OG&E Energy Center

[BDP]

Do they have demolition permits for that block yet?

[Just the facts]

My mistake, I was thinking more of the TIF negotiations. 8 AM posting isn't always a good idea.

No worries, back in the day I remember a lot of 3AM posting that had to be deleted.

[Martin]

She closed the Norman store in 2001

i'm pretty sure that was actually 2011. -M

[Just the facts]

Clayco plans to build two more towers on the southern parcel, one for office use and another for residential. First, however, the company wants to complete the OGE Energy tower. Larry Chapman with Clayco Realty Group said during the January Downtown Design Review Committee meeting that he expects the OGE tower construction to start in April and occupancy is slated for early 2017.

So the south buildings won't be started until 2017.

[Pete]

Do they have demolition permits for that block yet?

No.

The deal with Clayco is far from finalized. They still have to come to terms over the TIF award, then will sign a redevelopment agreement.


I hate to be negative but I think there is a very good chance that Clayco will never develop more than the OG&E HQ building. Good sources have told me their financial backing has been thin from the beginning and in meetings with City Council, Clayco representatives have openly stated they want to flip property ASAP.

Clayco is really not a developer. They are an architecture and construction management company. This is a pretty big reach for them.

[BDP]

No.

The deal with Clayco is far from finalized. They still have to come to terms over the TIF award, then will sign a redevelopment agreement.


I hate to be negative but I think there is a very good chance that Clayco will never develop more than the OG&E HQ building. Good sources have told me their financial backing has been thin from the beginning and in meetings with City Council, Clayco representatives have openly stated they want to flip property ASAP.

Clayco is really not a developer. They are an architecture and construction management company. This is a pretty big reach for them.

Well, whether they develop it or not, hopefully someone does soon. It's not a very exciting block as is, but it's better than tenants leaving and ending up with an unoccupied block for multiple years. Even worse would be a razed lot surrounded by chain link fences for an extended period of time.

[Pete]

Obviously, all the various businesses on that south parcel are planning to move out soon.

But also obviously, Clayco would not be developing that property for at least several years.

I bet they end up clearing it and using it for construction staging in the interim.

[bchris02]

I hate to be negative but I think there is a very good chance that Clayco will never develop more than the OG&E HQ building. Good sources have told me their financial backing has been thin from the beginning and in meetings with City Council, Clayco representatives have openly stated they want to flip property ASAP.

When the rendering of all four towers with the possibility of a fifth was released, it was far beyond what everybody expected and almost too good to be true. It was the kind of development one would expect to be announced in a place like Austin. I was hoping it was a sign that OKC really was about to experience a skyscraper boom like other cities have done when entering a boomtown phase. Unfortunately the original rendering has proven too good to be true. On a positive note, even if only the OG&E tower is built, its still more impressive than the original concept rendering was so at least its somewhat of an upgrade. Still disappointing though. Hopefully at least the OG&E tower does get built as shown and they flip the rest of the land to somebody who will propose an impressive development. Bait and switch is so common in OKC development I won't feel completely good about it until it breaks ground.

Has Milhaus completely walked away? Is it too late for them to possibly get the south parcel? While inferior to Clayco's original proposal, its better than not developing it at all which looks like is the path this is currently headed down.

[AP]

I hate to be negative but I think there is a very good chance that Clayco will never develop more than the OG&E HQ building. Good sources have told me their financial backing has been thin from the beginning and in meetings with City Council, Clayco representatives have openly stated they want to flip property ASAP.

Clayco is really not a developer. They are an architecture and construction management company. This is a pretty big reach for them.

Just the ammunition bchris needed to continue his ramblings about how OKC is subpar.

[bchris02]

Just the ammunition bchris needed to continue his ramblings about how OKC is subpar.

How it not subpar to destroy a world-class historic piece of architecture for yet another bait-and-switch? This is nothing new in this town. It's always the same cycle going back to the Pei Plan.

1. An extravagant, exciting, eye catching new development is proposed on the site of a historic structure
2. The structure is razed amid controversy, but is generally supported because people are excited about what is to replace it
3. The developer has a change in plans, usually because they are unable to finance what was originally proposed. The developer either builds a scaled down version of the original proposal or as too often was the case during Urban Renewal, they scrap it altogether.

This is a very legitimate problem in OKC. It's not over the top negativity or hyperbole at all.

[adaniel]

^
A) The Stage Center was not "historic", certainly no more than what it replaced. And the Stage Center site will be built since there is very little space. Nothing indicates that OG&E doesn't need the space; I know several people at OG&E and they need it now.

B) Do you really think this phenonomen you laid out is somehow unique to OKC? Or is it because you have multiple sources that allows you to see beind the scenes here?

C) Your posts are extremely negative and have been so the entire time you've been on this board. You clearly hate it here and its hard to take seriously the few good points you make...Didn't you state in the past you would be relocating by now?

[soonerguru]

Depressing news overall. We've had a good run. Sounds like the party is dying down.

I do like the design of the OGE tower. It's very nice. But I hope any TIF money is predicated on the construction of the residential tower. I would go so far as to include retail tenants like Target or Trader Joe's or Whole Foods and that the apartments be for-sale units.

If we're going to give them a big TIF boon, let's make this work for our city.

[Stickman]

I thought this was too much too soon. Eventually it will get developed. It will calm everybody's nerves when they get a couple of tower cranes in the air this summer.

[bchris02]

^
A) The Stage Center was not "historic", certainly no more than what it replaced. And the Stage Center site will be built since there is very little space. Nothing indicates that OG&E doesn't need the space; I know several people at OG&E and they need it now.

B) Do you really think this phenonomen you laid out is somehow unique to OKC? Or is it because you have multiple sources that allows you to see beind the scenes here?

C) Your posts are extremely negative and have been so the entire time you've been on this board. You clearly hate it here and its hard to take seriously the few good points you make...Didn't you state in the past you would be relocating by now?

Stage Center was polarizing but it was very unique and historic. It was one of the few things in this town that visitors would always comment on and say they didn't expect to see something like that in Oklahoma. It could have been renovated into a museum of some sort and been a treasure for downtown OKC - all for less money than Clayco is requesting in TIF funding. Demolishing the Stage Center without proof that the financing was available for what was to replace it was a huge mistake, but it isn't the first time OKC has made that mistake. If Clayco doesn't develop what they proposed on at least the north parcel, I think in a few years a lot more people will be asking "what were we thinking" regarding the demolition of the Stage Center.

Bait-and-switch can and does happen elsewhere, but it would be interesting to see a comparison of developments in OKC to other cities in terms of how the final product matched up to the original proposal.

[soondoc]

Just the ammunition bchris needed to continue his ramblings about how OKC is subpar.

You sir are an idiot for saying that. BChris is actually right on the money. Why some of you people just roll over and accept the things that go on here is beyond me. It makes me wonder if you are the big of a push over in real life. He is just calling it what it is and always does. He loves this place as I do myself and sometimes gets frustrated by its stupid decisions and back yard deals that take place. This is just another classic example of OKC being just that- OK. We have 2 different entire blocks that are prime for some great projects. We are getting 2 20 plus story buildings and 3 parking garages between the both of them. A controversial and land mark type building already demolished and several other buildings to be wiped out soon.

My point is that we are not getting much at all for these 2 prime blocks and it is OKC and it's politics allowing this to happen. It's getting really frustrating seeing them back out or cheap out on so many projects. After seeing some of the pics Panda posted on what could have done on our streets for Project 180 and what is actually being done here, it borders on embarassing. Why can't we ever be cutting edge, go above and beyond and make a statement for others who come to visit. We seem to be in a rut where we do things for as cheaply as possible where it looks ok but nothing spectacular- (not counting our one power tower Devon). We know they want that middle finger to stick out among everything.

I think this city needs much more residential downtown. I think their would be a waiting list to live in one or two of these towers. Why they don't build one and see the demand and then begin another if it is full and the demand is there for that? This wreaks of a con job by Clayco by promising too much and then not following through and then requesting a large TIF for the one building. I think they should tell them to go take a long walk on a short pier and open the process back up for a real developer to come through. I now think some home cooking must have been going on for them to get this project. People need to step up and not let these guys keep getting away with this stuff.

[Midtowner]

The city creates a dangerous precedent with the size of that TIF. The future cost of this will be in the billions. Let's remember TIF basically robs our schools of the ad valorem taxes they would be receiving absent the TIF. Our schools are seeing a lot less enhanced revenue from all of these corporate campuses because these bonds are being retired with money which would otherwise go to education.

And this particular example of a TIF particularly grinds my gears. OG&E is a utility company with a state protected monopoly on delivering electricity to Oklahomans. Their profits are protected and guaranteed by the Corporation Commission. Why should the schools of OKC have to bear any cost for this company to relocate their offices a few blocks? TIF makes sense in terms of "let's be a great city which is unafraid to build big things," but when we start talking about this kind of money... it's just unseemly.

[adaniel]

No.

The deal with Clayco is far from finalized. They still have to come to terms over the TIF award, then will sign a redevelopment agreement.


I hate to be negative but I think there is a very good chance that Clayco will never develop more than the OG&E HQ building. Good sources have told me their financial backing has been thin from the beginning and in meetings with City Council, Clayco representatives have openly stated they want to flip property ASAP.

Clayco is really not a developer. They are an architecture and construction management company. This is a pretty big reach for them.

I'm really curious. Was a REIT not interested in partnering up with Clayco here pre-construction? I agree that having a construction company do the real estate managing here is very odd. I would think, given how hot the DTOKC residential rental market is and the north tower already having an anchor tenant taking the vast majority of the space, getting outside investors for the north property should have been a slam dunk.

The south parcel was always very risky from the get go.

[Motley]

It is disappointing that the planners in the city government are not more forward thinking. I think it has to do with the overall political climate in OK. I am hard-pressed to find much that OK excels in when it comes to new developments and providing benefits to the citizens. There is a lot of emphasis on financial frugality, and the citizens are ok with that. Oklahomans don't want to be taxed more than minimally necessary or carry debt for public infrastructure or bold design.

Clayco doesn't profit if the residential towers are not built. TIF is contingent on the project going forward. Clayco is not responsible for the downturn in the market. If the market is there, they will build. If Clayco backs out of building on the city's timeline, they will reopen the process. Then we will see if anyone else steps up to risk investing in residential in today's climate.

[Laramie]

The numbers are there for future of mix-use development downtown. Oklahoma City needs to concentrate its efforts on developers who actually want to build rather than 'flip' a property for profit.

[NWOKCGuy]

You guys act like this is unique to OKC. The fact is you follow OKC development so you know when announced projects don't get built. I guarantee this stuff happens in every city. Dallas had some huge tower announced a while back that is never happening. I'm sure if you researched it, you'd find out that Austin, Houston, NYC, Charlotte, Nashville and just about every city in the US has projects either scaled back or canceled all together. By the way, nothing has been canceled yet and the one tower that we have seen a rendering for looks awesome! Y'all are so negative about everything.

[bchris02]

I will be very happy if both towers get built on the north parcel, even if they end up just flipping the south parcel.

[Pete]

I'm really curious. Was a REIT not interested in partnering up with Clayco here pre-construction? I agree that having a construction company do the real estate managing here is very odd. I would think, given how hot the DTOKC residential rental market is and the north tower already having an anchor tenant taking the vast majority of the space, getting outside investors for the north property should have been a slam dunk.

The south parcel was always very risky from the get go.

REIT's are almost always investors in revenue-stream producing properties, not speculators/developers.

Clayco would certainly target REIT's when looking to market the finished and leased properties.

[Just the facts]

My biggest issue with the TIF plan is that the length of time is way too long. Why are we giving TIF money over 20 years to a developer who is going to flip the property at the first possible chance? What happens to that money after the flip? Does Clayco continue to receive a check for something they don't even own anymore, and which I assume was sold at market value - allowing them to double dip, does the new owner get the check, or does the check stop?

[Bellaboo]

My biggest issue with the TIF plan is that the length of time is way too long. Why are we giving TIF money over 20 years to a developer who is going to flip the property at the first possible chance? What happens to that money after the flip? Does Clayco continue to receive a check for something they don't even own anymore, and which I assume was sold at market value - allowing them to double dip, does the new owner get the check, or does the check stop?

JTF,
You asked the same questions a few pages back and Pete answered it. Not to be an A$$ here, but seems like we have an info overload in progress.

[Just the facts]

JTF,
You asked this same questions a few pages back and Pete answered it. Not to be an A$$ here, but seems like we have an info overload in progress.

The question Pete answered was where does the money come from initially. Pete's answer was that it is paid out in the years it was collected in the form of a rebate. I don't remember seeing an answer to the above question.