OG&E Energy Center

[Plutonic Panda]

I guess I just don't understand what you and others think is so laughable about these OG&E buildings. They would stack up with or be taller than most of those buildings on that list? I know a half a billion is a pretty sublime number and 400 ish feet isn't exactly what you want, but laughable? Is it too much to ask for a little bit of a sense of reality here?

You know, I really don't even know what we're debating anymore or why I'm even responding, but I do not consider these proposed buildings to be high-rise and I'm not the only one by a long shot, but whatevs. You can have the last word.

[OkieNate]

You know, I really don't even know what we're debating anymore or why I'm even responding, but I do not consider these proposed buildings to be high-rise and I'm not the only one by a long shot, but whatevs. You can have the last word.

I'll take the last word thank you. What I'm arguing about is that we are getting at least 2 possibly 4 buildings twice the height and floors of what was originally proposed/presented and possibly a hotel the size of the original concept, and you and others are talking about what other cities think and how to define its height. It's obnoxious and ridiculous. These buildings will seriously beef our skyline up like 35% and make it insanely different looking from nearly every direction. I realize this is a forum and you are free to state your opinion and in return so am I. If you don't think they are high rises okay fine but saying people from city x would laugh at the idea they are, (they are) well your view of the world is tiny. And that might have sounded offensive but don't take it to be, I enjoy most of your posts and all of your pictures, you're a great okctalk contributor. Just a bit of advice from an asshole stranger, stop caring about what others think so much. (Hilarious advice after this rant eh?)

[OkieNate]

Final thought in a nut shell would be don't compare Okc to Austin or Dallas or etc... Compare Okc now to Okc 10 years ago.

[catch22]

STAAAHHHHHPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPPppppppppppp.

[skanaly]

They're actually building another one taller than the Khalifa

You're thinking of Kingdom Tower, that's in Saudi Arabia. As of right now there is no building that is under construction. So many proposals, too bad lot's will never be built

[skanaly]

Does anyone know when they are supposed to vote? Since it was postponed I haven't heard of a new date..

[Plutonic Panda]

I'll take the last word thank you. What I'm arguing about is that we are getting at least 2 possibly 4 buildings twice the height and floors of what was originally proposed/presented and possibly a hotel the size of the original concept, and you and others are talking about what other cities think and how to define its height. It's obnoxious and ridiculous. These buildings will seriously beef our skyline up like 35% and make it insanely different looking from nearly every direction. I realize this is a forum and you are free to state your opinion and in return so am I. If you don't think they are high rises okay fine but saying people from city x would laugh at the idea they are, (they are) well your view of the world is tiny. And that might have sounded offensive but don't take it to be, I enjoy most of your posts and all of your pictures, you're a great okctalk contributor. Just a bit of advice from an asshole stranger, stop caring about what others think so much. (Hilarious advice after this rant eh?)

Just to say, I don't think you're an asshole and I respect your posts. I just wanted to acknowledge it. Sorry if I came across as annoying as sometimes I do repeat the same thing a lot.

[HOT ROD]

omg, I don't really care what city data or whomever says. When these are U/C, they will be termed as high rises by all industry sources; emporis, ssc, ssp, so on.

it is great that Clayco is proposing to build 4 high rises, they themselves called them high rises (and not mid rises). They are from Chicago which is the world council (if you will) on all things high rise and skyscraper.

I think you could rest assured to tell your friends/others that OKC indeed has many high rises but we have one that dwarfs the others as seen from most vantage points. Perhaps take them INSIDE of downtown and they'll likely agree that OKC has more than one high rise.

[KayneMo]

For me, buildings taller than 100 meters (328 feet) are skyscrapers. I saw that somewhere (I can't remember where) and that threshold has stuck with me since. I don't use floor count because floor-to-floor heights vary too much.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

[Pete]

Yeah, let's please get back to discussing this project. Way off topic here.

[Spartan]

Why are we discussing Austin? I hope to god nobody thinks we are at that level yet...

[ChrisHayes]

I agree. Austin is awesome looking but I wouldn't want their housing prices or traffic. Let's stick with being Oklahoma City and trying to build our way up and improve what we have.

[Spartan]

Someone help me - How do I like a post? (I usually leave that to you all... jk jk jk)

[Urbanized]

I don't think the time is right on the server. The time stamps are all wrong. Right now it's only 4:63 AM by my watch.

[Snowman]

I don't think the time is right on the server. The time stamps are all wrong. Right now it's only 4:63 AM by my watch.

I notice a different issue like a day or two ago, where some new posts were showing the original posted time hours earlier than those posted minutes before

[Pete]

One thing that has barely been touched on are the incentives being requested for the south parcel.

Cathy O'Connor has said both Clayco and Milhaus are seeking "significant" packages and that serious negotiations must take place.


We've set a precedent where virtually everyone has their hands out and I don't think we've said no yet.

The public has already invested billions into downtown; at what point do we stop giving further subsidies?


In the case of the south parcel, I could see the City using the proceeds from the land sale to move the existing tenants but beyond that, why should taxpayers be subsidizing all these private companies and developers?

This is another area where i would like to see comparisons to the practices of other cities which have had a fair amount of success. I have to believe OKC is using more tax dollars for urban development per capita than anywhere else.

[NWOKCGuy]

I don't know about that. Nashville, Austin and Charlotte have very robust sections of their chamber websites discussing tax incentives.

[Pete]

I don't know, either.

But don't you think all those cities have had some significant urban construction where large incentives weren't involved?

Do you think Austin is paying every developer and business in their core?

I can't think of one significant downtown OKC project that wasn't completely publicly funded or didn't receive various tax-funded incentives.

[Motley]

OKC may need to do more until they have more of a self-sustaining base. Austin has a lot of natural and pre-existing reasons to invest there, and the sad fact is that OKC is only now beginning to be compelling all on its own. Face it, Clayco is taking a gamble by speculating on high-end housing and office space. If I were investing my money on a speculative market, I would bet on Austin over OKC. OKC needs to underwrite more investment, at least for a while more.

[Eddie1]

OKC may need to do more until they have more of a self-sustaining base. Austin has a lot of natural and pre-existing reasons to invest there, and the sad fact is that OKC is only now beginning to be compelling all on its own. Face it, Clayco is taking a gamble by speculating on high-end housing and office space. If I were investing my money on a speculative market, I would bet on Austin over OKC. OKC needs to underwrite more investment, at least for a while more.

Well said. I agree, were cool but not yet part of the "cool crowd". For now, at least, we still need to buy friends.

[Motley]

If the city were to invest in a concept like CuatroDeMayo designed for the tech area and with Core to Shore (if successful) and the river, I could see OKC having the overall feel that would propel them into the next level of cities. The central core with the river, the parks, and a beautiful tech center would create a synergistic effect over the whole area. (Wouldn't hurt for the capitol area to be redone too). If I were the city, I would really concentrate on creating a masterful tech center next.

[Pete]

My concern is how we determine what is appropriate and where to draw the line.

Do we need to be paying OPUBCO to move to downtown offices?

Should we be giving millions to Continental for creating jobs they were certainly going to create anyway?


There has to be some sort of analysis and monitoring done to figure out what projects are worth the incentives and where to start shutting off the spigot.

And as it is, we clearly have people in power who feel like we should just keep writing checks, so where is the watchdog function?

[Motley]

You are absolutely right. As with any project, you have to have a budget and priorities and a plan and metrics. OKC needs to have a vision for the area and decide how to invest in the infrastructure that will create a desirable place for private investment, and then have a second budget for attracting private money into the area, but based on established criteria and metrics. Every dollar invested by the city in a private venture must provide for a minimum return, either in tax money or in future growth spurred by that investment. I think a first class design like Clayco will only up the ante for the rest of the area, and investing in that will pay off for the city. Now, if I were the city, I would be looking to attract another major industry to downtown to show that OKC is more than a single industry town.

[HOT ROD]

+1