Penn Square Mall

[Oil Capital]

Nothing is proposed for Penn Square, but nothing will be done to it without public incentives. Especially with some of the anchor tenants that have been previously mentioned in this thread as being on Simon's radar. For example, Saks is simply not coming to OKC, anywhere in OKC, without a significant public subsidy--the ULI panel helped establish that reality.

Any chance you could provide a link to the ULI panel establishing that reality?

[onthestrip]

Any chance you could provide a link to the ULI panel establishing that reality?

I was at this ULI event. It was a few years back but they did say that a large Saks type store would require some public financing. However I think that was for a downtown location. I've never heard anything about Simon looking for public dollars to expand penn square. And we definitely should not give it to them if so.
I am of the opinion that Simon could and should expand penn square, I'd think they'd have no problem leasing it out and making it profitable.

[Oil Capital]

Nothing is proposed for Penn Square, but nothing will be done to it without public incentives. Especially with some of the anchor tenants that have been previously mentioned in this thread as being on Simon's radar. For example, Saks is simply not coming to OKC, anywhere in OKC, without a significant public subsidy--the ULI panel helped establish that reality.

Any chance you could provide a link to the ULI panel establishing that reality?

Since you can't be bothered to provide a link showing this "establish[ed] ... reality", I'm going to go ahead and presume you are referring to this from the ULI FInal Report:

"The Core to Shore Plan calls for aggressive retail de* velopment on the blocks south of Myriad Gardens to the new Boulevard. During the interviews, the panel heard desires for a major new shopping destina*tion with a department store anchor—dreams of a Nordstrom or a Neiman Marcus. The panel cautions that destination retail on this scale is not going to happen. Downtown lacks the density of residents, employees, and visitors to support such a major facility. Furthermore, very few department stores are being built today, and the incentive packages required to attract one to a downtown location start at $40 million or more.


Note that it does not mention Sak's and is talking only about downtown locations.

Stop making stuff up, Spartan.

[Spartan]

Since you can't be bothered to provide a link showing this "establish[ed] ... reality", I'm going to go ahead and presume you are referring to this from the ULI FInal Report:

"The Core to Shore Plan calls for aggressive retail de* velopment on the blocks south of Myriad Gardens to the new Boulevard. During the interviews, the panel heard desires for a major new shopping destina*tion with a department store anchor—dreams of a Nordstrom or a Neiman Marcus. The panel cautions that destination retail on this scale is not going to happen. Downtown lacks the density of residents, employees, and visitors to support such a major facility. Furthermore, very few department stores are being built today, and the incentive packages required to attract one to a downtown location start at $40 million or more.


Note that it does not mention Sak's and is talking only about downtown locations.

Stop making stuff up, Spartan.

Are you drunk or something? A friend of mine on here sent me a PM that I should check this thread out. My apologies, I don't click on every thread every single day. In fact I'm a pretty busy guy right now. I am so sorry for not getting back with you immediately, plus I guess I didn't even see your posts because I have you on block - this means I have to go out of my way and click a few buttons in order to even see your posts.

I would invite you to provide proof that a Saks location 4 miles north of downtown would magically require no subsidy whereas the downtown location would. If you can provide indisputable proof that Saks would happily locate in North OKC of their own volition, I will retract my remarks.

By the way, for those of you who think I am making stuff up against indoor shopping malls, here are a few links.
http://deadmalls.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-4884407.html
http://www.economist.com/node/10278717
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_145260.html

Here's a fairly in-depth blog post I did on the topic, and keep in mind this was pre-Whole Foods (in fact it's full of 2-year old busted links). I think it offers a fairly critical, albeit outdated, analysis of the retail recruitment efforts. This post is interesting because it was written at the end of several years of failing to gain traction, and right before the inception of a highly successful period of retail recruitment (the last two years). Truisms are still true, though--the biggest slight on OKC is that we simply don't have available space that's good enough, or else new retailers would be entering the market more often.
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...se-in-okc.html

But then again, why do I bother. Some posters are only capable of directing a critical analysis individually rather than at issues. Oil Capital will have to pardon me for considering him/her a waste of my time at this point...

Also as Larry mentioned, I would not characterize the ULI report without watching the entire report. It's only about an hour long, but is extremely informative. These experts explain their own context so that people like Oil Capital can't do it for them.

[Oil Capital]

Are you drunk or something? A friend of mine on here sent me a PM that I should check this thread out. My apologies, I don't click on every thread every single day. In fact I'm a pretty busy guy right now. I am so sorry for not getting back with you immediately, plus I guess I didn't even see your posts because I have you on block - this means I have to go out of my way and click a few buttons in order to even see your posts.

I would invite you to provide proof that a Saks location 4 miles north of downtown would magically require no subsidy whereas the downtown location would. If you can provide indisputable proof that Saks would happily locate in North OKC of their own volition, I will retract my remarks.

By the way, for those of you who think I am making stuff up against indoor shopping malls, here are a few links.
http://deadmalls.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-4884407.html
http://www.economist.com/node/10278717
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_145260.html

Here's a fairly in-depth blog post I did on the topic, and keep in mind this was pre-Whole Foods (in fact it's full of 2-year old busted links). I think it offers a fairly critical, albeit outdated, analysis of the retail recruitment efforts. This post is interesting because it was written at the end of several years of failing to gain traction, and right before the inception of a highly successful period of retail recruitment (the last two years). Truisms are still true, though--the biggest slight on OKC is that we simply don't have available space that's good enough, or else new retailers would be entering the market more often.
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...se-in-okc.html

But then again, why do I bother. Some posters are only capable of directing a critical analysis individually rather than at issues. Oil Capital will have to pardon me for considering him/her a waste of my time at this point...

Also as Larry mentioned, I would not characterize the ULI report without watching the entire report. It's only about an hour long, but is extremely informative. These experts explain their own context so that people like Oil Capital can't do it for them.

LOL. It's really very simple Spartan. You told us that the ULI report established a fact that the report did not even address or discuss (non-downtown department stores). None of your whining changes that. Setting up strawmen to knock down does not change that. Reading the entire ULI report (as I have done) establishes the reality. ;-)

Stop making stuff up, Spartan.