NW 9th & Walker

[HOT ROD]

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

[Dob Hooligan]

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?

[BG918]

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

[OkieBerto]

Journal Record article 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."

[SpaceGuy]

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

[The]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Dob Hooligan]

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".

[onthestrip]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[Rover]

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.