OG&E Energy Center

[Pete]

I'm a little surprised that the Clayco confirmation came out before the demolition finished, I was expecting them to wait on that announcement a bit longer in order to limit the bad PR a bit. Then again, it's not like anyone who cares about the stage center isn't already paying attention.

After we reported their involvement, Rainey Williams came out and said Clayco was a "consultant" and they were still looking for an architect.

My understanding is that they had already hired Clayco as the architects some time ago.

[OkieNate]

has the OG&E HQ been bumped from 14-16 to 16-18 or has it always been 16-18?

[modernism]

Clayco built a 30 story mixed use residential high rise in St. Louis.


Office & Residential Construction - Clayco - The Plaza in Clayton

Also, The Vue in Orlando:

Apartment Building Construction - Clayco - The Vue ? Orlando

[modernism]

has the OG&E HQ been bumped from 14-16 to 16-18 or has it always been 16-18?

It was bumped up...

[bchris02]

Here is a complex called "The Vue" in Charlotte.

[KayneMo]

Clayco built a 30 story mixed use residential high rise in St. Louis.


Office & Residential Construction - Clayco - The Plaza in Clayton

Oh! I love that.

[Thesaurum]

BTW, I don't know what James Dunn plans to do with his property on this block but the City could use eminent domain to make it available for a developer who would like to include it in their larger plan.

Not saying this would happen, but it means that any potential developer knows that they don't have to depend on Dunn voluntarily selling in order to include that property in their plans.

Clayco cant just build the OGE tower higher and bigger to include this mixed use that they want on the south? There is plenty of space on the stage center block to make it work. But why control one block when you can control two...

And I could see some serious legal issues to eminent domain-ing the Dunn property to transfer to another developer.

I'm with onthestrip on this one. In 2006 The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY v. LOWERY - FindLaw that economic development is not a permitted reason to use eminent domain under the Oklahoma Constitution:

While the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” the Oklahoma Constitution places further restrictions by expressly stating “[n]o private property shall be taken or damaged for private use, with or without compensation.”  OKLA. CONST. art. 2, § 23   ......  The proposed purpose of economic development, with its incidental enhancement of tax and employment benefits to the surrounding community, clearly does not fall within any of these categories of express constitutional exceptions to the general rule against the taking of private property for private use.

That said, the fact OGE/Rainey/Clayco wants to beef-up this project is encouraging. I assume they are prepared to deal with Mr. Dunn if required.

[Pete]

^

I don't want to get into a legal argument but there have been many cases where courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- have upheld eminent domain from private to private owners.

However, the private property on this block is small and excluded from the RFP. I would think developers would make a very generous to Mr. Dunn and he doesn't want to accept, they'll merely build around him.

[Thesaurum]

^
As you say then. It would be boorish of me to argue with the host in his own home.

[hoya]

I am not an expert on eminent domain, but the Oklahoma Constitution provides additional protections beyond that of the US Constitution. That said, lawyers like money. I'll bet Mr. Dunn would be quite happy to cash in.

[Pete]

I would bet that Cathy O'Connor has helped facilitate talks between potential developers and Mr. Dunn.

It's just a 4,000 SF building that he paid $315,000 for in 2000.

[kevinpate]

I am not an expert on eminent domain, but the Oklahoma Constitution provides additional protections beyond that of the US Constitution. That said, lawyers like money. I'll bet Mr. Dunn would be quite happy to cash in.

This. Though Mr. Dunn, or anyone else with a functioning enterprise in the same setting, could easily smile and rather safely say pass if there was no desire to move, real money talks real loud.

[Spartan]

So it seems pretty obvious that California needs to be restored, but I'm not seeing any hint of a land swap written into the RFP, bc this would be the stage to do that. They need to separate an easement and discuss funding (probably TIF bc I know the city wouldn't pay for it the same way we pay for other new roads bc "oooh it's downtown it's funding has to be different and weird..")

[Spartan]

This. Though Mr. Dunn, or anyone else with a functioning enterprise in the same setting, could easily smile and rather safely say pass if there was no desire to move, real money talks real loud.

His building that we're talking about is basically nothing. So this shouldn't even take much real money but I'm sure he'll get double to triple what he paid.

[Pete]

Give him a million, send him on his way.

[catch22]

The way it sounds to me is that we will have a superblock. What are the chances the california ROW is closed and we end up with a contiguous development?

[Urbanized]

BTW, the Dunn building was formerly the home to the human resources department of Fred Jones Companies.

[Spartan]

The way it sounds to me is that we will have a superblock. What are the chances the california ROW is closed and we end up with a contiguous development?

Well unless retaining the California easement is WRITTEN into the RFP then that's exactly the ball that starts rolling.

[zookeeper]

Any coincidence to this new information and the Stage Center demolition which proceeds this week? Don't watch the man behind the curtain! Look - shiny new buildings to replace it!
Demolition + new plans announced for the south block = distraction.

[okclee]

^^ Exactly what I am thinking too, a simple "Smoke Screen" to further distract from the SC demo.

[kevinpate]

Heavens to Betsy Claire, what a dreadful idea.

[zookeeper]

Heavens to Betsy Claire, what a dreadful idea.

While some may think it clever and not such a "dreadful idea," some of us see it as calculating and manipulative. I suppose there's nothing wrong with it if one thinks this kind of "look over here!" while an icon is demolished is acceptable. I'm just one that doesn't think that it is. It may be typical, but it's still manipulation.

[Pete]

I'm sure they want to change the conversation away from the demolition, but they also didn't want to release new renderings because it puts the architect in the crosshairs.

So, in this way they can shift the focus to something new without necessarily having to use an architect to take the heat.

It's smart PR. And it's certainly not coincidental that all this comes out just as they put up the demolition fence.

[Spartan]

Why don't they use an architect to design a good project, rather than to take heat. This isn't difficult.

[okclee]

Why don't they use an architect to design a good project, rather than to take heat. This isn't difficult.

That is why I think this is so strange. Show me something with from the architect and someone that can make it happen, it happens everywhere like this all the time.