Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[onthestrip]

Big time international developer who wants to build the tallest tower but his daughters started a gofundme campaign to raise $100k for his cancer treatment? Hmmm...

[jn1780]

Yikes, Is Lucy about to pull the football away from OKC again? I have been watching "Hello Tomorrow" on Apple TV. I'm noticing similar things happening in real life.

[Anonymous.]

It has already been stated that the three non supertall towers will be built based on demand. So I think at least the hotel + first residential tower is a solid chance.

People on this board keep assuming the original 3 towers will be built all at the same time. Remember the OGE towers?

[Ryan]

It has already been stated that the three non supertall towers will be built based on demand. So I think at least the hotel + first residential tower is a solid chance.

People on this board keep assuming the original 3 towers will be built all at the same time. Remember the OGE towers?

What did we ever do to you? Why would you bring up these painful memories???let us all take a moment and remember the fantasy of those gorgeous buildings. Instead we got Rainey swamp

[jn1780]

What did we ever do to you? Why would you bring up these painful memories???let us all take a moment and remember the fantasy of those gorgeous buildings. Instead we got Rainey swamp

At least there are no buildings to worry about being demolished at this site, just a parking lot.

[HOT ROD]

Interestingly, the TIF for this project represents 27% of the total cost. Compared to Omni's TIF which was > 35% of the cost. I'd say OKC is getting a better deal out of this - at least 3 345' highrises and RETAIL for less exposure comparatively vs an underbuilt 17 floor hotel. In addition, this TIF is in the form of a rebate (which doesn't pay until the full development, aka 3 towers, are built and paying ad valorem, btw) thereby limiting the city's risk even moreso vs. Omni which was up-front added to the funding formula where the city had to divert funds from elsewhere.

Also, this isn't Matteson's first go at development. Also, I think AO has designed a number of developments as well. This thing has beenn in the works for years, but now we're to believe that it's a scam when they're likely ready to get started just because someone outside of OKC wants to write an article to continually shed doubt about it. Why would he incurr signifcant costs hiring AO if this were a scam? It's as if they're more than happy to write about the cons mostly because it's about OKC.

I think we're often looking for the negatives too much that we ignore what's right in-front of us. I wonder if this proposal was for NY or Chicago, or media poster-child Seattle - if there'd be as much negative press about this. I say it might very well be OKC's time to grow and shine, let's see if this happens.

[Ryan]

Interestingly, the TIF for this project represents 27% of the total cost. Compared to Omni's TIF which was > 35% of the cost. I'd say OKC is getting a better deal out of this - at least 3 345' highrises and RETAIL for less exposure comparatively vs an underbuilt 17 floor hotel. In addition, this TIF is in the form of a rebate (which doesn't pay until the full development, aka 3 towers, are built and paying ad valorem, btw) thereby limiting the city's risk even moreso vs. Omni which was up-front added to the funding formula where the city had to divert funds from elsewhere.

Also, this isn't Matteson's first go at development. Also, I think AO has designed a number of developments as well. This thing has beenn in the works for years, but now we're to believe that it's a scam when they're likely ready to get started just because someone outside of OKC wants to write an article to continually shed doubt about it. Why would he incurr signifcant costs hiring AO if this were a scam? It's as if they're more than happy to write about the cons mostly because it's about OKC.

I think we're often looking for the negatives too much that we ignore what's right in-front of us. I wonder if this proposal was for NY or Chicago, or media poster-child Seattle - if there'd be as much negative press about this. I say it might very well be OKC's time to grow and shine, let's see if this happens.

At least 2 is the way I read it. The third if the market deems feasible. The fourth is pie in the sky. Probably just trying to get visible in order to pony up investors.

[Ryan]

Don’t get me wrong two towers even at that height in that spot would be a welcome addition. The more I read about this the more I think he doesn’t have this fully financed and needs additional backing. Of course a third tower would be great. Or even two tallish towers. But these deals fall apart way more often then not. I’m not 100 this is going to happen at all until I see some expensive ass tower cranes going up

[Pete]

What was the quote someone on here said? “Oklahoma City is a great place for a scam.”

I shared that when it was told to me by a local attorney (who I very much respect) about TEEMCO and the broader issue of how and why OKC seems to be a magnet for these types of things, even after getting so burned by Penn Square Bank which everyone quickly realized had been waving big red flags in our faces before they collapsed in spectacular fashion. When I started to dig into TEEMCO, absolutely everyone including this attorney had been more than suspicious for some time. Yet until my first article, all you could find was glowing press and positivity.

It was an idle, resigned comment but one that stuck.

And nobody had bothered to do even a basic Google search about the TEEMCO CEO; they just printed all this total BS he and a PR firm (which he never paid) completely fabricated. He also stiffed Channel 9 and the Oklahoman yet neither bothered to do any follow-up, other than continuing to perpetuate his lies.


I also feel the responsibility due to my large platform to be skeptical, especially when something seems at least a little off. Like the Sunset Amphitheater stuff, playing the skeptic comes with a cost in OKC because almost nobody wants to hear any bad news. It's a strange thing here, something I noticed right away upon moving back, and I'm sure one of the main reasons for that pull quote.

[jn1780]

At least 2 is the way I read it. The third if the market deems feasible. The fourth is pie in the sky. Probably just trying to get visible in order to pony up investors.

They run the risk of that PR backfiring when someone releases articles trying to discredit the developer. I think he just dreams big, but there are plenty of cases in Oklahoma where big dreams fell flat or worse they turned out to be scams. So its like we can call those who are skeptical as being too negative. There is strong precedence for it in Oklahoma unfortunately.

[Ryan]

They run the risk of that PR backfiring when someone releases articles trying to discredit the developer. I think he just dreams big, but there are plenty of cases in Oklahoma where big dreams fell flat or worse they turned out to be scams. So its like we can call those who are skeptical as being too negative. There is strong precedence for it in Oklahoma unfortunately.

Right. Hogan’s involvement is what makes me take this seriously

[Pete]

Right. Hogan’s involvement is what makes me take this seriously

If you read between the lines or know people who have spoken to him about this project directly, he is being very guarded which is somewhat out of character.


And I don't know for sure, but the extent of his involvement may be contributing the land (he owns that parking lot), which he acquired from the City a long time ago for a very reasonable price.

[Pete]

What was the quote someone on here said? “Oklahoma City is a great place for a scam.”

To add to my previous long response, the same attorney who made what I believe to be a pretty astute observation also added, "How would we know if something really bad was happening in OKC? " And after I didn't respond he said, "We wouldn't, at least not until a lot of damage had been done."


I like to think that's a little less true than it was in 2014 but I'm not so sure.

[CatholicSooner]

I shared that when it was told to me by a local attorney (who I very much respect) about TEEMCO and the broader issue of how and why OKC seems to be a magnet for these types of things, even after getting so burned by Penn Square Bank which everyone quickly realized had been waving big red flags in our faces before they collapsed in spectacular fashion. When I started to dig into TEEMCO, absolutely everyone including this attorney had been more than suspicious for some time. Yet until my first article, all you could find was glowing press and positivity.

It was an idle, resigned comment but one that stuck.

And nobody had bothered to do even a basic Google search about the TEEMCO CEO; they just printed all this total BS he and a PR firm (which he never paid) completely fabricated. He also stiffed Channel 9 and the Oklahoman yet neither bothered to do any follow-up, other than continuing to perpetuate his lies.


I also feel the responsibility due to my large platform to be skeptical, especially when something seems at least a little off. Like the Sunset Amphitheater stuff, playing the skeptic comes with a cost in OKC because almost nobody wants to hear any bad news. It's a strange thing here, something I noticed right away upon moving back, and I'm sure one of the main reasons for that pull quote.

What is skeptical about the sunset amphitheater?

[Pete]

What is skeptical about the sunset amphitheater?

That is well-covered ground in that thread.

[baralheia]

I think Miami and Ft Worth are the only places that have skyscrapers that have been hit, and honestly I think Ft Worth is the only actual downtown that I can think of that's been directly hit. In terms of the liklihood of a direct hit, it's just so unlikely and improbably. That couple of square miles compared to the entire state.

Now in Ft Worth, the Bank One building (correct me if i got that wrong) and the much smaller Cash America building, were both hit. I dont think Cash America was demolished. but there were plans to implode it before someone bought it and converted it. Honestly, pretty much all that happened was a bunch of glass got blown out. And that's really what happened with most of the buildings that got hit. Not nearly like what people think of when they think tornado damage. This was an F3, so it wasn't some little piddly thing either.

Would you have wanted to be sitting at your office desk when that blew through? No way. But if you were in the core in a protected space, you were fine.

So in my opinion, it's not really something that anyone should spend any time worrying about.

A few other data points worth noting (though they're not direct comparisons) - in 1970, an F5 tornado hit downtown Lubbock, TX and impacted the 20-story Metro Tower (now called NTS Tower). The building survived the tornado, but the force of the tornadic winds actually twisted the frame of the building to the point where most of the building's elevators were disabled. The building was extensively renovated and reopened 5 years after the tornado. It's the 2nd-tallest tower known to have survived a direct hit by an F5 tornado; the tallest is the 22-story ALICO building in downtown Waco, which was hit in 1953. Although neither of these building would meet the definition of "skyscraper", I think it's still significant that buildings of this magnitude can still survive extreme weather events like this. But that said, the Bank One building in Fort Worth is the only building that meets the definition of skyscraper that has been directly hit by a tornado that I'm personally aware of, and like you mentioned, that building survived too.

[soonerguru]

Should we stop building high rises in Oklahoma? That seems to be the suggestion with all of the tornado talk.

[BillBennett]

A project of this size, why only 100,000 sf of retail and restaurants? That is half the size of a Walmart Supercenter.

[Mississippi Blues]

A few other data points worth noting (though they're not direct comparisons) - in 1970, an F5 tornado hit downtown Lubbock, TX and impacted the 20-story Metro Tower (now called NTS Tower). The building survived the tornado, but the force of the tornadic winds actually twisted the frame of the building to the point where most of the building's elevators were disabled. The building was extensively renovated and reopened 5 years after the tornado. It's the 2nd-tallest tower known to have survived a direct hit by an F5 tornado; the tallest is the 22-story ALICO building in downtown Waco, which was hit in 1953. Although neither of these building would meet the definition of "skyscraper", I think it's still significant that buildings of this magnitude can still survive extreme weather events like this. But that said, the Bank One building in Fort Worth is the only building that meets the definition of skyscraper that has been directly hit by a tornado that I'm personally aware of, and like you mentioned, that building survived too.

I don’t know if you saw my comment on the last page but if not, it’s top shelf how our minds went to the same two examples when talking about tornadoes impacting tall buildings haha

[Swake]

In 2017 the 19 Story Remington Tower on I-44 in South Tulsa took a direct hit from a EF-2 tornado and WAS largely destroyed. The tornado got into the elevator shafts and blew out most of the windows in the building from the inside.

The building is currently being rebuilt into lofts.

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news...-to-apartments

[shavethewhales]

^ I was told that Remington Tower basically took a direct hit, but the only reason it got destroyed on the inside is because the maintenance/elevator shaft on top of the building wasn't sealed or blew open, so all the pressure was able to run down the elevator shaft and blow things around in every story of the building. I was always curious about how much damage was actually done inside. Some floors were obliterated near the top, while the bottom was mostly spared from what I could tell. The big issue affecting the re-opening of the tower as actually insurance. The building wasn't doing great financially beforehand and either the owner the insurance company (I forget which) wanted to write it off while the other wanted to fix it and sell. They finally ended up selling it to a new investor after years of fighting about it.

[Bowser214]

Dream Hotels still has OKC on their website under coming soon. I know that's not a set in stone guarantee that it will get built, but to me that's outside the Matteson scrutiny.

[LocoAko]

Thanks for sharing this article, Pete. I'd tried to do my own digging at well but was really surprised at how little I found. Just references to obscure LLCs on websites. I just assumed I was missing something.

While it’s hard to get a clear picture of who Matteson is, what is plainly in focus is why a developer would eye OKC for a major project. It’s one of the fastest-growing markets in the U.S., having expanded its population from about 400,000 to more than 600,000 over the past 10 years. It’s also got a new $900 million downtown arena on the way for its NBA team, the Oklahoma City Thunder.

That said, while this isn't the main point, what's up with this reporting? OKC hasn't had a population of 400,000 since 1980. And 40 years later, we're up at just about 700,000. Not only are the numbers wrong, but growing from 400k to 600k in the span of 10 years would be an absurd and totally implausible amount of growth.

[HOT ROD]

in 2000, wasn't OKC at 444,000 (or was that 1990, I forget)? in 2010, wasn't OKC at more than 580,000? in 2020, wasn't OKC at 681,000? Today (2023), isn't OKC above 702,000 - which I honestly consider 2023 to be the correction for 2020 since it's post-covid.

so in 23 (or 30) years, OKC grew by nearly 260,000 people. That's not as absurd as you're making it out to be, it's actually outstanding, particularly when you consider OKC hasn't really had any major corporate relocations (YET) or truly major expansions. Now, OKC is in position to start really making some moves - and with OKC investing in itself at record amounts this developer is the first to take a risk on OKC. I think he is right, but we'll see how big the 4th tower will be.

[LocoAko]

in 2000, wasn't OKC at 444,000 (or was that 1990, I forget)? in 2010, wasn't OKC at more than 580,000? in 2020, wasn't OKC at 681,000? Today (2023), isn't OKC above 702,000 - which I honestly consider 2023 to be the correction for 2020 since it's post-covid.

so in 23 (or 30) years, OKC grew by nearly 260,000 people. That's not as absurd as you're making it out to be, it's actually outstanding, particularly when you consider OKC hasn't really had any major corporate relocations (YET) or truly major expansions. Now, OKC is in position to start really making some moves - and with OKC investing in itself at record amounts this developer is the first to take a risk on OKC. I think he is right, but we'll see how big the 4th tower will be.

I was just going off of the census population history from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklaho...y#Demographics

1970 368,164
1980 404,014
1990 444,719
2000 506,132
2010 579,999
2020 681,054