New Mixed-Use Tower

[dcsooner]

Luke,
YES! that what I am talking about. A change in mindset from what if, if only, to Why not Oklahoma? the one thing I do like about Texas is their belief they are the best,not settling for second best. Been to Las Vegas? I was there over the 4th of July, Nevada for the most part is UGLY, really UGLY, no trees to speak of and arid ground but people found a niche and SOLD it to others. OK, now I knowOKC has people who have a bigger vision for the City, I just hope those in postions of power and authority are listening or reading forums like this.

[Kerry]

Last weekend I went back to Tampa to see the old homestead and downtown Tampa is full of nw highrises under construction. In fact - you simply can not count the construction cranes downtown. There must be 20 new highrises nder construction just in the downtown core.

Orlando is the same way. Downtown Orlando has atleast 10 new high-rise under construction. Even here in Jacskonville (the forgotten part of the state) we have 5 new high-rise under construction. In fact, our next 4 buildings will be the tallest in the city - all over 600 feet.

However there is one thing all of these new high-rise have in common. With the exception of one office tower in Tampa, they are all residential. If OKC is to get a new tower it would most likely be residential. However, all of the projects proposed for downtown OKC are either reuse or large apartment-like complex. Nothing going skyward!

I have a simple plan to fix this and it won't cost the city or any tax payer 1 cent. Here it is - allow developers who build up to lock in their current property tax. Starting with 10 floors they can lock in for 5 years. For every 5 floors after that they get 3 more years. A 40 story building could lock in their current property tax for 28 years. That would save the developer a lot of money. It would also bring in more money for the city because surrounding property would increase in value that will off-set the property tax that "might" have been collected if the 28 year lock wasn't in effect.

The only was a developer or land owner could 'protect' themselves from higher taxes is to build up. Even if the lot remaind vacant the taxes would still increase, so most would build a highrise or sell to someone that would.

[Luke]

Makes me wonder how many of us there are. It wouldn't be much to throw some of these crazy ideas together and present them to some of the crazy people in charge around here. It can happen.

[Kerry]

I was just looking at property taxes on downtown property and I am stunned. The Chase building pays about $335,000 a year in property taxes. The 101 Park Ave building pays $35,000 in taxes. Let just say that someone bought and tore down the 101 Park Ave buliding and replaced it with a 40 story tower. They could lock in the $35,000 price for 28 years. At $300,000 (chase building minus 101 Park Building) per year they would save $8.4 million in property taxes over the 28 years. This would be a great incentive to do just that.

Leadership square pays $538,000 in property taxes. At $500,000 per year for 28 years a new building at 101 Park Ave would save $14,000,000. I think that would tempt a lot of developers to build up and not out. We could even get rid of some of smaller less attractive buildings in the process.

[animeGhost]

i agree with u guys... something needs to be done in this city. Its been over 20 yrs since the last tower was built in okc (im only 19 so ive never even seen one go up) and all anyone can talk about is "oh maybe in 20 more yrs or so we can build a new on" what kind of pathetic thinking is that... i went to kansas city last weekend to visit my sis and it seemed like every time i looked up there was a giant crane towering above me... then i get back home and i see okc and thers one maybe two half way decent sized cranes workin dt and it makes me sick... i read all these things talkin bout places like austin getting new 60+ story developments and i may not be very old but i remember a time when okc was larger than austin... and about northwestern arkansas. If one company can pull the growth and development of that area past that of okc's than thats gotta say something of how slowly this city is developing... and okc's corporate base is pretty damn sad as well... okc has what maybe 8 publicly traded companies. this city needs to do something and quick otherwise were just gonna be "some town in oklahoma? where ever that is."
[end rant]

[Midtowner]

I was just looking at property taxes on downtown property and I am stunned. The Chase building pays about $335,000 a year in property taxes. The 101 Park Ave building pays $35,000 in taxes. Let just say that someone bought and tore down the 101 Park Ave buliding and replaced it with a 40 story tower. They could lock in the $35,000 price for 28 years. At $300,000 (chase building minus 101 Park Building) per year they would save $8.4 million in property taxes over the 28 years. This would be a great incentive to do just that.

Leadership square pays $538,000 in property taxes. At $500,000 per year for 28 years a new building at 101 Park Ave would save $14,000,000. I think that would tempt a lot of developers to build up and not out. We could even get rid of some of smaller less attractive buildings in the process.

I hate the idea of anything that takes money from property taxes. It's simply not okay if it involves taking money away from our schools.

Especially the cash-strapped OKC school district. If the money could be replaced by another source, fine. If not, then I don't like your idea.

[Omaha Cowboy]

. In addition, cities such as OMAHA and DES MOINES, which are much smaller have reinvented their skylines with new construction. In fact, I think Omaha just recently built a 60-story tower. There should be no excuse for not building something.

Lumping Des Moines and Omaha together is a bit misleading as the size difference between the 2 cities (Omaha's metro being 300,000 larger than Des Moines) is the same size difference between OKC and Omaha..Historically, there was a significant time period in our cities' histories where Omaha was larger or of similar size as OKC..So they are more similar that you may like to rationalize (or admit )..

For the record, downtown Omaha has seen impressive highrise construction this decade..Including: The 634FT, 40 story First National Center, the 19 story, 319 FT Union Pacific HQ's, and will start construction on the 32 story, 375 FT Wallstreet Tower (282 condo units and 5 stories of retail). Pretty impressive for a metro of 850,000..

And to your final quoted comment as it relates to OKC, you can't just build a highrise for the sake of building one because you're falling behind the 'smaller Omaha's of the world' (God forbid)..There must be a needed, rational reason for contructing any bulding of substance..

Just my .02 cents..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

[jdweaver]

"I hate the idea of anything that takes money from property taxes. It's simply not okay if it involves taking money away from our schools."

He made the claim to lock in the amount not reduce it. If they are still paying the same amount, how is that taking anything away from the school?

[BDP]

If they are still paying the same amount, how is that taking anything away from the school?

Inflation. Think if all of the downtown high-rises were currently paying 1976 property taxes. That would be a big decrease in revenue compared to what they are paying now. If property taxes are paying for education, there has to be some way for those taxes to adjust to the increaseing cost per capita in education.

I like the creative thinking, though. IMO, it's working through ideas like Kerry's that makes things work. If it can be shown that the proposed increase in revenue from other sources due to such developments offsets the decrease in taxes in real dollars over the years, then I'd say it could still have merit.

you can't just build a highrise for the sake of building one because you're falling behind the 'smaller Omaha's of the world' (God forbid)..There must be a needed, rational reason for contructing any bulding of substance..

In terms of competition, that is a rational need. If it's building a taller building just to make a nice postcard or just to have a taller building, then, yes that is irresponsible. However, it seems the demand for this type of living is real and pervasive. More and more, people want to live in full service high rise mixed use complexes. Trying to stay competitive by meeting demand is not irrational. In my mind, it makes sense for Oklahoma City to diversify its living options, at the very least to retain residents who seek a different lifestyle than Oklahoma currently offers. The beauty of it is that it would in no way be at the cost of its current living options. It would only be an additional choice.

I think the Omaha comparisons are valid in that it shows there is a demand, even amongst land rich traditionally non-urban communities. I don't think it is meant as a slight at Omaha at all.

Why NOT build a ski resort in Oklahoma? Why NOT have the Summer Olympics in OKC? Heck, why not have the WINTER Olympics at the Ski Resort in Oklahoma!? Anything can be done. Anything.

Good points. I think Chicago is great example as well. Even though it has a great trade position on Lake Michigan, people forget that the land there was very unfavorable for building and that the river initially caused more problems than benefits. It also took the construction of railroads and canals before it could become the world class player it grew into. But early investors had vision and the will to persevere. And before it got the World's Fair, no one thought it could pull it off. In fact, it was incessant lobbying for the event by their politicians that earned it the nick name the "windy city".

Maybe it's time some Oklahoma City leaders became a bit windy in promoting the city and in their demands to developers...

[brianinok]

Most everyone here seems to be missing one important point: Cities in the US do not build towers; developers build towers. They must make economic sense for them to be built. Until it makes economic sense (vacancy rates, land prices, downtown population, etc.), there won't be a tower built. Period.

In virtually every example, a tower is the effect, not the cause. The cause of the tower is the vacancy rate, land prices, downtown population, etc. that I have mentioned. What we need to focus on are the causes, and then the effect (tower) will come.

[Easy180]

Our best chance for a new tower would be if Devon continues to grow at their current pace...They already occupy their current bldg and some of the Chase tower

Or maybe if the MG's become as popular as Toyota's :tweeted:

[BDP]

Until it makes economic sense (vacancy rates, land prices, downtown population, etc.), there won't be a tower built. Period.

You forgot demand. There are many examples of towers being built in cities that do not have low vacancy rates, high land prices, or large downtown populations. In fact, many are being built in "overbuilt" markets. It is simply a lifestyle that is currently in demand and many developers are cashing in on it. Right now many get a good ROI because of the premium these places get. They are being built mainly because people want them, not because of geographical limitations.

[dcsooner]

THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY A NEGATIVE MINDSET THAT PERVADES OKLAHOMA AND IMPEDES GROWTH. LEADERS WANT TO MAKE A BOLD MOVE TO MOVE TULSA FORWARD AND NAYSAYERS WHO WANT TO REMAIN IN 1950 STIFFLE THE EFFORT. DON'T TULSAS KNOW HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST THE LAST FEW YEARS IN TERMS OF JOBS AND POPULATION?

TBJ Article


Islands in the River Unveiled





Ray Tuttle
9/6/2006

Work could begin in two years on a $788 million project to create three man-made islands in the Arkansas River between the 11th Street and 21st Street bridges.
The Tulsa Stakeholders Inc. unveiled their ambitious vision to develop 40-acres with high-rise buildings, parks, shopping and plenty of space to "get in touch with the river," to about 525 people at the Tulsa Downtown DoubleTree Hotel on Wednesday.

Tulsa Stakeholders estimated that the project, called "The Channels," would require $600 million in public financing. Tulsa Stakeholders committed to raising $100 million as a gift from the private sector to the development. Through the sale of energy created by the project’s hydroelectric wind and solar power, an additional $88 million could be financed. The Channels would receive operating funds from the profits generated by the renewable energy sources and revenues from ground leases and sales. Additional revenues will come from common area maintenance fees paid by developers.

The development of the Arkansas River would begin with an 18-foot dam north of the 21st Street bridge, which would create a 12-mile lake back to Sand Springs.

Tulsa Stakeholders wanted a design that would "propel Tulsa past its competitors. The non-profit group commissioned urban planner/architect and waterfront expert Bing Thom to develop the plan.

"It time Tulsa got it's swagger back," said John-Kelly Warren, chairman of the William K. Warren Foundation. Warren and his wife, Margie, Tom Cooper, CEO of Warren Professional Building Corp., Christine and Scott Lambert, owners of Travertine Elevator Interiors and local business attorney Rusty Patton, decided to take action to create "a river we can be proud of."

At $788 million, the bill for The Channels would be four times greater than the cost of the BOK Center. The iconic arena is estimated to cost $183 million.

Opposition to the project was already present as "No River Tax," signs began appearing along the river. Dan Hicks, a project opponent, does not want public money used.
Tulsa "can become a truly great city by all of you joining in this effort to make it work," said William K. "Bill" Warren, Jr. He stood at the end of the question-and-answer period following two negative statements on the project. One statement was that Tulsa did not need the development. A second opponent said the project would harm the river.

"Don't be people who say 'No,' " Warren said. "Our forefathers succeeded by saying, 'We're gonna make it work.' "
Cooper estimated that construction could start as soon as 2008 and would take two years, being completion by 2010.

Tulsa Stakeholders came forward at this time in order to protect homeowners and property owners from profiteering, Cooper said.

"We wanted to make sure they were protected, so we got the news out," he said.

The 40-acre island, between the 11th and 21st Street, will be connected by two bridges to the east bank. The land mass rises from the water will feature low- and high-rise residences to the north and south, separated by navigable canals.

The focal point of the community will be a stone-paved plaza that will be the largest open space on the development. Facing the east river bank and a floating stage for performing arts, the plaza will be lined with trees. Plans call for restaurants and pubs to “spill out into the space.” Parking will be underground.

What will make the project distinctive will be a several-story high canopy that will shade the plaza, Cooper said. Covered in solar panels, the canopy will be designed to collect sunlight for power conversion. Also, the canopy will cool the open market and public spaces underneath up to 13 degrees.

Opposite of the plaza on the east bank will be a large park, called “Tulsa Green.” Stairs to the water’s edge will run the full width of the bank. Renderings depict a beach and large pool to the south.


Print This Story Email To A Friend

[Kerry]

As pointed out - I am not talking about decreasing the amount paid - only locking in the current amount. As for the comment about what if every building downtown was paying 1976 prices - I have news for you - many are.

Most of the property I looked at only increased about $2000 per year. Even over the 28 year period the city would only be out a grand total of $56,000. In the 29th year the city would collect upwards of $500,000. Not a bad return. Plus surrounding land would actualy increase at faster rate because land values would climb faster which would increase thier taxes.

In many cases this would be used on land that is currently vacant and has been vacant for 30 years in many cases. This is land that otherwise would not be developed.

[jbrown84]

That's an impressively ambitious project for Tulsa, and like you say, it's a shame that people say things like "Tulsa doesn't need it". I'm so tired of hearing that kind of attitude.

We can't look at downtown population to determine the demand for a residential tower. If there's nowhere to live yet, then people can't be living there!! Build it and they will come, if it's impressive enough. Hogan's Centennial on the Canal is a prime example of the lack of ambition, creativity, or willingness to spend a little extra to make something nice. It is absolutely unexcusable that with as much money as he's charging people to live there that he can't do it all brick with some classic stone work as well.

Highrise residential. NOW.

[animeGhost]

and im gettin sick and tired of the wealthy ppl in ok not even investing in their own stat... a prime example is the gaylord family... they have a chain of resorts in several cities across the country (las vegas and dallas are the only locations i am for sure exist) and not even as much as a proposal for one in ok

[ETL]

That is why they are rich and stupid at the same time. lol

[Midtowner]

and im gettin sick and tired of the wealthy ppl in ok not even investing in their own stat... a prime example is the gaylord family... they have a chain of resorts in several cities across the country (las vegas and dallas are the only locations i am for sure exist) and not even as much as a proposal for one in ok

Nearly every major University in Oklahoma has a building named after a Gaylord or an Everest. What do you mean they're not investing in this state?

They'll build their hotels and resorts where those hotels and resorts will make money. Last I checked, our premiere entertainment district was happy with Residence Inn. Why would Gaylord Hotels & Resorts build a facility here? If OKC is going to be satisfied with mediocrity, why would an outstanding organization think this was the place for them to build??

[mburlison]

Ha, Billy and Betty Bob are everywhere. If DCSooner really in DC, I would not be bragging about that cesspool either. One block away from the Mall and what is that town? Nothing but a rat hole. (Do not include the suburbs, just D.C.)

As for Office Buildings, Towers, some good points have been made in regards to the original question, my gosh, it's not as if cities build towers for the hell of it. There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. Doesn't help when we have the KMG's moving out etc. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

DCSooner, get a life, OKC is a great place, sounds like you have some issues that I would not want to trade you for.

[BDP]

Most of the property I looked at only increased about $2000 per year. Even over the 28 year period the city would only be out a grand total of $56,000. In the 29th year the city would collect upwards of $500,000. Not a bad return.

Actually forgoing an increase of 2k a year is much more than 56k total. It’d be 2k the first year, 4k the next year, 6k the next and so on… That’d be $812,000 over the 28 years.

And you'd have to multiply that by all of the properties that qualify. If all downtown properties were paying 56k less than what they are paying now, wouldn't that add up quickly? If it were only 10, that would be $560,000 per year. There is also a real cost with forgoing revenue for 30 years. Not collecting revenue for 30 years amounts to forgoing more than just the the actual principle lost for that period.

Plus surrounding land would actualy increase at faster rate because land values would climb faster which would increase thier taxes

Which is the whole key to the plan and what I think gives it some merit. But it's not without risk and that's all I'm pointing out: the risk and the real cost of forgoing revenue. I'm not knocking the idea on its face value, I'm just saying it goes deeper than that.

Also, the effect in the sunset year could be disastrous for some property owners and lessors who have to suddenly absorb a large increase in costs. In an ideal world it would be offset by the fact their financing could be paid off by then. But that would only work if the developer was prudent in amortizing the expected increase in cost over the previous 30 years.

I think the idea has merit, I'm just trying to point out the real costs. Can the real cost of forgoing revenues be shown to offset the opportunity cost of not having new high rise developments downtown? To answer that one has to look at property value increases, and therefore tax increases, without towers and compare that to value projections with towers and their tax breaks.

[jbrown84]

There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

I assure you inexpensive land exists in smaller peer cites like Omaha, Des Moines, Charlotte, Austin, Birmingham, and others that have booming highrise construction. It has nothing to do with "companies". If you look at these cities, almost all of the highrises going up are RESIDENTIAL or HOTELS. Both of which we need and can support according to official studies.

The problem is we can't seem to get any developers in here with any vision.

[traxx]

Ha, Billy and Betty Bob are everywhere. If DCSooner really in DC, I would not be bragging about that cesspool either. One block away from the Mall and what is that town? Nothing but a rat hole. (Do not include the suburbs, just D.C.)

As for Office Buildings, Towers, some good points have been made in regards to the original question, my gosh, it's not as if cities build towers for the hell of it. There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. Doesn't help when we have the KMG's moving out etc. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

DCSooner, get a life, OKC is a great place, sounds like you have some issues that I would not want to trade you for.

Burlison, take it easy. If you'll read more in depth you'll see DC is from Oklahoma. Don't come on here and start bashing other posters, especially when they haven't made any inflamatory remarks. If you want to get into a mine's bigger than yours pissing match go to the OU football boards. This isn't the place.

As far as the Tulsa proposal goes, I say bully for them. I know it's popular for OKC residents to bash Tulsa, but I say what's good for Tulsa is good for the state. If Tulsa succeeds in making something that awesome, maybe our city leaders will feel they have to one-up them and we'll be left with a couple of great, vibrant, forward thinking, no-holds-barred, grandiose downtowns in this state.

[animeGhost]

ur exactly right traxx... the projects in tulse have the possibility to create some great competition between okc and tulsa which would do nothing but benefit the state and each respective city (and dont get me wrong i hate seeing tulsa doing better than okc)

[Kerry]

You make a good point BDP. Don't know where my math skills went on that one. However, it can easily be solved by locking the appraied value and only let it increase by an average of property in the surrounding area. City would still collect everything they otherwise would have. I am sure there many things I haven't thought of but i am sure someone with access to better data than I have could make it work.

[mburlison]

I'll make any comments I choose to make Traxx.

OU football boards...not hardly.

It's obvious a moniker like 'dcsooner' has/had sooner ties, ya think? but I'm not the one w/ DC in my name either. If the fact I assumed that this person now lives in DC and that is wrong, for that I will apologize (my opinion of DC not withstanding), but I stand by every single syllable of the rest of it, precisely because I consider the remarks to have been inflamatory.