BOK Park Plaza

[Spartan]

I wouldn't call that a positive transformation either. It's amazing what OKC used to be and what it could still be if TPTB had a little more foresight.

There appears to be a force that wants there to be a great city where OKC is. We endured a combination of bad leadership and tragedies from 1960 to the early 1990s. If not for those obstacles we should at least be where Charlotte and Austin are.

[heyerdahl]

Ed Shadid had designs completed showing how to save the Union Station by changing the site plan: Shadid prepares for bus station hearing with new design concepts | Red Dirt Report

[Pete]

Say what you will about Shadid, but he paid this architect (and for this whole case) out of his own pocket.

And these plans are completely workable.

In fact, even though this would involve some added development expense, this is a place where funds from TIF #2 could be used.

[bchris02]

I like it. Not only saving the bus station but aligning the new tower to the street. This isn't perfect but it fixes a lot of what is wrong with the 499 Sheridan development. Hopefully he is able to get it done. Question is, the entire reason for this debacle in the first places is money. Ideally all buildings could be saved with parking built underneath the tower or underground, but that would cost a lot more to do. Would it be more expensive to the developer to do this?

[Pete]

The only thing in dispute now is the bus station. For whatever reason, it was the only building the city's planning department recommended saving, so that's where this pending case is focusing.

It will be more expensive to build the office tower above a parking garage, but TIF money could be used to at least partially offset that.

In effect, you are shifting everything down and trading a useless corporate plaza that also violates every tenet of responsible urban planning for saving the bus station.

[bchris02]

The only thing in dispute now is the bus station. For whatever reason, it was the only building the city's planning department recommended saving, so that's where this pending case is focusing.

It will be more expensive to build the office tower above a parking garage, but TIF money could be used to at least partially offset that.

In effect, you are shifting everything down and trading a useless corporate plaza that also violates every tenet of responsible urban planning for saving the bus station.

Hopefully these changes pass. Is Devon set on having that corporate plaza? Why is it even necessary with the MBG across the street?

Plus, wouldn't a revitalized bus station generate more revenue for the developer than a sterile corporate plaza? It seems like a no brainier to me.

[Pete]

Just to be clear, it's not a matter of the proposed changes being passed.

The only issue is whether the court will stop Hines from demolishing the bus station.

These designs are just concepts of how it could be save while they still accomplish their goals.

[BoulderSooner]

These changes are not up for debate in any way.

From a few attorneys I have spoken to (for those attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me).

All the court is deciding is if the DDRC (downtown design review committee). And the the BOA (board of appeals) had the right to make the decision they did within the city ordinances. That is all period.

For shadid to win the judge would have to rule that the DDRC can't agree with the demo of "historic" buildings.

The judge is not going to approve a different plan. In any way.


From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

[hfry]

What a great idea but Shadid to have an architect show what could be done with a an idea(save the buss station) and make it work in a booming downtown that needs to show it cares about urban design. I know the original architects just put out what devon told them they wanted but this design is better in every aspect. It would be the perfect spot to use TIF funds and heck even set up a new TIF for it, clayco and the CC to show that preserving buildings, adding residential, and elminating useless corporate plazas can and will be rewarded.
I couldn't zoom in enough to see the total parking sports but it looked roughly the same. That said it will be hard pressed to get the court to change any decision but I hope this just shows that doing above the bare minimum on designs is possible.

[Pete]

From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

It was always a long shot but these plans show what is possible and also calls out Hines/Devon for not even trying to come up with a creative compromise.

There is no doubt in my mind that will give developers pause for any future projects, knowing they'll face a similar PR battle.

[BoulderSooner]

What should also be pointed out is that Devon/Hines are not really the defendants. The city of Okc is. So shadid is causing the city to spend money defending this lawsuit.

[Pete]

The City doesn't have to defend the lawsuit; that is merely their choice.

[Just the facts]

What I don't understand is why is good urbanism opposed by anyone?

[OkieDave]

These changes are not up for debate in any way.

From a few attorneys I have spoken to (for those attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me).

All the court is deciding is if the DDRC (downtown design review committee). And the the BOA (board of appeals) had the right to make the decision they did within the city ordinances. That is all period.

For shadid to win the judge would have to rule that the DDRC can't agree with the demo of "historic" buildings.

The judge is not going to approve a different plan. In any way.


From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

The judge will assess the evidence presented to the DDRC which the DDRC used to base their decision on. Hines/Pickard-Chilton repeatedly claimed to the DDRC and the BOA that there was simply no other feasible alternative in the space available to achieve their aims. If an architect with extensive experience in high rise development nationally and internationally illustrates that such a contention was false then the Judge would have to take into consideration that the DDRC made a decision based on incorrect information. The architect seems to have shown that one could build the office building and all the parking of the Hines proposal while adding a residential/restaurant/retail component which would activate the northwest corner of the critically important Sheridan/Walker intersection rather than placing two monolithic parking garages across from each other on both sides of Walker.

[BoulderSooner]

The judge will decide if the DDRC has the power to approve demos. Period. What is being built has nothing to do with the demo. They are separate things.

[s00nr1]

Amazing what Shadid's architects were able to design in a matter of weeks compared to what was probably months/years of planning by Hines. Munn's design clearly showcases a much more functional urban use of this corner and by no means is it outlandish.

[gopokes88]

What I don't understand is why is good urbanism opposed by anyone?

It costs the company more and these are businesses....

[OkieDave]

It costs the company more and these are businesses....

Are you sure it would cost the company more? Last week the OKC Council approved $3million in TIF funds to help with financing of a parking garage for the Journal Record building and there are numerous examples of other projects where TIF funds were used to help a development with parking garage costs. In fact, the OKC Council has never turned down a proposal for an allocation of TIF funds for a parking garage and in all likelihood, Devon Energy could ask for a very sizeable TIF allocation and the OKC Council would almost certainly say yes. This is in addition to historic tax credits, CDBG backed loans etc... that the company would also have at its disposal. The residential component would add revenue to the development as would the restaurant and retail. If you had residential wrapped around the bus station and Clayco high-rise residential across the street you in all likelihood could support businesses renting from you on that corner which would now serve as a conduit to film row.

[Pete]

And to be clear, Hines has never even looked into TIF funds or other assistance options.

They claimed the Bus Station was economically unfeasible yet never explored the option exercised by many other historic rehabs with great success: Working with the Alliance for Economic Development and seeing how they could help make it happen.

[OkieDave]

And to be clear, Hines has never even looked into TIF funds or other assistance options.

They claimed the Bus Station was economically unfeasible yet never explored the option exercised by many other historic rehabs with great success: Working with the Alliance for Economic Development and seeing how they could help make it happen.

Which is another issue for the Judge to assess. Nick Preftakes told the DDRC and the BOA that adaptive reuse of the bus station was not economically viable EVEN WITH TIF FUNDS and other public funding but did not disclose to the boards that he had NEVER even asked about the availability of TIF funds or other public funding from the City's economic development staff.

[Pete]

I believe Cathy O'Connor was deposed as a part of this lawsuit to confirm Preftakes/Hines/Devon never approached the City to explore their options.

[BoulderSooner]

I believe Cathy O'Connor was deposed as a part of this lawsuit to confirm Preftakes/Hines/Devon never approached the City to explore their options.

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

[s00nr1]

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

But it is relevant to this discussion.

[Pete]

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

That is clearly not the opinion of the attorney for the plaintiff.

[HOT ROD]

Hines and PC did what they were told and nothing else. Period.

Now, it will be up to the judge to determine if OKC violated their charter in determining to demolish historic buildings vs. a better use of the block. It is very clear that OKC sat on their blank-blanks and let this slide through, similar to the Stage Center, in the name of business first. But by law, the city has to put the citizens and taxpayers of OKC first and if you are deciding historic value then you'd better not just slush proposals through.

I'd argue that the city should have sought competing proposal or at least architect(s) to come up with ideas for the block then bounce them against Hines/PC. See which is better from all pov then make a decision. Apparently, that didn't happen here and like Pete said - now they're being called out on it.