OG&E Energy Center

[Plutonic Panda]

And they could decide not to build anything. Would that be better?

If it were under my control and they didn't adhere to basic principles, I'd tell them to walk.

[ljbab728]

If it were under my control and they didn't adhere to basic principles, I'd tell them to walk.

So if it is well designed and quality construction, the fact that the residential isn't directly across from the park means you would rather see a muddy lot for several more years leaves me just bewildered. Not building a residential building across from a park isn't basic principles. It happens all over the world all of the time.

[Plutonic Panda]

So if it is well designed and quality construction, the fact that the residential isn't directly across from the park means you would rather see a muddy lot for several more years leaves me just bewildered. Not building a residential building across from a park isn't basic principles. It happens all over the world all of the time.

You have a good point. I guess that is taking it too far, but I just really think it's better if residential is facing the park.

Funny enough, I came across this infographic on Facebook yesterday about how parks affect nearby buildings and vice versa.



Obviously, that isn't the case for every park, but it does show how good parks are made and how they can also easily fail. I do agree, the Myriad Gardens is doing pretty good.

[ShadowStrings]

Funny enough, I came across this infographic on Facebook yesterday about how parks affect nearby buildings and vice versa.

What the...

[Village]

What the...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm getting the hint that someone likes milfs.

[Plutonic Panda]

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

[Urbanized]

Lol

[catch22]

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

What do you meme?

[Bellaboo]

Okay, I walked through the MBG going to the game yesterday at 11:00 am. There were over 100 'live' bodies in the park. The playground was full and when I got to the south side by the entrance to the tube, there was a line clear to the street. I saw someone with a name tag about Herbalife ? This goes to show that there are more uses than just the casual visitor to MBG. When the festival of the arts is held in the general area, there will be much more. When the skating rink was in operation, there was much more. It is a viable and active park.

[hoya]

Okay, I walked through the MBG going to the game yesterday at 11:00 am. There were over 100 bodies in the park.

Saw the same thing at Draper Lake last time I was out there.

[bchris02]

Kerry's point is that good urban principles would result in high usage of the park even without the programming that drives usage today. While I certainly don't believe having offices fronting the park will hurt it - it certainly be better than what is fronting in now - it would be better if residential was fronting it.

[David]

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

[bchris02]

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

It probably will not make that big of a difference but it probably will make some. If anything, having the residential fronting the park would increase the desirability and marketability of the residential by a long shot. I know I would much rather live in an apartment fronting the park than one fronting the still unsightly area to the west.

[jccouger]

See, that's what I do not believe. The residential towers are going to be less than a block away, why would the people who will be living in them use the park less than if one face of the building were facing it? It does not compute.

It is not just about whether they have access to it. Usually when you live in high rise residential one of the most important factors is the view. Having the residential on the side of the site that will have blocked views of a Gardens will have an effect on the value future tenants will place on the property. Its basically the same concept of being able to charge higher prices for seats courtside than you could for seats in Loud City at Thunder games.

[Just the facts]

There are thousands of studies and books written about why residential fronting parks is better than office space. The problem OKC is still facing is that far too many people are valuing corporations over humans. Clayco is building this project because they can make money, but from the citizens perspective we should make sure Clayco's desire to make money doesn't come at the expense of civic life in OKC.

Sadly, there is plenty of room for both office towers and both residential buildings to front the park but their architects are simply choosing not to do that for some reason. Heck, all 4 tower could be built on the Stage Center lot alone and still have room left over.

Until people decide they want better land-use practices corporations aren't going to do it on their own. I guess all I am saying is, stop selling your civic soul at such a cheap and temporary price and have a little pride and self-worth for once. Clayco isn't going to leave us just because they have to follow standard best practices employed in nearly every other city. And if they do, then we have other developers waiting.

[bchris02]

True, and its not like it would cost Clayco any more money to reconfigure land use so that all buildings are fronting the park with the parking behind them.

[pickles]

I accidentally copied the wrong photo. My computer is off right now, but I'll try to find the infographic tomorrow because it has disappeared off of my news feed.

lol

[hoya]

Well, first I'll say that I'm very very happy with the quality that this entire project appears to have. Everything looks first class and I think these towers are going to be a fantastic addition to our city and our skyline.

Now that I've said that...

There are some improvements to this project that could be made. I'll list the improvements, why they are improvements, and I'll also explain why I think ClayCo decided not to make them.

--Residential fronting the park is better than office space fronting the park. With our office market as tight as it is, Class A office space would fill up wherever you put it. It doesn't need a park view to be economically viable. Residential space will be more desirable if it overlooks the park than if it overlooks the school and film row. Office space will also be dark after 5 pm, whereas residential will be occupied and will look out over the park, making it a safer public space. Now the MBG is already a pretty safe place, and people do use it frequently, but having constant "eyes on the park" during evening hours improves that.

Why didn't they do it? The title of this thread is "OG&E Energy Center". ClayCo created this project with OG&E in mind, and the residential component is still secondary. OKC's tall building market is primarily office driven, and the residential component is seen as risky. That won't change until some residential towers are built and sell out really fast.

--The office buildings should be on streetcorners instead of in the middle of the block. These buildings are positioned to take up as much space as possible, like a guy who parks his car across two parking spaces. The corner of the street is important, but this design leaves them completely empty, with just some grass and trees there to define them. This is wasted space. Nobody is going to use that area, particularly since you've got the city's premier park right across the street. The office buildings should be moved so they are either on California, or so that one is on Reno and one is on Sheridan.

Why didn't they do it? Again, this is the "OG&E Energy Center" thread. I believe ClayCo designed this to call attention to its primary tenant. OG&E gets the premier spot on the land, right in the middle of the block.

--The layout of the towers should be changed to allow for future construction. There's space for as many as four more towers on this block. Related to the above problem with ignoring the street corners, you have buildings hogging land that they don't need. By positioning the two office towers as they have, it makes it almost impossible to put in more towers at a future date. If you moved them to the corners, you could almost fit another of the residential towers fronting the park on both the north and south properties. This isn't something you would have to build today. You could build it in 50 years if that's how long it took the market to support it. But with the towers positioned as they are, it's unlikely that you'll ever build on that property again. The west half of the design is fine -- new construction would require some design changes in the parking garage entrance, but it could be done. But the portion of the design that fronts the park uses its space inefficiently, and it does so permanently. If the residential towers are a smashing success, and there's a ton of demand for more of it, some simple design changes today could mean that you could build more towers on the same site in the future. It makes the land more valuable. We've seen what inefficient use of space does in Lower Bricktown, where a whole lot of land was taken up by a handful of buildings that are very badly positioned. We need to start using our downtown land as efficiently as possible.

Why didn't they do it? ClayCo intends to sell this project as soon as it is built. They are not planning to keep the land and make any further investment there in the future. They see this design as "complete". They aren't building it to have some other architect come in 15 years later and add another building next to theirs, messing up a pretty picture on their website. It is more important to them to have the buildings viewed on their own, surrounded by nice trees, than to have them integrate functionally with the rest of the city.



I still like this project. If it gets built exactly as pictured, I'll be quite happy. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some valid criticisms of the design.

[kevinpate]

Saw the same thing at Draper Lake last time I was out there.

Not so much any more, but uh, yeah.

[Laramie]

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

[Stickman]

Probably two hundred people in the park at the moment..

[hoya]

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

It's GOOD with the current design. It's MUCH BETTER if the residential faces the park. We aren't asking for UTOPIA, we are asking for the designers to fix OBVIOUS MISTAKES.

As I said, I'll be happy if the current design is completed as shown in the renderings. It has the potential to do a lot for downtown OKC. But you don't get better design until you demand it.

[Just the facts]

Does it matter whether or not the residential towers face the park? Residents could probably use the addition walk for exercise.

Get away from this UTOPIA so many of you look to solve all of downtown's concerns, to me it's insignificant.

If you don't care, why do you care?

[Teo9969]

My biggest gripe is not that residential doesn't face the park.

My biggest gripe is that street-level retail/restaurant/public use does not face the park…most especially that that the east corners @ Reno and Sheridan have nothing demonstrating space that the public is going to use.

[Just the facts]

The issue with moving residential to the parkside is that with more people in the area night time use of the park will initially increase. This in turn will make easy targets of women who use the park late at night, All it takes is one incident and you can write MBG off because once the 'law abiding citizens' leave the subsequent vacuum is filled by the non-law abiding ones.

To keep the perceived safety you need people who can see the park. In the book Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs wrote several chapters on this subject and provided support from several studies. One item that stuck in my mind is that it doesn't taken someone looking out a window to deter crime, it was simply enough to have a window that someone could look out of.

If you are interested in this subject look into crime prevention through environmental design.