Park Harvery Center sold; 17-story tower may become apartments

[BDP]

I saw that.

Good news for the pricing. I also think it will be nice to have one pedestrian oriented development. Like Tannenbaum said, it's not like 170 units will revloutionize OKC's lifestyle. It's just for that very small segment of population that feels there are advantages to walking instead of driving.

Downtown living will never appeal to everyone, and it will always be a small part of our residential mix overall. But that doesn't mean it can't work. The mistake would actually be to develop it with OKC's suburban car-oriented culture, as that market is already well supplied and will continue to be.

[soonerguru]

I'm not so sure about this. I like his idea, but downtown hasn't matured to the point that people don't need their cars; they need them for everything here. We have no convenient public transit system.

He should arrange for a 100 or so spaces from one of the garages, like the Galleria, and offer it to people who do not have paid spaces already.

[HOT ROD]

That is a good point, guru.

Until we get convenience stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, shoppes, and other stores downtown (in the CBD) then people living downtown would still have to drive somewhere - at least midtown - to shop.

[HOT ROD]

Maybe he would incorporate a first floor retail arcade or something that has, say - an upscale grocery store!!! Hmm, I like the sound of that!

[BDP]

I like his idea, but downtown hasn't matured to the point that people don't need their cars;

We're not talking about everyone downtown, but just one small building. And there are spaces for these people, just not right next door or as part of the complex.

It's funny that some want a pedestrian oriented downtown, but balk at attempts to do it. Business will not locate there if there aren't people walking around. This is an intermediate step. If they were building a new building far away from parking lots, then I'd be worried about it. But they are renovating a building that is surrounded by parking lots withink a few blocks. Surely, .0001% of the population is not as opposed to walking a few blocks as they other 99.999 pecernt is.

My only point is that, against the entire residential population, this is tiny, yet it is a significant step towards a "mature" downtown, as you say. Hey, if it does fail, then we'll know for sure that ideas of an urban pedestrian based downtown are just dreams.

[metro]

It's funny that some want a pedestrian oriented downtown, but balk at attempts to do it.

I couldn't agree more, those same people just skipped over the article as well as my point. If we can't get 170 people that either don't care about not having parking or don't already have a parking spot in a garage downtown then we have bigger concerns. Some people just won't ever get it I suppose

[HOT ROD]

Honestly, I think they go hand in hand.

Most big cities require some sort of retail on the first floor(s) with office or residential above. I think OKC should make this requirement for any and all new buildings downtown as well as those that CAN be renovated into mixed use!

This is a great way to add to downtown attractions, activities, and maturity - 'forcing' builders and developers to implement retail into their building ambitions. Plenty of major cities do this, and I think it is time for OKC to do the same.

I dont see any reason why there cant be an urban 7-11 storefront in Park Harvey, at least!!

[jbrown84]

I agree on the 7 Eleven. I went to one in Honolulu that was in a large building on the first level. And people just walk up and go in.

I don't think we need to set aside spots. If some of the renters do not already have a spot for work, then they can just get one on their own in a nearby garage.

[metro]

Knowing Tanenbaum, retail won't be a concern, he has done so and plans on doing so in all his urban residential

[BDP]

It's a great spot for retail too and probably was part of the motivation. WIth Leadership Square, The Oklahoma Tower, and the Galleria Parking garage right there, it's in the middle of some of the best office space we have and next to what I think will be our biggest parking complex.

[soonerguru]

It's funny that some want a pedestrian oriented downtown, but balk at attempts to do it.....

My only point is that, against the entire residential population, this is tiny, yet it is a significant step towards a "mature" downtown, as you say. Hey, if it does fail, then we'll know for sure that ideas of an urban pedestrian based downtown are just dreams.

BDP, I hope you didn't misread my comments. I believe you're setting up a straw man here, when you say: "...if it does fail, then we'll know for sure that ideas of an urban pedestrian based downtown are just dreams."

How will we know that from this one project? This is the kind of thinking people in engage in when they want to prove something will fail, not succeed, like surburban developers, for example.

I used to live in NYC and I would love nothing more than to shed my automobile. That isn't realistic here.....YET.

My point is that if this project fails, it could set back other projects and worsen the potential of that which we all desire here, a pedestrian-oriented downtown.

You have to be realistic about the situation. People in OKC NEED their automobiles. There really isn't a choice. Downtown employees often need to use their automobiles during the course of their work, as well, so it's not just a simple matter of walking to work.

I'm sure the Park Harvey developer has studied this more than I have, and perhaps finding this 170 people will be relatively easy and my concerns are unfounded. I just would hate to see the failure of a project like this used as ammunition by the anti-downtown development crowd in the future.

Capisce?

[BDP]

Well, like I said, I see this as an intermediate step. The building does not have parking per se. It does not own it's own lot, but there is tons of parking all around it, and more on the way. Of course, Oklahomans still need to use their cars and living at Park Harvey would not restrict anyone from having a car nor really even make using their car an inconvenience. That is, not to someone who doesn't mind walking a few blocks when they need it. I agree with Tannenbaum that there should be enough of these people to fill his 170 units or so. If not, then there just isn’t a market for it at all.

This is actually a great litmus test, because this building will not have a parking problem as much as it will have a parking stigma to some. The idea that it has a parking problem is totally based on the lack of on site parking, not the parking reality that surrounds it. It looks like it has one, especially to the "park at the front door" mentality, but in reality it's a very minor inconvenience especially to those wanting to live downtown for a pedestrian experience. It’s a small inconvenience that, if not overcome, would set back the development of a pedestrian downtown, but also indicate that such a set back would be justified and that the car does indeed rule, even if illogically. That's not the sentiment of someone trying to prove it will fail, but simply a prudent objective observation.

This is a development which only needs to serve a few people to succeed, yet its success will go a long way to breaking down car and parking myths in regards to downtown residential development, ultimately leading to a development climate more geared towards pedestrians. On the other hand, businesses offering retail goods and services need to attract much greater customer volume to succeed. Introducing those too early will lead to their failure and, in my opinion, unjustly reinforce those myths and set back pedestrian development in a greater way.

IMO, this is much safer step to developing a pedestrian neighborhood in downtown than throwing a lot of services down there that don’t have a customer base to begin with. This is a way to bringing those in love with the idea of a pedestrian downtown into the market, but on a scale small enough that failure is not Assured by any means. IMO, it just has the bigger upside at this point.

[jbrown84]

"...if it does fail, then we'll know for sure that ideas of an urban pedestrian based downtown are just dreams."

That would be like saying "Oh, we didn't get the United Airlines maintenance center because we don't have quality of life. I guess we never will."

[HOT ROD]

Knowing Tanenbaum, retail won't be a concern, he has done so and plans on doing so in all his urban residential

Good to hear, thanks Metro!

[soonerguru]

BDP,

I appreciate your well-thought-out commentary, but I still disagree. What you seem to be saying is that if people cannot get over their stigma of the lack of parking, this will work against having a pedestrian-oriented downtown. That's a bit of a stretch.

A pedestrian-oriented downtown, in my view, is one in which there are people walking to their destinations, and one in which there are numerous destinations and services available to people who walk.

Should the developer have trouble finding 170 residents due to the lack of parking, all that stigmatizes is a large apartment development without parking. Nothing more.

I agree that if this fills up, it goes a long way toward the goal of a pedestrian-oriented downtown, but it does not fulfill that goal. It merely would suggest that a small number of people in Oklahoma City don't mind living in an apartment complex that is perhaps blocks away from where they park their vehicles.

No one here would suggest that more than a handful of the residents will not own automobiles. Probably every single tenant will. They have to park them somewhere. That in itself provides no evidence of the viability of a pedestrian-oriented downtown.

We all would desire a situation, eventually, in which owning an automobile itself is an option, not a necessity, but that will require much greater critical mass in downtown -- and a viable, extensive public transportation infrastructure.

We're all working for the same goals. I only suggest that if this project fails, it does in no way hamper our goal toward creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown, and to suggest it provides us any evidence other than the fact that people want a place to park their autos, would play into the hands of those interests who don't see a pedestrian-oriented downtown as a priority. Let's not create an equivalency that is a red herring and give those people any talking points.

[metro]

soonerguru, you hit the right point. Mass transportation is key, not whether or not this project succeeds. Yes, this will help us better reach that goal, but it is not critical. If there was better mass transportation there would already be more of a critical mass downtown, its the chicken and the egg dilemma. The good thing is even though it is later than should be, the new I-40 relocation project includes a new downtown boulevard that includes high speed mass transit lanes, more than likely it will be a rapid transit bus system.

[BDP]

Let's not create an equivalency that is a red herring and give those people any talking points.

Thank you for your points. I am obviously not communicating very well. You seem to have really focused on the dark side here and on any of my suggestions of any negative implications of this project, while all I was trying to do was to point out the many positives and the great implications they will have.

I continue to point out that I do not feel this project is any kind of revolution, nor that it would be one either way. The truth of the matter is that IF it fails, everyone will point to the parking problem, which I feel will be misdirected, but it will happen. So, I am not creating any red herrings or straw men or whatever. Those points are ALREADY there. People keep saying that there is a parking is a problem downtown when there clearly is not. This project is for the few people that know there isn't one. This project will help to reverse that thinking in others.

You want a pedestrian downtown with goods and services. You want public transportation. This project is a small step in creating a need for those things. Truth is, the egg and the chicken is need. No one will put in services or support public transportation until it can be demonstrated as a need above of any idealistic dreams of an urban metropolis.

I am not afraid to say that parking would be referenced as cause for failure if that indeed happened. Do you think that it wouldn't? I am not creating the sentiment, but simply pointing out how it would play out. However, I am also not afraid of that failure. I believe it will work and I believe that it's success will go far in breaking down parking taboos and create an interest in services catering to pedestrians in the city. As someone living downtown who wants a more pedestrian oriented area, I would think that you would want the market for pedestrian living to be at capacity. I don't even think this project fills the entire demand for that.

In my view the only place we truly differ is that I believe in it and feel that it will help the parking image, while feel that it's parking situation will hurt it. Well, if it does in fact fail because of the parking, don't kid yourself, that will fuel the doubters' fodder (not create it). However, if it succeeds it will temper that pessimism a bit and I can't think of anything I’d like to see more. I’m not arguing with you, I just don’t share your pessimism on this specific project and see a great deal of upside in it to exacerbate the need for the developments we all want. I simply see it as a modest project that will have a positive impact in image that will probably extend past evem its real impact.

[hipsterdoofus]

Wow! I had not heard about this sell, I am very glad to hear about it. Park Harvey IS one of the ugliest buildings downtown, and I hope that it gets fixed. I used to work in the building on the 17th floor. While Brad, the building manager did a good job with what he had to work with, there will still be TONS of work to be done, especially in the area of Heat and air.

I am also glad that more people will get to experience the "joy" of the elevators. Those suckers ARE high speed. If you've never been on a fast elevator, stop by the park harvey and go up to the 17th. Your stomach gets left behind the first few times you ride.

[metro]

Talked with Tanenbaum today. The apartments should be ready for move ins by Sept. 1st of this year. A leasing office will be opened 60-90 days prior to that. Rentals will range between $550-590. Great news for downtown residential density.

[BDP]

That's awesome. I had no idea it was moving along so quickly. Tha price range should be great for younger workers and anyone who wants an afforadable option downtown.

Tannenbaum is kicking some butt.

[fromdust]

ah, some resonable prices.

[metro]

Yep, if I don't buy me a house soon close to downtown, you can count me down for one of these

[keving]

So, are any of these dwellings going to be available for purchase? Is it all just rentals?

I think it would be nice to have some of the top floors reserved for people who would like to buy a condo instead of rent.

[metro]

I agree kevin, but what is the incentive for Tanenbaum? He can easily fill it with rentals and give him a revolving income versus a one time profit

[keving]

I agree kevin, but what is the incentive for Tanenbaum? He can easily fill it with rentals and give him a revolving income versus a one time profit

I can see why one would want a fairly constant stream of income. Makes a lot of $en$e.

However, I believe the incentive would be to help create a population that would be concerned with development and other issues in their neighborhood area. Home owners are more likely to be concerned with such issues than renters. They have a vested interest. Also, in normal residential housing, I know that when houses become rental properties, property values decline.

With 17 floors and 170 apartments, surely he can sell some of these the space upper space as condos.

Of course, I could be totally wrong in applying a suburban frame of thinking to an urban area.