BOK Park Plaza

[PhiAlpha]

I wonder if a couple months worth of red tape and delay might be enough to stop this project dead in it tracks. I think one of the reason Devon has put a rush on this is to get it started before the bottom falls out of the oil market and the Wall Street types put an end to the non-core spending.

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

[bchris02]

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

Oil was $34/bbl in 2009. Let's hope it doesn't go that low this time but if it did, it isn't uncharted territory as long as it doesn't stay there long term. Many analysts are predicting oil prices to eventually go back up to the $80-$100 range mid-term and if that happens the worrying can be over.

[soondoc]

I thought DocThunder's post sounded a lot like soondoc.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is the first time I have been on this site in days. I decided that everyone knew my feelings about it being taller and that this and 2 parking garages just don't seem adequate, but I stopped posting about it. I even had some bozo send me private message screaming and yelling, that's pretty bad for someone to go to that level. I only want the best for this city and want it to be great not just ok.

For the bozo who emailed me, I advised that he was very immature and it wasn't warranted. I'd like to further discuss how easily it is to do a power blast double leg on someone who is 6'5 and some nice submission holds once down on the ground. Anyway, before anymore of those comments, I guess you all have a new person to deal with. In fact you can verify it with Pete if you prefer.

[Just the facts]

As I've posted elsewhere, Devon started there tower during the worst pricing environment in the last decade. If they are planning to do it, commodity prices will not hold them back.

That idea was dead in the water before it even set sail. As Rover reminded me, Hines is the developer, not Devon. I have no idea what Hines' sensitivity to oil prices is.

[Bellaboo]

Oil was $34/bbl in 2009. Let's hope it doesn't go that low this time but if it did, it isn't uncharted territory as long as it doesn't stay there long term. Many analysts are predicting oil prices to eventually go back up to the $80-$100 range mid-term and if that happens the worrying can be over.

Oil might have slipped lately, but natural gas is profitable. It's not doom and gloom, yet.

[mugofbeer]

I'd love to see a couple of the bigger buildings saved and incorporated into the new project but its not my block or my money that is being invested. If there is historic preservation to be had, the designation should be put on and some historic preservation entity needs to buy the block for a market price. Otherwise, the owner is free to do whatever he wants to do. As Pete said, this is clearly an annex to the Devon tower. They need additional space and parking and this development serves their needs. Maintaining a 1-story bus station does not serve the owner a sufficient economic return or they would have done it. The owners made an investment and they expect to get a return for their investment. Anyone want to pony up a million or two for starters?

[hoya]

I'd love to see a couple of the bigger buildings saved and incorporated into the new project but its not my block or my money that is being invested. If there is historic preservation to be had, the designation should be put on and some historic preservation entity needs to buy the block for a market price. Otherwise, the owner is free to do whatever he wants to do. As Pete said, this is clearly an annex to the Devon tower. They need additional space and parking and this development serves their needs. Maintaining a 1-story bus station does not serve the owner a sufficient economic return or they would have done it. The owners made an investment and they expect to get a return for their investment. Anyone want to pony up a million or two for starters?

I disagree entirely.

First, historic preservation entities do not have the funding to outbid oil and gas companies for downtown real estate. They just don't. If that's your standard, then no building anywhere, ever, will be saved from destruction if someone wants to tear it down. Period. So that can't be the standard, because otherwise nothing is ever worth saving.

Second, the owner is not "free to do whatever he wants to do". There are many times when the government interferes with a private entity's use of its own property. I can't build a strip club across the street from your kid's school. But that's my property, right? Why can't I fulfill my dream of putting HooterTown right there where the flashing neon can be seen out the windows of Mrs. Johnson's 1st grade class? We have design guidelines in place right now that this proposal does not follow.

Third, we have ponied up a million or two. The city has made massive investments in the downtown area. We've put hundreds of millions of dollars into our downtown in an attempt to create prosperity and try to turn our downtown into a livable, walkable area. Why should we approve a development that is counter-productive to that goal?

Finally -- we, as a city, do not have an obligation to ensure that every move Devon makes is profitable. If they didn't think renovating the bus station would be profitable, then they shouldn't have bought it. The Hotel Black had tenants as recently as a few months ago. One of them posts on this board. They don't have to tear it down. Turn around and sell it to someone else if you can't make enough money off of it.

The city has an interest in promoting the highest and best use of these historic properties, NOT the highest profit margin for the owner. With your standard, someone could purchase the First National Building and then tear it down for a parking garage because "we couldn't make the numbers work otherwise", and unless a poster on this board has enough millions to convince them to sell it, we can't criticize? Screw that!

[rtz]

I think the pictures of the new building look really nice. A breath of fresh air. I'm sure plenty of us remember downtown as it was in the 1980's and 1990's. That's what I still remember when I see the older buildings. It was bleak.

[OUGrad05]

Oil might have slipped lately, but natural gas is profitable. It's not doom and gloom, yet.

Natural gas is in bad shape right now at a bit over $3/M

[Bellaboo]

Natural gas is in bad shape right now at a bit over $3/M

It's dropped 50 cents in the last 6 sessions, but I think this time next week we'll see it gain back the loss due to the upcoming arctic mass moving in. It's 36 degrees in Phoenix right now.

[Pete]

Here are the big changes proposed by Pickard Chiilton:

2,490 SF more retail in west garage; 1,500 SF more in the north garage.

Developers of downtown tower propose more retail in parking garages | News OK

[catch22]

Wow! Such commitment! Glad they really seem to care.

So much for a compromise.

[bchris02]

Here are the big changes proposed by Pickard Chiilton:

2,490 SF more retail in west garage; 1,500 SF more in the north garage.

Developers of downtown tower propose more retail in parking garages | News OK

Not bad. However, this goes to show that Hines has absolutely no interest in compromising with preservationists at all. Even if they made an effort just to save the bus station and demolish everything else, that would still show that they cared. They have basically just given the middle finger to everyone who wants to see the historic structures preserved.

In addition, as we all know from the Devon tower, attracting retail is easier said than done. If this gets built as pictured here, can retail work there immediately or will it be something that sits vacant for years until the west side of the CBD starts to fill in with residential?

[Pete]

This allows them to say, "Look, we made changes at our expense!" and really do nothing much to change the project and address the bigger issues raised.

I'm sure it will sail through on Jan. 15th.

[shawnw]

Regarding the retail space, I'm sure if they put up "for lease" signs they will get calls/interest. I don't think there's anything like that for the Devon retail spaces, which is a shame, unless I'm mistaken. IMO they should finish out the spaces and AT LEAST use them for pop up shops.

[sroberts24]

This is so frustrating! I am all for new developments but why destroy 2 buildings that don't need to be destroyed!? It is 100% because of Devon wanting their buildings next to each other! This revision is an insult, and the only reason why they didn't change anything is because we have a history of letting developers/architects/CEO's pushing us around! There are plenty of empty lots downtown for this building! There is NO need to destroy density and history! I'm disgusted!

If our market is so ripe for developments then the review committee needs to deny this and either have it scrapped our open the door for a better development!

[TU 'cane]

The proposed revision is a slap in the face to any and all requesting the slightest compromise. It's actually an insult, in my opinion, what their latest proposal offers. Not even a hint of compromise anywhere. Are they obligated? Of course not. Would it be nice to see if they and Devon would actually try to see eye-to-eye with a sizable population of concerned voices? Yes.

And as stated above, retail is easier said than done. Will it be as big of a draw considering the mixed use nature of the Clayco proposal right across the street?

Heck, if they're gonna seriously throw that back at us, the least they could have done is given us another 10 feet of height.

[s00nr1]

I disagree entirely.

First, historic preservation entities do not have the funding to outbid oil and gas companies for downtown real estate. They just don't. If that's your standard, then no building anywhere, ever, will be saved from destruction if someone wants to tear it down. Period. So that can't be the standard, because otherwise nothing is ever worth saving.

Second, the owner is not "free to do whatever he wants to do". There are many times when the government interferes with a private entity's use of its own property. I can't build a strip club across the street from your kid's school. But that's my property, right? Why can't I fulfill my dream of putting HooterTown right there where the flashing neon can be seen out the windows of Mrs. Johnson's 1st grade class? We have design guidelines in place right now that this proposal does not follow.

Third, we have ponied up a million or two. The city has made massive investments in the downtown area. We've put hundreds of millions of dollars into our downtown in an attempt to create prosperity and try to turn our downtown into a livable, walkable area. Why should we approve a development that is counter-productive to that goal?

Finally -- we, as a city, do not have an obligation to ensure that every move Devon makes is profitable. If they didn't think renovating the bus station would be profitable, then they shouldn't have bought it. The Hotel Black had tenants as recently as a few months ago. One of them posts on this board. They don't have to tear it down. Turn around and sell it to someone else if you can't make enough money off of it.

The city has an interest in promoting the highest and best use of these historic properties, NOT the highest profit margin for the owner. With your standard, someone could purchase the First National Building and then tear it down for a parking garage because "we couldn't make the numbers work otherwise", and unless a poster on this board has enough millions to convince them to sell it, we can't criticize? Screw that!

[SouthOKC]

This feels like Hines complete disregard for Downtown Design Review committee. The Downtown Design said all the right things and voiced the concerns of all citizens of Oklahoma City. I feel like they really spoke for the majority of the people.

I'm not so much concerned with the Central Business District as much as the surrounding districts. When we visit cities like San Francisco, Austin, London, Paris, and most major cities it's not about the CBD. What I take away is Piccadilly Circus, Fisherman's Wharf, 6th Street, LoDo (Denver), and those unique experiences. However, we have a chance to incorporate our CBD with our up and coming districts surrounding downtown OKC. Devon did a great job of that with their first tower, Project 180, and the park. With the addition of the street car the CBD, Midtown, Deep Duce, the river, OU Health Sciences, and the Park could really complement each other. That's why it's important that we create an identity for OKC and the Downtown Design stands up until the correct adjustments have been made.

This board (OKC Talk) is the voice of the people in OKC. There is no doubt what's discussed here has heavily impacted development and the future of OKC. It played a direct role in a building on Film Row, and influenced a decision to keep a subpar hotel from entering Bricktown.

With the momentum taking place now is the time to really change OKC into a progressive city that reflects the arts, and passion of its next generation. Not a city entrenched in the depression of an industry bust and outdated visions.
Maybe I'm going a little overboard with this one project. I just feel as though the proposed changes are spit in the face to the concerns of what I think is the majority of citizens.

[Pete]

These minimal changes are a pretty good indicator they plan to hold their ground and build pretty much as proposed.

And as I said, I'm sure they'll be allowed.

[Paseofreak]

I'm pretty disappointed in what they didn't address, but the expansion of retail frontage and depth relieves a bunch of angst for me. If the historic structures won't be preserved, at least there's a reasonable chance the streets will be active instead of a giant inanimate slab.

[Bellaboo]

The proposed revision is a slap in the face to any and all requesting the slightest compromise. It's actually an insult, in my opinion, what their latest proposal offers. Not even a hint of compromise anywhere. Are they obligated? Of course not. Would it be nice to see if they and Devon would actually try to see eye-to-eye with a sizable population of concerned voices? Yes.

And as stated above, retail is easier said than done. Will it be as big of a draw considering the mixed use nature of the Clayco proposal right across the street?

Heck, if they're gonna seriously throw that back at us, the least they could have done is given us another 10 feet of height.

Hate to say it, but I'd guess 98% of the population could care less.

[bchris02]

I'm pretty disappointed in what they didn't address, but the expansion of retail frontage and depth relieves a bunch of angst for me. If the historic structures won't be preserved, at least there's a reasonable chance the streets will be active instead of a giant inanimate slab.

I agree, I actually like the expanded retail providing they can find a tenant.

The revisions though are still so minimal they are an insult to preservationists. Out of all the buildings, why not at least try to save the bus station?

[BDP]

It was bleak.

So were all the other historic districts that are now thriving.

Bland parking garages with empty retail space could be pretty bleak too.

[Bellaboo]

Personally, I'd like to see the Hotel Black kept in some manner. But comparing the retail changes with what was first proposed is a giant step forward. I actually like the newer designed 'Bus Station' corner, much more than the Carpenter Square changes.