OG&E Energy Center

[bchris02]

It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

Why does it seem like other cities don't have these issues near to the extent that OKC does? Also, it seems like bait-and-switch is a much bigger problem here than it is in other cities. A developer shows an elaborate rendering like what we saw from Clayco that gets everyone excited, and then scales it back piece by piece between the proposal and groundbreaking. First the talk was that the south proposal may not happen, then the residential component in its entirety gets called into question. Now, there is talk that the main OG&E tower might be scaled back?

I think an ordinance needs to be passed to require projects need to be shovel ready before demolition occurs. There is no way you could 100% enforce it but maybe it would cut down on these types of scenarios which seem to come up time and time again.

[Pete]

Why does it seem like other cities don't have these issues near to the extent that OKC does?

Because you/we don't pay attention to other cities in this same way.

It's not a unique problem to OKC, although if you were to argue we are worse about this than many, you'd could point to the large amount of power and influence concentrated in too few hands.

[bchris02]

Because you/we don't pay attention to other cities in this same way.

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel. I am worried that something more along the lines of the original concept that everyone hated (12-15-story OG&E HQ and no residential) is what is going to end up being built.

Is there any timeline on when we can expect a TIF agreement to be reached?

[Pete]

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel.

Not fair to compare OKC to a city 5X the size with the Dallas reference.

And while I have no doubt that it is your impression this sort of thing happens less frequently in comparable cities, I can assure you it happens all the time.

[AP]

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else, going all the way back to the Pei Plan. In terms of demolition before being shovel ready, I am not sure. I can say that three hours south, in DFW, complexes on the scale of the original Clayco proposal are going up by the dozens. It's pretty disheartening. I hope Clayco at least pulls through on the north parcel. I am worried that something more along the lines of the original concept that everyone hated (12-15-story OG&E HQ and no residential) is what is going to end up being built.

Is there any timeline on when we can expect a TIF agreement to be reached?

Here we go with this again.

[Bellaboo]

Remember, demolition and what is to be built afterwards are completely separate things.

A demolition permit does not require anything to be built; could never be enforced anyway.


It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

The only control I can think of is to build in a simple high dollar deposit. If it doesn't get built within a specific time frame, then they lose their money. I'm sure there's legality issues with this scenario.

[dankrutka]

Having lived in other cities, I can say without a doubt bait-and-switch is a much bigger issue in OKC than about anywhere else...

Living in other cities does not prove much. It's anecdotal. Making sweeping generalizations without providing evidence doesn't contribute much. Deals fall through and projects are scaled down all the time all over the country. Does it happen more in OKC than other cities? I don't know. That's a question worth researching.

[bchris02]

Living in other cities does not prove much. It's anecdotal. Making sweeping generalizations without providing evidence doesn't contribute much. Deals fall through and projects are scaled down all the time all over the country. Does it happen more in OKC than other cities? I don't know. That's a question worth researching.

I admit I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization. Sorry for anybody who was offended by it.

However, looking back over OKC's history, many of the most exciting projects were scaled back, some to the point where they had little resemblance to the original proposal i.e. Lower Bricktown. I am very excited about the Clayco project and while I have hope that if will in fact get built, at least on the north parcel, I am disheartened at the possibility that it may become another bait-and-switch. I know in other cities, while deals may fall through and projects may get scaled down, there is also plenty that does get built as proposed. In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter). The jury remains out on the larger projects that are just starting to be proposed here.

One reason I was so excited about the original Clayco proposal is it is a very high-quality proposal, and not the minimalism that some developers try to get away with in OKC. It also will bring a style of architecture to the OKC skyline that is currently missing here. While it has its problems from an urban perspective (just ask JTF), it represents a significant raising of the bar for development in OKC if it actually gets built.

[Pete]

In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter).

The Legacy was 10 years ago. Since that time, we've added Level, Mosaic, Maywood Apartments, The Edge, Lift, Metropolitan, the Steelyard and a ton of other projects that have all been built almost exactly as planned.

The Legacy also happened under the regime of the old OCURA and much has changed since.

[sooner88]

I admit I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization. Sorry for anybody who was offended by it.

However, looking back over OKC's history, many of the most exciting projects were scaled back, some to the point where they had little resemblance to the original proposal i.e. Lower Bricktown. I am very excited about the Clayco project and while I have hope that if will in fact get built, at least on the north parcel, I am disheartened at the possibility that it may become another bait-and-switch. I know in other cities, while deals may fall through and projects may get scaled down, there is also plenty that does get built as proposed. In OKC we are starting to see this more often with the smaller projects like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard (compare this to the bait-and-switch that was Legacy at Arts Quarter). The jury remains out on the larger projects that are just starting to be proposed here.

One reason I was so excited about the original Clayco proposal is it is a very high-quality proposal, and not the minimalism that some developers try to get away with in OKC. It also will bring a style of architecture to the OKC skyline that is currently missing here. While it has its problems from an urban perspective (just ask JTF), it represents a significant raising of the bar for development in OKC if it actually gets built.

You're referencing two projects over the past 18 years... one of which hasn't even begun yet.

When you compare this to larger cities, of course they're going to have more projects in their pipeline than we do, but that doesn't mean that their projects are not getting scaled back as well. It would be interesting to see ratio of scaled back projects:total proposed projects vs. larger cities as well as comparable cities.

[TU 'cane]

The only control I can think of is to build in a simple high dollar deposit. If it doesn't get built within a specific time frame, then they lose their money. I'm sure there's legality issues with this scenario.

Right, it's hard to go about this without simply doing more talking and throwing books at people without any bite. That's the problem, you can have ordinances and bylaws, etc. but if those aren't enforced, or, even being enforced or not but lack any type of significant penalty or ramification, then developers (and destroyers alike) will continue exactly what they're doing however they want.

[Just the facts]

Remember, demolition and what is to be built afterwards are completely separate things.

A demolition permit does not require anything to be built; could never be enforced anyway.


It sucks, but that's the way it is. If there is to be indignation, it should be focused on the ease of obtaining demo permits in the first place, but there is no way to control what will happen after that.

If the demo permit was inherent in the building permit, like I have suggested a hundred times, Stage Center would still be standing. Then when Clayco got their act togethet the City could decide if the trade is worth it.

[gopokes88]

The self loathing on this board is gross. We don't even sniff the level of Chicago or any city in New Jersey. It's government, it's fundamentally flawed by nature. OKC does a pretty good job all things considered. People just don't agree with everything gets done do so they bemoan, whine, and complain about the whole system because they aren't getting their way. Go for it it is your right after all. To "fix" it there are 3 options

(Fix is in quotations because "fixing" it is truly a matter of opinion and viewpoint. We're debating how a city should tear a building and fund a new one, not debating should you be allowed to shoot people who annoy you.)

3 options.
1. Make a ton of money and buy influence.
2. Vote, and convince others to vote with you.
3. Go work for the city and build influence within it.

[Pete]

If the demo permit was inherent in the building permit, like I have suggested a hundred times, Stage Center would still be standing. Then when Clayco got their act togethet the City could decide if the trade is worth it.

Building permits don't guarantee anything and in the end, you can't force anybody to build anything after something is demolished.

[Just the facts]

Building permits don't guarantee anything and in the end, you can't force anybody to build anything after something is demolished.

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place. My plan is the only one I have seen proposed that would still have a standing Stage Center, and wouldn't be holding up progress on the new development.

[bchris02]

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place.

This.

There is no way to force a developer to build after demolition, but there are ways to make scenarios where deals fall through after demolition a lot less likely, therefore saving structures in instances that a deal does die.

[Pete]

No, but it gets us a lot closer to an actual structure before any permanent activity takes place.

We have specific building designs for this project and have for a long time.

So how exactly would what you're proposing make any difference in the situation we're discussing?


Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

[bradh]

Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

JTF City

[Just the facts]

We have specific building designs for this project and have for a long time.

So how exactly would what you're proposing make any difference in the situation we're discussing?


Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

Any one can draw up plans but the fact is they don't have enough financing. To my knowledge, no city is doing this yet. Also, my plan doesn't require anyone to do anything. In fact, it is removing a step from the process. Where it would come into play is if the deal falls through. Under this scenario it would just be a 'no harm no foul' deal. Clayco walks away and existing structures remain.

I don't trade my used car in first and then go try and buy a new one. I do both at the same time, lest something happens and I end up without a car.

[Urbanized]

The best way to protect against a demolition that does not ultimately result in construction that I can think of would be the requirement of some sort of performance bond for demolitions. If a building does not appear in the promised/alotted time, property reverts to OCURA at fair market value or below, less fees, paid for by bond. Anything left over could be used to provide incentive for new developer. Just spitballing here, but seems possible.

[Just the facts]

If you do the performance bond and nothing gets built the original structure is still gone forever. I would rather have Hotel Black and the Auto Hotel, than a pile of cash.

[Urbanized]

I don't disagree, but there are teeth in there that would make someone think twice about demolishing before their deal on the new building was firm.

[Just the facts]

How about a hybrid then, demo permit inherent in the building permit backed by a substantial 'no build' penalty.

[G.Walker]

Wow, I knew the 4 tower development proposed was too good to be true! This is beginning to be a joke! History does repeat itself...

[Spartan]

We have specific building designs for this project and have for a long time.

So how exactly would what you're proposing make any difference in the situation we're discussing?


Also, are you aware of any other city requiring what you propose?

Pete, this is where your perspective is weighted toward living in So Cal and OKC. Linking building and demo permits is common practice for urban cities.

I hear a lot of push-back against having a "big government" plan approval / building permitting process. This issue is grounded in culture, not in reality. A lot of Eastern U.S. cities (and I guess Portland) have very stringent planning processes. It's a miracle anything gets built.