OG&E Tower

[OKCisOK4me]

Huh?

Austin used to be a lot smaller than OKC before it took off. Charlotte was once smaller, too. Charlotte in fact has practically no historic building stock.

Ummmmm, yeah, because it was all destroyed in the Civil War, lol.

Dude, a city doesn't just up and build skyscrapers three days after it is incorporated. I'm saying that those cities have still been around longer. For a young city, OKC has a great skyline and even if this year reveals two tower projects then bravo.

[Spartan]

I don't know what point you're trying to make (first you said we're not comparable to Austin and Charlotte because they're much older settlements than 1889), but this is what Charlotte did in the last 40 years:




I have a feeling that you're actually backing up the urbanist point, and you're a good poster obviously. I just want to clear up that this is what happens when cities go through a boom period. OKC is different from Charlotte and Austin in that despite tearing down 2,000 buildings during urban renewal, we still have more historic building stock than those cities. AND we've already gone through multiple booms (incorporation/post-land run, oil discovery, 80s oil boom) similar to Charlotte in the 2000s and Austin today.

On that basis, disregarding the current booms that those cities are experiencing that make ours look like modest growth (which it still is), I would argue that we're a city that is more historically established. We really do have some decent history. We're also a city that's suffered innumerable tragic setbacks and for far too long we were in the shadow of Dallas.

[OKCisOK4me]

My point was just that OKC is younger than all other cities previously compared to

And WOW

Those two pics above really tell the story! Reminds me of Dubai from 1997 to now. I'd post those pics but I'm currently on my cell phone.

Urban development is your forte, I know ;-)

[Spartan]

Yeah, the cool thing is Charlotte didn't do too bad in trying to recreate the grandeur of cities past. Balancing human scale with sky-high aspirations. Everything a great city should be.

OKC, Austin, and Charlotte may actually be some of the most similar cities in the nation, especially in terms of history. The important distinction is that all of these cities' time is NOW. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, Cincinnati--their time is past. All of those cities are a shell of their former selves. Cleveland, St. Louis, and even Buffalo used to be among the five largest U.S. cities at different times. NY used to be the Empire State. Buffalo is now comparable to OKC in every way. That was their time.

OKC will take off and be a tier one city someday. That's a bold prediction, but I don't know when or how it will happen. It probably won't happen for another hundred years and I won't get to see it. We'll have to ween ourselves off of the oil economy, first. Dallas and Houston have cornered that possibility, and both of them rode oil to the top tier of cities.

[Spartan]

Here's what Houston did in 50 years:




One thing remains constant with Houston: freeways

[bchris02]

I don't know what point you're trying to make (first you said we're not comparable to Austin and Charlotte because they're much older settlements than 1889), but this is what Charlotte did in the last 40 years:




I have a feeling that you're actually backing up the urbanist point, and you're a good poster obviously. I just want to clear up that this is what happens when cities go through a boom period. OKC is different from Charlotte and Austin in that despite tearing down 2,000 buildings during urban renewal, we still have more historic building stock than those cities. AND we've already gone through multiple booms (incorporation/post-land run, oil discovery, 80s oil boom) similar to Charlotte in the 2000s and Austin today.

On that basis, disregarding the current booms that those cities are experiencing that make ours look like modest growth (which it still is), I would argue that we're a city that is more historically established. We really do have some decent history. We're also a city that's suffered innumerable tragic setbacks and for far too long we were in the shadow of Dallas.

Great post.

This is one reason I compare OKC to Charlotte. Other than the fact I lived in Charlotte and loved it, there are some development similarities. The first picture of Charlotte above looks very OKCish pre-Devon, except that Charlotte lacked urban bones. Despite that though, Charlotte today is far and away ahead of OKC in terms of urban feel, and its all because of relatively recent development. OKC though has enough history left that if it experienced half the boom Charlotte did, it could come out ahead.

Being in the shadow of Dallas will tamper OKC's economic growth prospects. Most corporate relocations are going to go to Dallas and not OKC. I don't think OKC will or even can experienced the type of boom Charlotte did that created the skyline you see above. This city just doesn't have the momentum they do. That doesn't mean it can't transform its skyline with a few modern looking skyscrapers and continue to infill with low-rise residential.

[Spartan]

Our old skyline wasn't bad. It was really one of the better ones for cities our size, it just happened to be #2 in state. That was a problem.

[jccouger]

All you guys have proven with these last few posts is that a cities growth over time is judged by its downtown skyline. I know that isn't completely true, but in 50 years when people want to talk about how much Oklahoma City grew during its boom they will show the skyline prior to Devon and then the current skyline. A 14 story tower won't hardly add anything to the snapshot growth.

[ourulz2000]

fwiw, the renaissance tower wasn't built till 99'

[Just the facts]

If it is a world-class building, it won't matter how it affects the skyline, it will get its due.

You now what makes this height thing so funny is that this building is replacing an abandoned structure that is all of 50 feet tall and isn't visible in any 'post card', but its defenders swear to high heaven that it is one of the most important buildings in the history of OKC. It even won an award (although don't put to much stock in awards - a section of I-40 in Seminole Country just won an award also).

[Spartan]

All you guys have proven with these last few posts is that a cities growth over time is judged by its downtown skyline. I know that isn't completely true, but in 50 years when people want to talk about how much Oklahoma City grew during its boom they will show the skyline prior to Devon and then the current skyline. A 14 story tower won't hardly add anything to the snapshot growth.

Idk about that, all I've done is explain the difference between building our skyline up and Charlotte's build up. Charlotte's #1 fan even agreed we could come out ahead as a more urban city because of our strong stock of good SMALL SCALE structures garnishing the skyline.

[Pete]

You now what makes this height thing so funny is that this building is replacing an abandoned structure that is all of 50 feet tall and isn't visible in any 'post card', but its defenders swear to high heaven that it is one of the most important buildings in the history of OKC. It even won an award (although don't put to much stock in awards - a section of I-40 in Seminole Country just won an award also).

It has been featured in articles all over the world and in some circles has international recognition.

I'm not a fan but it is one of the few notable structures in all of Oklahoma.

[jccouger]

Idk about that, all I've done is explain the difference between building our skyline up and Charlotte's build up. Charlotte's #1 fan even agreed we could come out ahead as a more urban city because of our strong stock of good SMALL SCALE structures garnishing the skyline.

Indeed. We have plenty of stock of small scale structures so all we need now is big ones.
Keep the small, walkable urban structures in our small urban districts (bricktown, deep duece, AA) were street level interaction is most important.
Put the big ones in our CBD, were height is important.

[Spartan]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same city or downtown. Are you aware of how vacant and abandoned lots stretch from te Stage Center to the south, west, and north as far as the eye can see?

That is a lot worse and a much more pressing concern than out-skylining Charlotte or Austin.

[bchris02]

Indeed. We have plenty of stock of small scale structures so all we need now is big ones.
Keep the small, walkable urban structures in our small urban districts (bricktown, deep duece, AA) were street level interaction is most important.
Put the big ones in our CBD, were height is important.

Agreed. New low-rise structures like the Metropolitan, historic gentrification, and skyscrapers are all equally important in terms of creating a complete urban experience in a mid-sized city in the interior of the US. I don't agree with opposing the Stage Center Tower because it has its place in our downtown urban fabric, providing that Rainey delivers on his promise, but this city really needs a skyscraper boom. Like I said, if OKC even got half of the development Charlotte did, that would be enough.

[jccouger]

Eventually those vacant lots will and should become full over time. (instead of tearing down unique structures, cough*stage center*cough)

If you notice in the Charlotte's skyline, most of the height is packed in to a dense space. If we build mid rises in the spots right next to our most vertical structures then eventually when somebody wants to build a large vertical structure it will be sprawled away from the rest of the height due to mid rises occupying the land around the rest of the height.

The good thing about having tall buildings right next to each other is that usually companies will overflow in their current headquarters and a need will arise to lease space in a close by building. This happens so much already, but if the large buildings are spread out it will only create problems with unifying our downtown. There is a reason why the underground tunnels were built (even though they were a failure). Downtown's should work as almost one entity.

[Just the facts]

It has been featured in articles all over the world and in some circles has international recognition.

I'm not a fan but it is one of the few notable structures in all of Oklahoma.

How is that possible seeing as how it is so short?

[catch22]

There are still plenty of lots that are close to the "core" of the CBD that you could plop a tower down onto. This is not the only vacant parcel. Demand for office space may be high, but at what pricepoint?

What is the $/sq ft to lease space in a brand spanking new $500,000,000 tower? What is the $/sq ft to lease in a brand new 14 story tower? It does cost to go vertical, and if land is plentiful, it's hard to justify paying a super-premium on space just so you can have a 40 floor view.

Also, will the bank give you a $500,000,000 loan? What will they charge you on interest on that loan? That interest will compound, and will also need to be included in your rent. So your $500,000,000 tower just became a $600,000,000 tower. And, you only have a tenant lined up to lease 14 floors of that. Would you take out a $500,000,000 loan on that hope that someone will lease your space after you build and complete your project, in the meantime you are paying interest on the loan during construction? I sure as heck wouldn't.

[Pete]

How is that possible seeing as how it is so short?

We are talking about office buildings on this thread, not performing arts centers.

[OkieNate]

How in the world did Rainey Williams purchase the Stage Center real estate for $4.275 million. (3.15 acres= 143,514 sq ft. middle of downtown OKC), when Brixton Square shopping center sold for $13 million (125,394 sq ft. = 2.75 acres, far NW OKC). Is it the property on those 2.75 acres or what? I know something cost what someone is willing to pay for but I'd like a little deeper answer than this, especially considering it is well known there were other offers on the SC site.

[catch22]

Answer: Brixton Square provides revenue and is functional. Stage Center costs money to just keep the walls from falling in on itself.

[Pete]

^

Commercial properties are valued on their income streams, not the underlying land.

Brixton Square generates income and Stage Center does not. In fact, it will cost a fair amount of money to demolish Stage Center, not including any possible legal battles.


Having said all that, the Stage Center property seems to have sold for a pretty low amount. Part of that may be due to the possible legal fight and also, the foundation that sold it said beforehand that they would sell based on the proposed development versus the highest price.

[adaniel]

How in the world did Rainey Williams purchase the Stage Center real estate for $4.275 million. (3.15 acres= 143,514 sq ft. middle of downtown OKC), when Brixton Square shopping center sold for $13 million (125,394 sq ft. = 2.75 acres, far NW OKC). Is it the property on those 2.75 acres or what? I know something cost what someone is willing to pay for but I'd like a little deeper answer than this, especially considering it is well known there were other offers on the SC site.

Very much apples and oranges here. You are comparing the square footage of raw land that will have to to remedied to a fully functioning, largely leased out shopping center. And I take some issue with this notion that there were better deals out there because, simply put, nobody knows how those would have transpired. The history of this city is rife with grand, somewhat unrealistic promises that never see the light of day.

[OkieNate]

Answer: Brixton Square provides revenue and is functional. Stage Center costs money to just keep the walls from falling in on itself.

Yes, I 100% understand this, that is why I worded my question they way I did. I asked about the real estate. I know you cannot put a value on what something COULD be, but that 3.15 acres in downtown OKC for 4.275, seems like it would be worth more. Especially given what is currently around it, MBG, Devon, up and coming AA, and Film row.

[catch22]

If you are buying the land, you must assume that in a worst case scenario, the second after you sign the papers, Wall Street crashes and you can't get a loan for jack squat. Can't even get a loan to demo it and put a parking lot and outhouse. Now you just paid a ton of money for a collection of concrete and corrugated steel containers with a theater in the middle that floods. You are buying a non-functional piece of land. We now know that a city block of non-functioning, revenue negative property with concrete and steel is worth about $4 million.