OG&E Energy Center

[warreng88]

Pete, do we have any idea what Clayco is asking for incentives for the north (Stage Center) development? Roughly the same amount?

[bchris02]

It looks like the fine print of the Clayco proposal is that the residential portion is dependent on them being able to lease the north portion. Therefore ideally there will will be four towers but they could in fact only build three if leasing is weaker than expected in the first tower. The Milhaus residential tower, though smaller, is a sure thing. The Milhaus proposal does not include an office tower though.

[Just the facts]

Because the Milhaus plan puts residential directly adjacent to the park and masses the building at the intersection I think I prefer it. Also, the idea of two almost identical buildings side by side excites me about as much as.... well, let's just say it doesn't excite me at all.

[soondoc]

So, are we down to 3 now from the proposed 4? Looks like we are talking about a 400, 390, 290 foot buildings. Please Clayco, just go 35 floors on one of them and get it above 500-600 feet. I am sorry but these are just barely taller than mid rises.

[PhiAlpha]

So, are we down to 3 now from the proposed 4? Looks like we are talking about a 400, 390, 290 foot buildings. Please Clayco, just go 35 floors on one of them and get it above 500-600 feet. I am sorry but these are just barely taller than mid rises.

Jeez please don't start this crap again.

Besides who said there are only three? This literature only discusses the south half of the block. You can't see the other tower on the north half behind the other office tower from that angle.

[adaniel]

Are you trying to be a troll?

Nowhere does it say they are down to three buildings. This TIF request is for the south parcel ONLY. But nice try there inserting your already well repeated complaints on the height.

[PhiAlpha]

Because the Milhouse plan puts residential directly adjacent to the park and masses the building at the intersection I think I prefer it. Also, the idea of two almost identical buildings side by side excites me about as much as.... well, let's just say it doesn't excite me at all.

I agree about fronting the park with residential, but I hope they don't use that as the deciding factor. The milhouse proposal looks pretty weak compared to clayco's.

[Just the facts]

The Milhaus residential tower, though smaller, is a sure thing. The Milhaus proposal does not include an office tower though.

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

[soondoc]

Alpha, sorry buddy, just scroll right past me then if you don't like my posts. I'm not trying to offend, just disappointed and speaking what in my mind seems to be true. They are just barely taller than mid rises and will not have a huge impact on our skyline, although they are cool projects. Just asking for at least one of them to stand out and make an impact, that's not too much to ask for is?

[bchris02]

I agree about fronting the park with residential, but I hope they don't use that as the deciding factor. The milhouse proposal looks pretty weak compared to clayco's.

I agree. The thing is, I would be beyond excited about the Milhaus proposal on any other lot, but because it's underwhelming compared to what it is up against I hope it doesn't win. I do hope they decide to build it on another lot.

[Pete]

Pete, do we have any idea what Clayco is asking for incentives for the north (Stage Center) development? Roughly the same amount?

Good question. I'll research it.

Also, I'm working on a list of all the other TIF's and where the money has been spent.

The biggest TIF award I've seen is the $5.3 million for 21c ($51.5 mil investment).

[bchris02]

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

I get what you are saying. I still prefer the Clayco proposal, but will still be excited if Milhaus wins for that reason. It does have the advantage of park-front living.

[PhiAlpha]

Alpha, sorry buddy, just scroll right past me then if you don't like my posts. I'm not trying to offend, just disappointed and speaking what in my mind seems to be true. They are just barely taller than mid rises and will not have a huge impact on our skyline, although they are cool projects. Just asking for at least one of them to stand out and make an impact, that's not too much to ask for is?

Anyone that has ever read this thread knows you're disappointed, stop repeating it over and over again. You are turning into a troll.

[OKCRT]

Clayco all the way for me. Milhaus can maybe find another area to build their project.

[wsucougz]

Clayco. I love the uniformity of the two buildings, not to mention the quality.

[Motley]

The Clayco proposal is a safer bet. There will be a beautiful twin to the OG&E building flanking the park, and the residential tower on the north lot will demonstrate if a second residential tower is warranted. If they have trouble leasing the north tower, then the south residential tower would be problematic for Milhaus anyway. If the north tower leases quickly, then Clayco will add the south tower soon enough. If the north tower doesn't lease, maybe Clayco would do a third office tower or a hotel in the space.

[Spartan]

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

I am impressed with Clayco's ability to create a more impactful urban development out of less units (reserving more inelastic demand left over for a continued stream of developments).

The Milhaus proposal, though exciting and impressive on its own, just does not compare to Clayco. All that remains to be seen is what kind of settlement is reached between the schools and the development.

On one hand this is heavy residential across the street from the school. On the other hand the specially approved large TIF could be used for a parking facility hidden in the site to also serve the park and convention center..it could also maintain a "Festival Plaza" along the California Avenue axis with Crystal Bridge..it could be a very cool setting that continues the big city park environment through the OG+E project. This negotiation highlights the challenges of urban real estate development.

[boitoirich]

I am impressed with Clayco's ability to create a more impactful urban development out of less units (reserving more inelastic demand left over for a continued stream of developments).

This is just to quibble, but if residential demand were inelastic then we should actually support Milhaus' development here since it would bring both more density and allow for more dense development to the west. Inelastic demand would also suggest, no require, that north residential tower perform either well enough to support building the the south residential tower, or not well at all, leading to no further residential towers. Allowing for a continued stream of developments would suggest a market of elastic demand. But then again I'm tired, so I might double check this in the morning and cringe.

[GaryOKC6]

I think that the Clayco development is a jewel for OKC. I doubt that they will have any trouble filling a residential tower. I have talked with dozens of professionals who have told me that they will move there right away. everyone of them have the means to do it as well.

[Spartan]

This is just to quibble, but if residential demand were inelastic then we should actually support Milhaus' development here since it would bring both more density and allow for more dense development to the west. Inelastic demand would also suggest, no require, that north residential tower perform either well enough to support building the the south residential tower, or not well at all, leading to no further residential towers. Allowing for a continued stream of developments would suggest a market of elastic demand. But then again I'm tired, so I might double check this in the morning and cringe.

You just may lol, no offense since I always appreciate your very informed viewpoints. Inelastic demand is somewhat fixed in that it only grows with population trends and the legitimization of its market (in other words only the dependent controls can grow inelastic demand). Luckily there is a TON of this demand. That's when you still do your market study, and it comes back as a green light.

As for density, more density is not necessarily more meaningful density. I don't think we need to push for higher density than the Clayco development, which is a great "density pinnacle" if you're looking at standards like CNU (new urbanism) or DPZ (smart code).

I think high rise apartments is the way to go. It works very well when the market is looking for "vanity," which lets face it is the main thing driving downtown housing. This is gentrification en masse, whereas the inner city historic districts all have much much slower markets. The views provided by high rise housing is the primo advantage Clayco will have, and they will do VERY well by offering a strong market something it doesn't have yet.

Was it Tim Cook that said Apple flourishes by selling you something you need so bad you didn't even know you needed it a year ago?

[Pete]

I think that the Clayco development is a jewel for OKC. I doubt that they will have any trouble filling a residential tower. I have talked with dozens of professionals who have told me that they will move there right away. everyone of them have the means to do it as well.

I agree with this because there is simply nothing like it.

We don't have mid- or high-rise luxury apartments at all right now and you combine that with the proposed amenities and access to the the park and the rest of the CBD, and I think they'll set a new standard in rents.

I also think they time is right to test the market with high-rise condos for the same reason: There are none in the market, apart from the handful at City Place and those are all crazy expensive.

The Centennial condo project in Lower Bricktown is by far the most successful project of it's type in OKC. It sold out almost immediately and it's nothing special, other than for sale units in a good location with decent amenities and a little bit of a view.

[boitoirich]

You just may lol, no offense since I always appreciate your very informed viewpoints. Inelastic demand is somewhat fixed in that it only grows with population trends and the legitimization of its market (in other words only the dependent controls can grow inelastic demand). Luckily there is a TON of this demand. That's when you still do your market study, and it comes back as a green light.

As for density, more density is not necessarily more meaningful density. I don't think we need to push for higher density than the Clayco development, which is a great "density pinnacle" if you're looking at standards like CNU (new urbanism) or DPZ (smart code).

I think high rise apartments is the way to go. It works very well when the market is looking for "vanity," which lets face it is the main thing driving downtown housing. This is gentrification en masse, whereas the inner city historic districts all have much much slower markets. The views provided by high rise housing is the primo advantage Clayco will have, and they will do VERY well by offering a strong market something it doesn't have yet.

Was it Tim Cook that said Apple flourishes by selling you something you need so bad you didn't even know you needed it a year ago?

OK I see what you were getting at. You were referring to the elasticity of demand for high rise housing in particular, not residential in general. That makes sense, and your analysis becomes more clear in context. I agree then, and in this case we would also consider the elasticity of supply. Since there is currently only one developer willing to build such a product, Clayco would be the rational choice.

[Rover]

Inelasticity of demand implies that demand doesn't change with price change. Rarely does true inelasticity exist. The issue is at what point that elasticity exhibits itself in a significant sense. Same for elasticity of supply.

[boitoirich]

Inelasticity of demand implies that demand doesn't change with price change. Rarely does true inelasticity exist. The issue is at what point that elasticity exhibits itself in a significant sense. Same for elasticity of supply.

True. You're discussing the price inelasticity of demand. At first I thought Spartan was talking about that as well and that's why I responded. What he was really getting at was that as there is currently very little supply of high-rise residential and pent up demand, a clever strategy might be to go with fewer units (Clayco) to encourage the development of yet another high-rise building (Milhaus? Lumberyards?) elsewhere. It's an interesting little idea, and perhaps couching it in a discussion of elasticity is a bit clumsy, but it shouldn't be outright dismissed because of that.

Either way, I think the city should demand (huzzah) Clayco build both residential properties if they are to receive such substantial public funding. While downtown office space is tight, housing options are in even shorter supply and are arguably more worthy of public intervention. Besides, with such low vacancy rates for office, the market is set to take care of that problem on its own. Residential, on the other hand, should be pushed at every opportunity until we have achieved critical mass.

[OKCRT]

Let me ask this. Can Clayco build one residential tower and Milhaus build theirs on that site? I think I already know the answer but just throwing it out there.