Stage Center

[Pete]

I'm not doubting this, but I also find it strange why anyone looking to do an ambitious mix of housing or a substantial office development would put up with the battles that surround Stage Center. With the vast inventory of surface lots and completely undeveloped land within a few blocks of this site, any competent developer could start tomorrow on making their vision a reality as opposed to focusing on this site which may take years before the wrecking ball is allowed to arrive. Given the amount of scars of emptiness in this town, I would much rather see every grass lot developed downtown before calling in the bulldozers to raze a building that many treasure.

If there is any true indicator on the real health of Oklahoma City, it's that there is so much land left within mere blocks of the city center the location of which is still not valuable enough to warrant development.

Location, location, location.

The Centennial -- a very bland and boxy condo project -- sold out almost immediately and at very high prices. Why? It's located on the canal, albeit the lower part and most of the units don't have great views of much of anything.

There is a huge difference between the Stage Center property and just about any other large lot downtown merely because it fronts the MG and is adjacent to the stellar Devon complex. Remember land costs are just a fraction of any high-rise development and if I was looking to build something in downtown OKC, I'd glad pay a big premium for the Stage Center property. I'd make it back in condo sales, room rentals, or office rates. Think about how much more valuable property is on Central Park in NYC (a reach, I realize, but some of the same principles apply).

Image owning a condo where you could step out on your balcony and overlook a very large, beautiful urban park and also the Devon Tower. Possibly the best views in all of OKC.

As for dealing with the fallout from razing Stage Center, that is clearly going to happen now and a shrewd developer would have the present owners scrape it before any deal was public.


The rest of the empty lots are filling up with dozens and dozens of project. The reason for so many is due to demolition as all those properties had some sort of previous development.

[wschnitt]

So let me ask you Steve because this is something that has always bothered me about the entire MAPS strategy and the current CC location (and no I don't want to turn this into a CC discussion). MAPS was created as a way to rebuild downtown by increasing private sector investment/development and make downtown OKC, and by extension, the entire metro area a better plact to live, work, and play. So there are multiple development proposals for the Stage Center site but only one can go on the Stage Center property. That is going to leave atleast 2 other viable MAJOR projects without a home. I assume these projects are attracted to this site because of its proxiimity to MBG. With two other vacant lots adjacent to the park are we running the risk of killing private sector development by building a MAPS project on those lots - which is counter-productive to the entre reason for MAPS? Or are these projects only interested in the one site and will get tossed in the trash like the 4 or 5 projects that weren't selected for the Mercy site?

Could it be the market can handle one new office tower and that these 3 developers each want to be the one to fill the void?

[Just the facts]

Could it be the market can handle one new office tower and that these 3 developers each want to be the one to fill the void?

That is possible on the office development yes. On the residential side the sky is the limit.

[Steve]

So let me ask you Steve because this is something that has always bothered me about the entire MAPS strategy and the current CC location (and no I don't want to turn this into a CC discussion). MAPS was created as a way to rebuild downtown by increasing private sector investment/development and make downtown OKC, and by extension, the entire metro area a better plact to live, work, and play. So there are multiple development proposals for the Stage Center site but only one can go on the Stage Center property. That is going to leave atleast 2 other viable MAJOR projects without a home. I assume these projects are attracted to this site because of its proxiimity to MBG. With two other vacant lots adjacent to the park are we running the risk of killing private sector development by building a MAPS project on those lots - which is counter-productive to the entre reason for MAPS? Or are these projects only interested in the one site and will get tossed in the trash like the 4 or 5 projects that weren't selected for the Mercy site?

It's more nuanced than that. Development just doesn't work the way that you're setting up in this comment. I wish I could elaborate, but I'd have to take a lot of time to slice and dice it, to make sense. But to boil it down: money goes after the best opportunities. It's got to make sense. And that's it.

[kevinpate]

That is possible on the office development yes. On the residential side the sky is the limit.

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

[betts]

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

The next comment will be ....."As long as it's rental." But, what people fail to realize is that by the time planning and construction are underway for not yet proposed housing, there may well be a group of people who have lived in rentals downtown, have reached a stage in their lives where they want to own a home and might be willing to buy downtown. Builders and developers keep charging ahead with what they think the public wants, failing to realize that their plans are delayed enough that the market may have changed by the time their project is complete. Someone will build the last for rent building in downtown and find that they've overbuilt. And then everyone will jump on the "for sale" bandwagon again.

[OKCisOK4me]

People need to get the idea out of their head that a 'house' has to be a ranch style home built in the 60s, a new plot of land for building a new home on or anything in the suburbs that has a lawn. Condo living can be "we want to raise kids here, grow old and die here" living.

Obviously downtown needs a few more things to entice that living...the elementary school, some more grociers, etc. Downtown living was killed a long time ago but its coming back strong.

Also needs to be made affordable for people that are young professionals or not. Maybe surveys need to be taken at local universities asking grads that if they earned a living in the OKC metro, would they be willing to live downtown if it were affordable.

[Spartan]

As much as it may stink to have to say goodbye to Stage Center, at least it is coming available at a good time.

That property is more valuable than ever and the money seems to be flowing a little easier or large commercial project.


It wasn't that long ago that most the area around this property was considered skid row. Now you've got the gorgeous MG on one side, a new elementary going in to the west with the burgeoning Film Row just beyond, and the bus station going out to the north, with the possibility of that whole block being redeveloped. And Project 180 improvements on all sides.

I'd really like to see a residential development here but would settle for an office building, as long as it's at least 40 stories.

I'm with Pete. Office would be a disappointment. We need to extend downtown SWward. This site has to be pivotal, and here we have to realize our dreams.

If ever there were a structure I wish we could just move somewhere, like Classen Blvd and NW 13th would be perfect, or along the river...

[Just the facts]

There's no limit to the interest level in DT or near DT housing in the OKC metro?

We are on the cusp of a dramatic change in living styles. Just as suburbia was created in a generation, it is going to die just as fast. Suburbia was created by an overwhelming amount of government funding and it takes constant deficit spending to sustain it. The people are wising up – mostly because we are going broke trying to keep it going.

[Spartan]

Kevin - I think we're working within 5-year windows, and the current 5-year window will indicate demand for probably 2-3,000 new residential units. The point is that supply is consistently lagging demand by a wide margin.

[Rover]

We are on the cusp of a dramatic change in living styles. Just as suburbia was created in a generation, it is going to die just as fast. Suburbia was created by an overwhelming amount of government funding and it takes constant deficit spending to sustain it. The people are wising up – mostly because we are going broke trying to keep it going.

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

[catcherinthewry]

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

I agree. I don't tell anyone where to live and I don't want to be told where I should live. Although the urbanists have some good ideas and love their lifestyle, they are a small minority in the city overall.

A chacun son gout.

[betts]

I agree. I don't tell anyone where to live and I don't want to be told where I should live. Although the urbanists have some good ideas and love their lifestyle, they are a small minority in the city overall.

A chacun son gout.

I'm fine with people living wherever they want but I think taxes should reflect density. If you want to live 20 miles from the city center in a multi-acreage home, then you should pay for the privilege. Or, alternatively, this city needs to go on a diet and do some major deannexation.

[Rover]

I'm fine with people living wherever they want but I think taxes should reflect density. If you want to live 20 miles from the city center in a multi-acreage home, then you should pay for the privilege. Or, alternatively, this city needs to go on a diet and do some major deannexation.

I don't want to argue against urbanization, only the arrogance of thinking EVERYONE should have to live there. I believe your argument for fair taxation relative to expenditures. So, where are the boundaries drawn? Is the dense area around quail springs taxed less than the relatively area downtown. Do we divide by zip codes, sq miles, voting districts, etc.? Does property value play into the equation (Gailardia vs downtown, for example)? And are we better off making people commute OUT of downtown to jobs, or IN to downtown (Vancouver is wrestling with this problem now)?

It always sounds so easy but it is complicated. To think suburbs are going away is ludicrous. It was the communist dream, but will not happen while people have a choice to live the kind of lifestyle they choose.

[CaptDave]

It certainly is not a easy dilemma to resolve. On one hand, I do not believe we should dictate to people where they should live (although we do by way of zoning now). Nor do I think our current tendencies are sustainable in the long run. When more people realize the extraordinary waste in shoving city boundaries farther and farther out in an attempt to create the next suburban utopia - and it impacts their economic well being more forcefully - then we will see people migrating back to pre-1950's types of urban areas. What I find absolutely maddening is developers building brand new strip malls farther and farther away from the present urban centers, when older places lie empty. Why not bulldoze the empty one and rebuild on sites like that? I understand they are "going where their customers" live, but I also think this is a self fulfilling prophesy to a large degree.

[Pete]

You don't limit where people want to live; you limit where developers can BUILD. You can also easily limit infrastructure required for sprawl.

Big, big difference and lots of cities have handled this effectively.

OKC and the surrounding areas have absolutely no process to even consider if a massive new housing tract, shopping center or even a turnpike is built. If someone applies and meets the basic requirements, they get a building permit without any further thought whatsoever.

[Just the facts]

Only in your mind are suburbs going away. Only in your mind is it either - or. You can't fathom people wanting a different lifestyle.

It doesn't matter what I want. We, as a nation, can no longer afford suburbia and the debt it takes to keep it going. Gen Xers figured this out and Generation Screwed won't have a choice. The baby-boomers wrote checks that the rest of us can't cash.

[Spartan]

I thought this thread was about Stage Center.

[Just the facts]

Sorry Spartan - back to Stage Center. Any one have inside info on a time frame?

[Pete]

I bet it won't be long... They are now pretty darn sure no one is going to save the building and it's costing them money to have it just sit there, so I'm sure it's just a matter of evaluating the proposals/offers.

I bet we'll hear something within a few months.

[Just the facts]

I guess the first sign that something is eminent will be a demo permit which will probably be done by the current owner because the new owner probably won't want to go through any delays. How long from the time a demo permit is applied for until it become public knowledge?

[catch22]

I guess the first sign that something is eminent will be a demo permit which will probably be done by the current owner because the new owner probably won't want to go through any delays. How long from the time a demo permit is applied for until it become public knowledge?

I doubt we will see a demo permit without some announcement of what will go on the site. Unless it is something underwhelming.

If it is a significant structure obtaining public approval will be simple, and they will be able to announce what they are doing. Then they will tear the Stage Center down and quickly have something going in it's place.

If it is a small underwhelming structure (relative to the potential of the site), then the building will have a demo permit. The building will be demo'd, and then an announcement will be made of the replacing structure.

[betts]

If it's something underwhelming, I will be majorly disappointed. It had better be a showpiece to justify tearing down a treasure like the Stage Center.

[Spartan]

I doubt we will see a demo permit without some announcement of what will go on the site. Unless it is something underwhelming.

If it is a significant structure obtaining public approval will be simple, and they will be able to announce what they are doing. Then they will tear the Stage Center down and quickly have something going in it's place.

If it is a small underwhelming structure (relative to the potential of the site), then the building will have a demo permit. The building will be demo'd, and then an announcement will be made of the replacing structure.

I have a lot of confidence in this.

[G.Walker]

The Stage Center lot can easily hold a 40 story skyscraper, parking garage and amenities building. But I am also interested in the lot directly south. If there are multiple proposals for the Stage Center site, I wonder if whoever loses out can make a case and a offer to acquire the lot immediately south.

The Arts Council of Oklahoma City would have to find a new home, or can make a deal with whoever is acquiring that lot to have space in new building. I am visioning we can have a mixed use development as well as new office tower, as the lot directly south of the Stage Center will be just as valuable if there is a new office tower to the north, MBG to the east, and new CC to the south.