OG&E Tower

[soonerguru]

Weren't there some concerns regarding a very tall structure on the (in this case) west side of MBG blocking sunlight? Was this possibly a factor in the design and the decision to pursue multiple shorter towers rather than a single very tall one? Is it possible that this is the case but at this point has been poorly-communicated publicly? I don't have any insight here; merely wondering.

Most assuredly, a 24-plus story tower would have cast a long shadow over Film Row.

[Spartan]

And here we have one of our most knowledgeable posters bring up another valid concern.

The truth is open any design, architecture, or planning TEXTBOOK. Bigger isn't always better. The devil is in the details.

Can we finally shift this focus from size to details?

[Urbanized]

Most assuredly, a 24-plus story tower would have cast a long shadow over Film Row.

More importantly, over MBG. They would probably have to re-think many if not most of the plantings if the gardens was in shadow all afternoon/evening during the growing season. I'm not saying that IS the reason; only that it COULD be and if so that they didn't emphasize this enough when releasing the conceptual.

Good PR strategy is often a very underrated component of any business endeavor. If this issue is really a part of the equation and it had been disclosed up front, we probably wouldn't even be having this part of the discussion.

[bluedogok]

More importantly, over MBG. They would probably have to re-think many if not most of the plantings if the gardens was in shadow all afternoon/evening during the growing season. I'm not saying that IS the reason; only that it COULD be and if so that they didn't emphasize this enough when releasing the conceptual.

Good PR strategy is often a very underrated component of any business endeavor. If this issue is really a part of the equation and it had been disclosed up front, we probably wouldn't even be having this part of the discussion.

Sometimes people don't think of the surroundings and it isn't just shadows, the Museum Place Tower next to the Dallas Museum of Art is a prime example. The reflections off the tower is affecting the Nasher Sculpture Center.

Dallas News - Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative'
Dallas News - Museum Tower’s problems a reflection of greater urban design issue
Dallas News - Update: Nasher Sculpture Center calls Museum Tower’s proposed glare fix ‘grossly inadequate, deeply flawed’

[PhiAlpha]

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :P

We can only hope.

[Teo9969]

I just really want to know how exactly we're going to get a world-class development on a space the equivalent size of the 10th/Shartel apartments with only 2.4x the budget of that same complex?

The thing that scares me is that maybe there was a better development proposal that would have had a higher investment amount but that was not selected because no "tower" was part of the proposal. Given the site plan and the relatively small investment, there are at least several other developers in this city who I would trust far more with this site than RW.

What I think OKC needs Rainey to commit to is defining how someone walking down Hudson, or Walker, or Sheridan is going to experience this building as a completely random person. As it is now, Walker is almost exclusively parking garage, Sheridan looks to be an entrance to a building that is really only useful to residents or people who work in the building. Hudson seems like it's going to have a nice view, and *maybe* a nice store.

But the concern that Pete has raised several times in this thread regarding the interaction with the public is the single-handedly most important issue when it comes to making this a "world-class" development. Even allowing for that statement to be nothing but empty rhetoric about this being world-class, I can't even really understand taking the most accessible and important lot available in the CBD and being okay with a meager $100M investment. The blasted Convention Center will have more invested into it than this development…and 6 stories of parking garage, some below ground, you can bet that a good chunk of that $100M is going to relatively meaningless development.

At this point, I'd rather remove the tower component altogether and build something that is far more useful to the public…maybe something that can (eventually) lure high quality retail.

[bchris02]

My fear is that Rainey is going to get the Stage Center demolished, then tell us all "Oops! I am unable to get the financing for the tower I wanted to build, so I am just going to pave the lot into surface parking and sit on it." Is there any way to be assured that isn't going to happen?

[Pete]

This really should have been handled by OCURA, with a public process for picking the best developer/development, just like the old Mercy Hopsital site (now Edge @ Midtown).

This is one of the most important sites in the entire urban core -- between two of the biggest investments of tax dollars downtown -- and we don't even know anything about the other proposals, what Rainey Williams promised at time of selection, etc.

Also, then the City could have been the bad guy in terms of the demolition, which would have not only lessened the burden of the developer (and ill-will that will carry forward for some time) but probably made the property more valuable and perhaps maybe even have invited more bids.


Probably too late to get them involved now but this is exactly why we have OCURA in the first place and they should step up if a similar situation presents itself in the future.

[Teo9969]

My fear is that Rainey is going to get the Stage Center demolished, then tell us all "Oops! I am unable to get the financing for the tower I wanted to build, so I am just going to pave the lot into surface parking and sit on it." Is there any way to be assured that isn't going to happen?

I sincerely doubt that would happen. That doesn't alleviate concerns that he may scale back on his plans, but the above scenario is a bit drastic.

[Pete]

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

[soonerguru]

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

Excellent analysis.

[bchris02]

I sincerely doubt that would happen. That doesn't alleviate concerns that he may scale back on his plans, but the above scenario is a bit drastic.

Yeah, that scenario is drastic but its a worst-case. Scaling back any more than has already been done though will be an extreme disappointment as well.

[Steve]

This really should have been handled by OCURA, with a public process for picking the best developer/development, just like the old Mercy Hopsital site (now Edge @ Midtown).

This is one of the most important sites in the entire urban core -- between two of the biggest investments of tax dollars downtown -- and we don't even know anything about the other proposals, what Rainey Williams promised at time of selection, etc.

Also, then the City could have been the bad guy in terms of the demolition, which would have not only lessened the burden of the developer (and ill-will that will carry forward for some time) but probably made the property more valuable and perhaps maybe even have invited more bids.


Probably too late to get them involved now but this is exactly why we have OCURA in the first place and they should step up if a similar situation presents itself in the future.

I understand what you're saying. But this is a privately-owned piece of land, and there is no legal mechanism to turn it over to Urban Renewal unless the authority wanted to bid on buying the property when it was put up for sale (the millions of dollars it sold for are far beyond the authority's reserves and would have to be provided by taxpayers).
The key here is the Downtown Design Review Committee, which has a lot of discretion and authority that can be applied to this project. I keep trying to explain to everybody that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what the building will really look like, other than how it will be situated on the property. But with all this talk about height (which is not something that can really be forced here) I fear this message is getting lost....

[Plutonic Panda]

You're the guy who doesn't like any urban development not visible from Edmond

yes Spartan, any development I can't see from Edmond I hate and should not be built, you got me.

I'm done arguing here man, you just make random assumptions, twist words, and flat out make sh*t up about people you disagree with.

[Steve]

And to be honest, when it was announced the nonprofit foundation would be the one to field offers and make the final decisions as to who develops this property and how, we all should have made a bunch of noise and insisted OCURA take the reigns and there be a transparent public process.

Again, no amount of noise could have forced two private parties to subject to Urban Renewal review. It's like asking me to have Urban Renewal review a sale of my home to a private buyer.

[soonerguru]

Again, no amount of noise could have forced two private parties to subject to Urban Renewal review. It's like asking me to have Urban Renewal review a sale of my home to a private buyer.

How did the property end up in the ownership of OCCF? Was it given / sold to them by the city? Did Stage Center belong to the City of OKC at one time?

[Steve]

The land was sold by Urban Renewal to the non-profit Mummers Theater back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. John Kirkpatrick ended up in ownership of the property, through his foundation, when he bailed out the theater in mid-1970s. Kirkpatrick's foundation from there on out owned the land and held the mortgage on the building with reversion rights, which were triggered when the theater closed in 2010 and didn't reopen.

[Pete]

I understand what you're saying. But this is a privately-owned piece of land, and there is no legal mechanism to turn it over to Urban Renewal unless the authority wanted to bid on buying the property when it was put up for sale (the millions of dollars it sold for are far beyond the authority's reserves and would have to be provided by taxpayers).
The key here is the Downtown Design Review Committee, which has a lot of discretion and authority that can be applied to this project. I keep trying to explain to everybody that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what the building will really look like, other than how it will be situated on the property. But with all this talk about height (which is not something that can really be forced here) I fear this message is getting lost....

Almost everything OCURA deals with was privately owned and they either get involved by buying it outright or by exercising eminent domain. When the foundation made it clear they wanted to sell to a developer, that should have been their cue.

$4.275 million for this property isn't that much -- they could have easily made that back by selling to developers. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with that amount of money.

As I said, I know that ship has probably sailed but in the future this sort of thing -- like the property directly south -- should be handled differently.


Now, design review can really only make suggestions. Even the basics of what Williams has proposed meet the basic guidelines, so any opportunity to leverage real change has already been lost.

If there had been an open competition, OCURA could have created parameters then asked the developers to change elements to increase their odds of being selected. And they could just reject any and all proposal then re-open the RFP.

Williams already owns the property, the ADG renderings meet height, setback and material requirements... He could build it exactly as shown and they wouldn't have any legal right to deny him.

[soonerguru]

The land was sold by Urban Renewal to the non-profit Mummers Theater back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. John Kirkpatrick ended up in ownership of the property, through his foundation, when he bailed out the theater in mid-1970s. Kirkpatrick's foundation from there on out owned the land and held the mortgage on the building with reversion rights, which were triggered when the theater closed in 2010 and didn't reopen.

Thanks for the background. And what does "reversion rights" mean in this context?

[Spartan]

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which 10th/Shartel is approaching world class.

The thing I am worried about is that the second is purely theoretical which actually gives us a development well short of $100M.

[s00nr1]

$4.275 million for this property isn't that much -- they could have easily made that back by selling to developers. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with that amount of money.

Especially when you consider the small 1-acre parcel of land at the SE corner of 4th and Telephone Rd in Moore is listed at $1M.

[soonerguru]

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which 10th/Shartel is approaching world class.

The thing I am worried about is that the second is purely theoretical which actually gives us a development well short of $100M.

I agree, but this is where the OKC PTSD kicks in. Is it really real? Will it really be as good as the renderings? Few projects meet or exceed the conceptual renderings in this city it seems.

[Pete]

Especially when you consider the small 1-acre parcel of land at the SE corner of 4th and Telephone Rd in Moore is listed at $1M.

Chesapeake has paid more per acre for dozens of it's properties, many of which are lowly interior industrial lots.

[KenRagsdale]

reversion legal definition of reversion. reversion synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

[Spartan]

I agree, but this is where the OKC PTSD kicks in. Is it really real? Will it really be as good as the renderings? Few projects meet or exceed the conceptual renderings in this city it seems.

Agreed. Just in the past page we've turned the tide in this discussion toward focusing on real issues.

It seems as if the only thing we can do here is make certain that land clearance does not occur independently of redevelopment. The standard for denying a demolition permit of an architectural landmark is easier than denying a development that meets ordinances.

Just to be clear, for those who are confused, there are no ordinances requiring 30-40 story buildings.