Criterion Concert Hall

[Pete]

By this, I mean the downtown ecosystem in its entirety, not the rate of developments proposed and built. A lot of the "catching up" OKC has ahead of it is actually regaining things that were lost in urban renewal. OKC would not need to subsidize the construction of a music venue if it had a historic theater to revitalize into one like most of OKC's peer cities have done.

Again, you offer no comparison to peer cities. Every single American city experienced massive clearing during the urban renewal periods of the 60's and 70's. I'm still not convinced that OKC was in any way exceptional and have thrown down the challenge for others who make that claim to justify it in some way, and no one has ever done it, nor can I find any evidence to support this claim. Go to the urban density thread and follow the links that show the impact of urban renewal on scores of American cities.

And, you are taking a huge leap by saying we "need" to subsidize the concert hall. It was proposed without any ask for public assistance and the City has created a situation where tons of projects get TIF money without any real clear guidelines for accepting and declining such requests. We are basically told, "We can't do this project without it, so gimme or else". We have yet to call a single bluff on this as far as I know.

Also, there a bunch of big projects that have been done downtown or are currently underway without any TIF money. Including the proposed 499 Sheridan and the Metropolitan, the largest downtown housing complex to date.


In this particular case (the Criterion), there is a nearly identical project directly next door that was bought, converted to a concert venue, then recently upgraded at great cost without a dime of public assistance.

[Bullbear]

I think TIF is a valuable tool in the right project but I just don't think every development should be using TIF as their negotiation. Of course the closed mouth doesn't get fed and it never hurts to ask I suppose but we need to be saying now when its appropriate.

[Pete]

BTW, there was a time where almost every new downtown project represented unchartered waters.

The first apartment complexes, the first condo projects, the first few hotels, etc. And then you had the first big apartment complex in Deep Deuce, then in Midtown, etc., etc.

Or, you had a very ambitious restoration project like the Ambassador Hotel or the Marion.


With very few exceptions, all the trails have not only been blazed, they have been well-traveled. Lots and lots of all these projects are open, full, and in most cases generating more income than ever budgeted; and it's happened in almost every district. And lots of companies have moved downtown or have greatly increased their work forces.


So at what point do you finally say, "Look. The City has already invested more than a billion in public funds in downtown. There are several examples of how to make a project work and you can take their numbers to any lending institution. So, time to take the training wheels off, otherwise we will be doing this forever."


It seems we have already crossed this threshold. And instead of giving more and more money out because these districts are taking in way more money than budgeted, why not give a good chunk of it back to the schools and the other coffers where this money would have gone otherwise?

TIF #2 (the one that comprises most of downtown) is now budgeted to receive $126 million vs. the $50 million anticipated. And of course, we just spend that money through the TIF because most consider it to be just "found" dollars.

[Pete]

ALSO...

Only downtown projects have been getting TIF funds; meaning Midtown, Deep Deuce, Bricktown, the CBD, Film Row, etc.

Yet, great renaissances have occurred in the Plaza District, Uptown, the Paseo, Western Avenue and elsewhere. And TIF was not involved in any way.

So, how do you reconcile that -- plus the long list of downtown developments that never asked for TIF dollars -- with the "need" for TIF funds to move urban projects forward?


Forget other cities, we have hundreds of data points right in OKC just since TIF 2 was established.

[Pete]

ALSO Part II...

We are giving this money out because we can. Our cup runneth over, so everybody who asks gets some. Let the good times roll!

However, there is always, always an opportunity cost.

We still have First National Center looming, for example. That is going to be $100 million to renovate, at least. And you could argue that project is so important that they deserve every bit of TIF dollars available.

Also, few realize the American Indian Museum & Cultural Center is within the TIF 2 boundaries. TIF could have been used to keep that project moving forward and they still may need the money yet.

Yet, even though we only anticipated getting $47.5 million, we have already committed $90 million (of the now anticipated $126 million) and we are just over halfway in the 25 year TIF.


How about holding TIF money for exceptional projects (like 21c or FNC) rather than paying it out a few million at a time to dozens of developers, where it only represents an average of 4% of their costs? Does anyone really believe 4% is the difference between building a project and taking a complete pass?

Then, when something great comes along, we are ready. And if that never happens, you return the money to the schools and the general coffers.

[catch22]

I'm currently in a Vo-tech program. Our equipment is outdated, projects we work on are usually pencil whipped because they are broken; these TIF funds we are crediting to developers are at the direct expense of people like me who are trying to better themselves.

I am perfectly okay with this money going to worthy, once in a lifetime projects, or those with very difficult parameters (environment mediation, utilities projects, etc.) but not run of the mill developments. This is not a wise use of the money my school is missing out on to better my education.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm currently in a Vo-tech program. Our equipment is outdated, projects we work on are usually pencil whipped because they are broken; these TIF funds we are crediting to developers are at the direct expense of people like me who are trying to better themselves.

I am perfectly okay with this money going to worthy, once in a lifetime projects, or those with very difficult parameters (environment mediation, utilities projects, etc.) but not run of the mill developments. This is not a wise use of the money my school is missing out on to better my education.

+1

[UnFrSaKn]

From the Bricktown Twitter

https://twitter.com/bricktownokc/sta...50497863688192

[Pete]

This is from yesterday; all the metal buildings are goners:

[HOT ROD]

hope nobody was arguing to save those buildings. ....

[UnFrSaKn]

Seriously doubt it.

[bchris02]

hope nobody was arguing to save those buildings. ....

What was there?

[BDP]

hope nobody was arguing to save those buildings. ....

I imagine that even with the tragic loss of these representative buildings, our net gain in architecture featuring nuanced corrugated industrial siding details was still positive in 2014.

[Tigerguy]

hope nobody was arguing to save those buildings. ....

Worry not. I've heard some fellow by the name of Dowell is planning to preserve the memory of those buildings by cladding his next parking garage with the metal.

[HOT ROD]

lol, it would be an improvement over what he has currently done.

Bchris, I think those buildings housed part of the WW Steel operation. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. ...

Also note, I was being a bit facetious in my previous post (about historic preservation of the sheds. ... ). I totally and completely agree that this Criterion is a much better use.

[Urbanized]

W.H. Stewart Metal Fabricators

[HOT ROD]

right WH Steel.

[Urbanized]

LOL close to WW. Only about a mile and a half away...

[HOT ROD]

ya, lol. I knew it was one of the W original steel mills. ..

[Spartan]

hope nobody was arguing to save those buildings. ....

That's not fair to even suggest. Preservationists are "brickhuggers" for a reason. It's about comparing what we have now to what we get in exchange, and oftentimes new buildings aren't the same quality of design and construction. That's not always true; in this case it's hard to tell if metal sheds or parking lots are "better," but at least the parking lots help support other sites. East Bricktown metal sheds don't have a future in OKC, whereas hopefully good historic buildings do.

[Urbanized]

He was joking, but you're correct that some would like to marginalize preservationists by suggesting that they are against any and all demolitions.

[Rover]

Actually, some of those buildings on the south side have lots of history. The ones that looked like quansit huts housed the early manufacturing of one of Oklahoma's biggest employers....LSB Industries.

[Urbanized]

I don't disagree, yet let it be noted that there was not a preservation battle.

[Spartan]

Just so that's clear

[Kemotblue]

WOW! To the photo of demolished site. So the construction on the Concert Hall has begun in Bricktown.