree. Cities all over the world are filled with midrise, mixed use developments. OKC could absorb them for a hundred years. Unless you think OKC is about to turn into Shanghai, there’s no future where higher residential is necessary.

Cities all over the world are filled with midrise, mixed use developments.

Not to mention, in cities that also have a substantial amount of giant buildings, the midrise, mixed use developments are almost always, especially for residents, the more enjoyable place to be. Would one rather spend a lot of time in midtown Manhattan or in the west village? I know my answer.

Go walk downtown or Midtown and there is very, very little foot traffic.

Most of these commercial storefronts have little to no parking in front.

We are nowhere close to having enough density to support anything but some scattered retail and restaurants.

Who wants to live in a building tht looks dead when you walk up to it?

This is a question I ask myself every time I drive by the Lift apartments. Why not offer a super sweet deal for a bakery or bistro to inject some life into your building and provide another amenity for residents?

I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand.

This is a question I ask myself every time I drive by the Lift apartments. Why not offer a super sweet deal for a bakery or bistro to inject some life into your building and provide another amenity for residents?

I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand.

One business does not activate a street.

One business does not activate a street.

Considering who is going to build this complex, Level, Mosaic, and the Condos next door all have retail. Combined they have made a great walkable intersection that tons of people spend time in. The hope will be that other developers bring many types of housing to this location.

I guess I look at it from the standpoint of "building for the future" as opposed to "build for what you have now" because you'll always outgrow these low level developments. And given the rate that OKC is growing, I don't think this would be the optimal approach to density going forward.

here here

I guess I look at it from the standpoint of "building for the future" as opposed to "build for what you have now" because you'll always outgrow these low level developments. And given the rate that OKC is growing, I don't think this would be the optimal approach to density going forward.

This is not a combative comment. I have to believe the developer and lender ARE building for the future. They are also constrained by the financial ability of any development to pay for itself in the short, and long, term. I have to wonder what a proper "build for the future" project on this land would entail as far as stories, and cost? For instance, if a 4 story "build for today" project is $4 million, and a 10 story "build for the future" project is $13 million, then where is the money coming from and when will it return on the investment?

This is not a combative comment. I have to believe the developer and lender ARE building for the future. They are also constrained by the financial ability of any development to pay for itself in the short, and long, term. I have to wonder what a proper "build for the future" project on this land would entail as far as stories, and cost? For instance, if a 4 story "build for today" project is $4 million, and a 10 story "build for the future" project is $13 million, then where is the money coming from and when will it return on the investment?

Bingo. Developers will only build what makes sense financially. If the project is too expensive for NOI (revenue after expenses) to cover not only the debt service but also the payout to investors then they won’t build it. There are two ways that becomes different:
1. The city puts some kind of restriction that a certain development must be built - and uses TIF or some other mechanism to help pay for it
2. The economics of the land are such that building more density makes financial sense

Journal Record article (https://journalrecord.com/2024/09/okc-council-reviews-10-7m-tif-request-for-midtown-build/) about the TIF.

"In addition to the usual challenges that come with developing an urban location, the site has a 13-foot elevation grade and both Cox Communications and AT&T have major fiber optic infrastructure in the alleyway.

“The building can’t be built without relocating that and closing the alley … It’s got to be rebuilt at significant expense,” McKown told the City Council.

Those issues combined with high interest rates and escalating construction costs make it unlikely the project could be built without TIF assistance to increase investor returns, Scott said."

i know these are early renders, but i just wish this was more interesting overall

That design isn't final and very similar to Level
This is my problem with it as I think Level's design sucks. I do like the splashes of color.

One business does not activate a street.

This is not the point I was making, and oddly, I was agreeing with you and you still are argumentative.

You asked why would someone want to live somewhere that looks dead from the street. I pointed to Lift as an example; imagine a lively bistro or lounge in that prominent vacant location. That would be vastly more enticing to renters than an empty glass storefront that has been vacant for years now. A vacant retail location with a For Lease sign is not inviting.

I don't know about "activating the street," and I made no such claim.

Ultimately, wouldn't it be more enticing to live in The Edge as opposed to Lift? I think you probably would agree with my point but just reflexively like to argue for some reason and you lean toward defending developers in almost every instance.

This is not the point I was making, and oddly, I was agreeing with you and you still are argumentative.

You asked why would someone want to live somewhere that looks dead from the street. I pointed to Lift as an example; imagine a lively bistro or lounge in that prominent vacant location. That would be vastly more enticing to renters than an empty glass storefront that has been vacant for years now. A vacant retail location with a For Lease sign is not inviting.

I don't know about "activating the street," and I made no such claim.

Ultimately, wouldn't it be more enticing to live in The Edge as opposed to Lift? I think you probably would agree with my point but just reflexively like to argue for some reason and you lean toward defending developers in almost every instance.

I don't defend realtors so much as try to reflect that they have tough choices and having chunks of the building not creating revenue isn't one they like to make, and lending institutions don't like to lend for. And lingering vacancies at street level doesn't help make the property more leasable. We can get very hypothetical on a forum but developers have to be pretty pragmatic. And, it doesn't seem like the ones building apartments downtown have had much success filling retail space.

I don't defend realtors so much as try to reflect that they have tough choices and having chunks of the building not creating revenue isn't one they like to make, and lending institutions don't like to lend for. And lingering vacancies at street level doesn't help make the property more leasable. We can get very hypothetical on a forum but developers have to be pretty pragmatic. And, it doesn't seem like the ones building apartments downtown have had much success filling retail space.

What I have heard from commercial real estate people is "Your property is only as valuable as your lowest dollar/sf". Although it seems like (and could be) a great idea to make a sweetheart deal to this tenant or that tenant, the risk is that the lenders asks why you can't get the rent your mortgage demands, and your other tenants want a deal like the one you gave to "Trendy Coffee".

What I have heard from commercial real estate people is "Your property is only as valuable as your lowest dollar/sf". Although it seems like (and could be) a great idea to make a sweetheart deal to this tenant or that tenant, the risk is that the lenders asks why you can't get the rent your mortgage demands, and your other tenants want a deal like the one you gave to "Trendy Coffee".

Thats not really true. The issue with the Lift's longtime vacant corner space is its in a raw/shell condition. It will take a few hundred grand to finish it out and any potential tenant is expecting the landlord to pay for part of that. No landlord wants to do that for some new business or someone that doesnt have strong credit because they want to be sure the tenant will make the rent payments. So unless you have some chain retailer or a local business owned by a well off individual who's willing to guaranty the rent, its not in the LIft's calculus to spend $250,000 on a risky tenant. They'd rather not spend that money and send it back to shareholders I imagine.

Thats not really true. The issue with the Lift's longtime vacant corner space is its in a raw/shell condition. It will take a few hundred grand to finish it out and any potential tenant is expecting the landlord to pay for part of that. No landlord wants to do that for some new business or someone that doesnt have strong credit because they want to be sure the tenant will make the rent payments. So unless you have some chain retailer or a local business owned by a well off individual who's willing to guaranty the rent, its not in the LIft's calculus to spend $250,000 on a risky tenant. They'd rather not spend that money and send it back to shareholders I imagine.

Thank you for this explanation. It seems reasonable. I guess it will remain vacant forever, unfortunately.

Thats not really true. The issue with the Lift's longtime vacant corner space is its in a raw/shell condition. It will take a few hundred grand to finish it out and any potential tenant is expecting the landlord to pay for part of that. No landlord wants to do that for some new business or someone that doesnt have strong credit because they want to be sure the tenant will make the rent payments. So unless you have some chain retailer or a local business owned by a well off individual who's willing to guaranty the rent, its not in the LIft's calculus to spend $250,000 on a risky tenant. They'd rather not spend that money and send it back to shareholders I imagine.
They need people with solid business plans and capital. Developers don't want to automatically be incubators for underfunded businesses with bad business plans and inexperienced operators. I think people dismiss how hard it is to start and grow a business.