Stadium District (formerly Producers Coop)

[Pete]

Design review really doesn't have much leverage.

If a developer comes in with a planned project, they are all going to say: This is the only way to make the numbers work. And that's pretty much the end of it.

You are going to see housing like The Edge and parking garages like we've already seen downtown and maybe some mid-rise hotels and office buildings but almost certainly nothing over 10 stories and I suspect most everything will be in the 5-6 story range.

Look at University North Park (Sooner's most ambitious project) and note they have a Gary Brooks apartment complex, an Embassy Suites, some small offices and then a ton of big box retail. This is pretty much what you can expect just with structured parking, more density and a higher portion of housing.

And I'm afraid the big box retail will come with a decent amount of surface parking.

[d-usa]

Im guessing the design review folks can make everything look a certain way, but they can't fundamentally change the nature of the thing being build...

[Urbanized]

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

[Pete]

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

They'll get it and it won't make any difference.

[Urbanized]

They'll get it and it won't make any difference.

We disagree.

[Pete]

We disagree.

Please provide evidence to support your declaration then.

This is the way every single TIF project works: A developer comes up with a plan and pro forma that magically has a 5-8% gap in what they can finance and what it will cost. Then, if the economic development people like you and your project, they'll give you the difference in free taxpayer money.

I'm not aware of a single project where TIF made a significant difference in how a project was developed. And in fact, I can list a long list of good ones that received no TIF money at all. And some projects that almost no one is happy about (apart from the developers) that did receive TIF.

You could name FNC and Wheeler District and I'll point out those were already designed before there was any sort of agreement on receiving public funds.

Design always comes before TIF.

[king183]

Let's just say that based on preliminary plans most people here are going to be disappointed.

Not a surprise at all, given what they did at UNP in Norman and elsewhere. I remember when Steve Lackmeyer was talking them up as attractive player who wouldn’t be able throw up big box stores and I immediately thought, actually that’s exactly what they do. In fact, that’s all they do.

[Urbanized]

Please provide evidence to support your declaration then.

This is the way every single TIF project works: A developer comes up with a plan and pro forma that magically has a 5-8% gap in what they can finance and what it will cost. Then, if the economic development people like you and your project, they'll give you the difference in free taxpayer money.

I'm not aware of a single project where TIF made a significant difference in how a project was developed. And in fact, I can list a long list of good ones that received no TIF money at all. And some projects that almost no one is happy about (apart from the developers) that did receive TIF.

You could name FNC and Wheeler District and I'll point out those were already designed before there was any sort of agreement on receiving public funds.

Design always comes before TIF.

Criterion Theater. Which was recently discussed and heavily derided by at least one poster as a bad use of public incentive.

TIF can (and should) be a carrot. In this instance, if the developer shows up with something that doesn't meet OKC's urban design framework the City/Alliance can simply say "no. Bring us something that fits." This project is likely to be an instance where TIF, if applied, will be brought to use to influence design characteristics of the development. The City does NOT want this to be a garbage development.

[Pete]

I was one of the people heavily critical of using TIF to make the Criterion in compliance with good urban design practices, and I still think that is a horrible use of taxpayer money. Merely say 'no' and have them come back with an appropriate plan. Why on earth should taxpayers be paying for this? It also set a very bad precedent.

Nobody is saying this will be a garbage development. But I'm aware of the preliminary plan and while it may fit into the very broad context of our urban design framework, don't expect it to be anything people are going to be excited about.

All you need to do is look at what Sooner has done in the past and it will be more of the same, just slightly denser.

[hoya]

Actually I wouldn't be unhappy at all with a bunch of The Edge style apartments and some 10 story hotels. Not that it's amazing by any means, but if they could fill the Coop site with that level of density, that's a good solid addition to OKC. It would look just like an extension of Bricktown going south.

I am not happy about the idea of big box retail, particularly with surface parking. We don't need more of that at all, especially downtown. With Amazon and other online retail, I really don't know how long the big box stores are going to be around.

[yukong]

Big box will be a major portion of this development. Likely about 1/3.

The first thing built very well could be a parking garage.

[Pete]

[onthestrip]

This is EXACTLY where TIF can make a difference.

Which will help keep property values like the coop artificially inflated. Your property is only worth what someone will pay for it. But in many cases in this city, its what someone will pay for it plus TIF dollars.

[Pete]

Which will help keep property values like the coop artificially inflated. Your property is only worth what someone will pay for it. But in many cases in this city, its what someone will pay for it plus TIF dollars.

AND you are completely messing with the competitive balance where most developers don't get any public assistance but then have to directly compete against those who do.


As a reminder, over 2 BILLION in public investment has been made in the downtown area just since the first MAPS. You would think that would be more than enough of a boost.

TIF is meant to jump-start development in areas, not become welfare on top of already huge tax investment and long after there has already been billions in private investment.

[drinner-okc]

Back to the locomotive, who would i contact to see if the locomotive could be bought &put back to work?

[Bellaboo]

Back to the locomotive, who would i contact to see if the locomotive could be bought &put back to work?

Try Midwest Wrecking, They seem to be the ones for large demo jobs.

[yukong]

I don't believe it was Midwest.

Regardless...based on what I know...the demo company already has plans for the locomotive. They paid a pretty big price for her and I'm told they have plans. So I doubt they would resell it unless there was a decent profit margin. That would put the price pretty high.

[jn1780]

I don't believe it was Midwest.

Regardless...based on what I know...the demo company already has plans for the locomotive. They paid a pretty big price for her and I'm told they have plans. So I doubt they would resell it unless there was a decent profit margin. That would put the price pretty high.

Plus, I doubt a demolition company knows anything about the cost of a locomotive so they probably went out looking for buyers before they finalized the demolition contract to make sure they were getting a fair deal.

[Urbanized]

AND you are completely messing with the competitive balance where most developers don't get any public assistance but then have to directly compete against those who do.


As a reminder, over 2 BILLION in public investment has been made in the downtown area just since the first MAPS. You would think that would be more than enough of a boost.

TIF is meant to jump-start development in areas, not become welfare on top of already huge tax investment and long after there has already been billions in private investment.

Well this is of course where we differ fundamentally. First of all, TIF is to be spent within the district that generates the new tax revenue. As long as it exists, it is NOT to be shipped to some other part of town; in fact that would be quite illegal. If you think TIF is bad policy in general - and I think for the most part you do - that is fine, and certainly fair to argue. That said, as long as there IS a TIF in place, all of those funds must be spent within the boundaries of the TIF district.

Also while I know downtown is prospering far more than it was previously, it is NOT accurate to say that it is prospering to the same extent as many other downtown areas. Every day on this board there is wailing and gnashing of teeth about the low standards that many here believe are utilized in downtown. Part of that is that yes, some developments have been allowed to slip through which should not have been allowed. But besides that, one of the reasons we don't always see the high level of finish we'd like is because it just doesn't pencil. Development in downtown is still far more expensive than elsewhere, and still more of a gamble than it is in the suburbs and fringe. So to some extent TIF exists to level the playing field and make it at least as attractive to develop downtown. Otherwise, development would STILL be very heavily weighted to the fringe of our city and even to communities outside of the City limits (where we don't capture tax revenue).

Speaking of tax revenue - while I know it is often mentioned here that the captured TIF tax could be "better utilized" by the entities which normally benefit but which mutually agreed to allow TIF - I would point out that other taxes being generated in the core and also increased property values (and the resulting taxes) in the center of the city are driven by what is happening downtown.

Development in the core also brings more residents and their tax dollars toward the center and helps stifle too much centrifugal growth at the fringe. Give people a reason to stay closer to the middle and pay higher prices, and you will also be bringing additional tax revenue to the entities who are giving up revenue to TIF.

Then there is sales tax. A few years ago, even before the emergence of Midtown, 23rd, West Village, Film Row, the City ran a sales tax report for the one square mile that Bricktown fits into and found that it generated FIVE PERCENT OF ALL SALES TAX COLLECTED IN OKC. Meaning this one square mile generated 1/20th of ALL of the sales tax generated in 622 square miles. I'd love to see this report run again and now include Midtown, Film Row, Deep Deuce, Automobile Alley...my guess is that you would see 10% or more of all sales tax revenues coming from downtown. Those are monies spent on police, fire, libraries, roads, etc., etc., everywhere in Oklahoma City. Why in the world would you not want to continue to feed this growth?

Finally, the point I was making about this particular development is this: part of this plan is likely to include public amenities that are not a direct benefit to the developer. Streets, sidewalks, plaza, a canal extension is being discussed. Structured parking rather than surface parking, some of which would also be used by visitors to other areas surrounding. These are things that the developer of course would also see as amenities and benefits for their tenants and patrons, but I seriously doubt if those things pencil enough to be worthwhile for the developer without TIF. Meaning with all of that raw land, they could probably build only big box and surface parking and a few other elements and maximize ROI with little risk. But those public amenities are worth some TIF funds, and they are an ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE use for them. Especially as TIF is currently formulated.

BUT...if they ask for TIF assistance with these things - which of course they would probably like to have also - the City/Alliance can certainly state that they want the rest of the development to conform to their desired outcome. Again, we talk on here a lot about what we wish everyone else would do or expect them to do, but if that involves a developer sticking their neck out too far when it comes to expense, they are not going to do it without public participation. That's not welfare. That is incentivizing a desired outcome.

[Pete]

^

All that can be achieved -- and is achieved in more instances than not in downtown OKC -- without TIF or financial gifts to the developer.

There are lots of other mechanisms in place and most cities with thriving downtowns are not using TIF or other taxpayer subsidies.

[mugofbeer]

Can you give some examples, please? Its not that I have any doubt that there are, but you need to be certain you are comparing cities with similar demographics. Similar size does not mean similar business and residential profiles. OKC has a weak corporate profile meaning there aren't very many downtown, the O & G business is only moderately healthy right now and OKC continues to be a very widespread city. Indy has a better, more diverse corporate structure and a state government complex all downtown. It is going to be easier to get the development you want in a city like that.

We are seeing a transformation downtown but our local developers are hesitant to recognize the need to urbanize and increase density. By using TIF districts to, for example, lay for an extension of the canals and/or streetcar system into the coop area, it will be much easier to guide the development away from suburban development and surface lots. It takes lots of people to support the retail, restaurant and bar scene people want to see downtown. If the wrong decisions are made, your going to get Bass Pro. With an infrastructure of canals, streets and public transportation, you are much more likely to get smaller blocks and block development.

[Pete]

TIF isn't being used for the streetcar -- that's MAPS. Canal was paid for by MAPS as well.

Bass Pro received all kinds of public subsidies (like sales tax rebates) that could have been used as leverage to get a more desirable result.

There are lots of existing mechanisms -- including Plan OKC and design review -- to get desirable results. You don't need to pay developers with tax money to do the right thing, and in fact there are a bunch of TIF-subsidized projects (like Maywood I & II) that did not exactly turn out to the approval of most who care about quality urban development. West Village just got a bunch of TIF money and are putting up two huge parking garages each covered about 1% in brick and are both right on main thoroughfares instead of being underground or being built behind more appealing structures like so many others have already done in OKC.

And regarding this development, my understanding is that the canal will not be extended or be integrated in any way. And you can bet they will still get plenty of TIF money for something that is going to have a huge chunk of big box retail.

Also absolutely no plan to extend the streetcar to this project.

[Pete]

BTW, remember that they already own the property for this project. Effectively, all that land costs them nothing.

There is demolition and will be soil remediation but that still pales in terms of what comparable properties have sold for, including the Lumberyard which is directly north; and it will require some demo and likely remediation as well.

Yes, they will need to put some streets and infrastructure in, just like every developer everywhere else, including those outside of downtown.

So tell me why the taxpayers should be paying very rich people a bunch of money when we are in absolute emergency in terms of overall budget issues? And as a reminder, TIF comes directly from property taxes, of which 72% goes to public education.

[mugofbeer]

Its too bad because the canal system is an incredible asset that should more integral to new Bricktown projects. We are not privvy to what planned in that area as you seem to be so all we have to go on is potential and what may be realistically built there. IMO some residential built there is underwhelming - though I'm happy for the residential. It is also my opinion that projects using the TIF money can help steer what is built there meaning higher density, mid-rise at minimum, urban design.

[bchris02]

In thinking about this, I think the real problem that is holding OKC back is the fact there is so much empty, ready-to-develop land in the urban core and the city isn't growing fast enough to make the numbers work for the kind of high-quality, dense development many here would like to see. Skyscrapers aren't going to happen "just because." They have to make financial sense. OKC is however growing enough to keep land values high in the core. TIFs and design review and counter this but there is only so much they can do and at the end of the day, the city will approve a subpar development that will generate revenue over nothing at all eg. Lower Bricktown.

Add to this the fact that for a city its size, it already has more than its share of competing urban districts with more about to be ready to develop. OKC has as many or more competing districts as Charlotte, which has over twice the population and growing leaps and bounds faster.

In my opinion it would have been better for the city to leave the old I-40 alignment in place, thus acting as a barrier to development. This would force denser development and critical mass in places like Deep Deuce, Midtown, and Auto Alley. On its current course, I believe OKC will continue to develop its core but the end result may not be as impressive as it could potentially be.

Agree or disagree and if so, what do you think the solution is?