Santa Fe Square in the Blue Dome District

[TexanOkie]

The streetscape is chump change so the real question then is who makes the money from the parking garage? Because if it's not the city then you're being incredibly disingenuous saying that it's earmarked "only for the Parking and streetscape".

It's not the city's garage, it's a subsidy to the product at large. They couldn't build what they're building with out addressing the parking, and you can bury your head in the sand and choose to believe that the rest of the parking is going to be free to the public that's paying for said parking, but we all know it's going to cost anyone who isn't living/working/staying at the facility and they will be paying Elliot Nelson.

I never said it was going to be free to the public, or even that the parking garage is a public improvement. It's merely a vehicle to tie the public subsidy to a tangible asset rather than having it simply be a blanket investment in the project. Doing so also helps the developer stabilize his projected cash flow and absorption in a way that makes the project feasible to begin with. Without the garage, with the space needed to address the parking concerns (you said yourself they'd have to address parking), you're looking at maybe a $65M development instead of a $160M, and that's assuming the high land costs wouldn't push private lenders away from the project entirely.

[Swake]

The Devon TIF is Project 180 IIRC. So that well was for public improvements downtown and not to subsidize the tower.

I would argue that was a much worse use of a TIF. It redirected $170 million dollars that would have mostly gone to OKCPS to some trees and lighting. The Devon tower was going to be built either way, so that TIF was straight up taking money from schools.

This project would NOT have happened without the TIF so the schools weren't impacted.

[Pete]

This project would NOT have happened without the TIF so the schools weren't impacted.

This is the age-old "but-for" argument that is always asserted by developers and can never be proven.

And because the TIF governing bodies don't track and report who asks for TIF, gets denied and builds anyway, the public never knows, either.

I know there has been at least one of those cases in OKC, but only know it because the developer happened to tell me about it. I'm sure there were others that we'll never know about.

[TexanOkie]

This is the age-old "but-for" argument that is always asserted by developers and can never be proven.

And because the TIF governing bodies don't track and report who asks for TIF, gets denied and builds anyway, the public never knows, either.

I know there has been at least one of those cases in OKC, but only know it because the developer happened to tell me about it. I'm sure there were others that we'll never know about.

The City of Tulsa requires formal applications from people requesting tax increment districts. Not all of those applications make their way to the Mayor or Council, but they do have records. Of course, these records don't keep track of specific allocations of TIF money, but Tulsa also doesn't operate TIFs as a broad redevelopment funding policy in large geographic areas with general budget categories the same way Oklahoma City does, either. Every Tulsa TIF until Santa Fe Square has had specific public improvement plans tied to their TIF budgets.

[Pete]

^

Thanks for the clarification.

But I suspect there are still plenty of incidences where there are informal discussions and developers don't actually make formal application because they don't think they will be approved.

That's exactly what happens in OKC over and over again. Several developers have told me they were basically told in informal meetings 'not going to happen' so they never formally applied.

It's effectively the same as declining an application, just earlier in the process.

[sooner88]

This is the age-old "but-for" argument that is always asserted by developers and can never be proven.

And because the TIF governing bodies don't track and report who asks for TIF, gets denied and builds anyway, the public never knows, either.

I know there has been at least one of those cases in OKC, but only know it because the developer happened to tell me about it. I'm sure there were others that we'll never know about.

There's no reason right now, from the developer's perspective, to not apply for TIF. If they were going to build either way, it seems like it may be worth a shot for them regardless.

[Pete]

There's no reason right now, from the developer's perspective, to not apply for TIF. If they were going to build either way, it seems like it may be worth a shot for them regardless.

Of course!

It's completely free money to them AND they are no doubt going to compete with projects that have already received such incentives.

It's amazing how many developers in OKC have exactly a 5 to 8% funding gap when they formally apply and how that has stayed consistent throughout the 15 year life of the downtown TIF.

[Swake]

This is the age-old "but-for" argument that is always asserted by developers and can never be proven.

True. But it's also true that the site of Santa Fe Square has been a parking lot for at least 40 years. Would something else have been built there? Sure, my guess is someone like Bomasada would have come in with a semi-urban EIFS and stacked stone apartment block monstrosity before too long. What Nelson is building is a much higher use and maintaining the parking IS important to the existing Blue Dome businesses, no matter who owns it.

[TexanOkie]

Of course!

It's completely free money to them AND they are no doubt going to compete with projects that have already received such incentives.

It's amazing how many developers in OKC have exactly a 5 to 8% funding gap when they formally apply and how that has stayed consistent throughout the 15 year life of the downtown TIF.

Building on what you had previously written (about informal conversations resulting in developers either choosing not to apply or being told the application likely wouldn't be supported), could it be that that general range has something to do with the subsidy's ability to pay for itself through collection of tax increments on the project? If people who are higher or lower than that range aren't consistently applying, it might because the feasibility analysis/conversation within the City and between the City and the developer shows that the project is either not economically feasible, feasible with slight modifications to the design/proforma, or might result in a net drain on TIF revenue. It'd be interesting to hear Brent Bryant's take on this. Maybe your conversations with him have touched this subject?

[Plutonic Panda]

Has this started?

[Swake]

Has this started?

No, but it's only been three months since the TIF was approved and part of the site is currently being used for staging for the Edge at East Village project.

[Plutonic Panda]

Any idea on when it might start? I am going to list it on Skyscraper Page here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=223969

FWIW, I'm also trying to get a Tulsa section on Skyrise Cities as well as OKC. So any information helps

[Swake]

Santa Fe Square starts construction next week
http://www.newson6.com/story/3407709...sa-development

[Swake]

The Hotel Indigo part of the project break ground this week


The rest of the project will start in January or February

[HangryHippo]

The Hotel Indigo part of the project break ground this week

The rest of the project will start in January or February

Any renderings of OKC's Hotel Indigo you can share?

[BG918]

Too bad they couldn't just have the dropoff point along Elgin or under the hotel. Regardless this is good news for the Santa Fe Square development and is a game changing project for downtown Tulsa.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

hotel Indigo making good progress. Not sure about the rest of the square though. See link below for some recent pics

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21619.0

[BG918]

Some updated renderings

2nd Street frontage from Elgin to Greenwood (the Hotel Indigo is behind this building to the north)


Frankfort Ave. promenade between 1st and 2nd with a proposed movie theater


2nd & Elgin office building on the left, apartments in the center, movie theater/parking on the right and office building at 1st & Greenwood top right

[Plutonic Panda]

Do they have any ideas what company will go into the cinema? An Alamo Drafthouse will kill it here.

[BG918]

Do they have any ideas what company will go into the cinema? An Alamo Drafthouse will kill it here.

The cinema is a new add so I'm not sure. I agree Alamo would be pretty awesome.

[Pete]

^

That space is nowhere near big enough for Alamo, which is why they typically don't go into urban areas.

[sooner88]

^

That space is nowhere near big enough for Alamo, which is why they typically don't go into urban areas.

How big is that space? The Alamo in the Power & Light District is pretty awesome, but that's different than Alamo's new model.

[Eric]

^

That space is nowhere near big enough for Alamo, which is why they typically don't go into urban areas.

Is it really all that much smaller than the one on Lamar in Dallas?

[Pete]

They have 7 locations in DFW.

I highly doubt they would put their one and only location in a new market in a downtown/urban area unless it's a huge city like New York or L.A.

They didn't even sniff OKC's urban core and will almost certainly end up at Chisholm Creek.

[Eric]

They have 7 locations in DFW.

I highly doubt they would put their one and only location in a new market in a downtown/urban area unless it's a huge city like New York or L.A.

They didn't even sniff OKC's urban core and will almost certainly end up at Chisholm Creek.

They franchise. Wouldn't it have far more to do with the developer/operator than Alamo's opinions? I believe they are looking for franchisees to be responsible for "areas". They never really specify what type of locations they prefer. Only that they have "deep pockets" (my words).

And if you have real estate that you want to offer, here are Alamo's requirements:

Generally speaking, we are seeking sites that meet the following criteria:

Located 3+ miles driving distance from the nearest first run movie theatre
40,000+ leasable square feet
Capacity for 10+ screens