OG&E Energy Center

[ljbab728]

In case there was any doubt in the Oklahoman's complicity in this ruse and how they always, always put the interests of big business (and their main advertisers) ahead of the general public:

Stalled OGE development a reminder of energy prices' impact on Oklahoma | NewsOK.com


Stalled OGE development a reminder of energy prices' impact on Oklahoma
By The Oklahoman Editorial Board | January 13, 2016

LAMENTATIONS from preservationists have begun. Their beloved, architecturally unique Stage Center was demolished because …

… Because private developers wanted the site for a four-tower commercial complex, the plans for which are officially on hold. These included a new headquarters building for OGE Energy Corp. On Monday, OGE said it must suspend the plans because market conditions are unfavorable.

It was the latest cautionary signpost on a route to lower expectations in the energy-driven Oklahoma economy. Other metrics include the gaping hole in the state budget, the New York Stock Exchange delisting of SandRidge Energy Inc. and the city of Oklahoma City's declining sales tax revenue.

What irks preservationists, understandably (to a point), is that Stage Center is gone and can't be brought back but the thing that was supposed to replace it seems gone as well. But one development is permanent and the other, we feel sure, is temporary.

Lest we forget, Stage Center, a community theater complex designed by architect John Johansen, was in serious disrepair. Had the OGE development not
materialized, Stage Center might still be standing. But it also would still be falling apart because no one had a plan to save it. Even if they had, the extant economic woes would likely have reduced contributions for any nonprofit endeavor.

Also noteworthy is that the redevelopment plan was thoroughly vetted. OGE and others involved in the plan went through hoops to get it approved before Stage Center was carted away in pieces.

Oil prices slid again Monday, the day the OGE decision was unveiled, and that caused yet another slide in the stock market. Oklahoma's economy thrived by the energy industry and is now suffering because of it.

This is an industry enured to feast and famine. The current downturn has lasted longer and dived deeper than anyone could have predicted a couple of years ago. The price of any commodity — and oil and natural gas are commodities as much as wheat and cotton — is subject to great swings. Decisions are made according to the best information available at the time. This includes decisions to pull back as well as to expand.

When the Stage Center site came into play, oil prices were as high as $100 a barrel, compared with around $30 today. Given such a precipitous drop, it's a wonder the local economy and jobless rate aren't worse or that development in the central city hasn't come to a total standstill.

Instead, this seems to be a bump in the road — albeit a serious one — in the reconstruction of downtown Oklahoma City. However it's worth noting that same day of the OGE announcement came news that First National Center has a new buyer, with plans to convert the building into a mix of apartments and a hotel. And OGE's leaders are determined to have a first-class headquarters building among the structures to replace the entire Stage Center footprint.

The OGE development was already morphing from the original plan, owing to developments not directly related to the oil price slump. A failure to reach agreement on tax increment financing was also complicating the start of construction. The site has been cleared for more than a year; it may remain so for years to come.

The rub for preservationists is that massive downtown demolitions in the past (as part of an ambitious urban renewal plan) didn't always result in promises kept. They can use this argument to fight future redevelopment proposals, but they can't make the case that Stage Center had any future at all.

The site's highest and best use remains within the private sector's domain — perhaps with help from public-sector incentives.

I'm very surprised that you are bringing this up here when you said this:

Rather than have these issues pop up in many threads, this is the place to discuss OPUBCO, their business practices and anything else related to their operations, reporting, etc.

Thanks.

You started this thread.

http://www.okctalk.com/businesses-em...practices.html

[Spartan]

Maybe we should leave buildings that are non functional standing that no one is willing to save or upgrade boarded up--a transits' paradise.

You have all the answers bcchris, let's hear your plan...

OKC (1889) is not as young? Louisville (1778), Richmond (1742) & Jacksonville (1791) are old enough to be Oklahoma City's great-great grandmother.

What's funny is despite trying to come off as snarky, you really display your basic understanding of how cities evolve. Never mind that OKC reached 100,000 very early.

Not sure what you have against transit paradise. OKC was once that, but we also destroyed that, not unlike really any other city I'm also not sure what any of your arguments have to do with what happened here at Lake Rainey. Are you defending Rainey? If so I don't get why you're asking for a plan from bchris as if he shan't dare go here. Saving Stage Center was the most actionable plan this site has seen in a while, not to mention the only one with "world class" potential.

And what does any of this have to do with Good Year Wranglers? I am honestly having a harder-than-usual time following your posts. It's scary to read, honestly. I'm trying to be a nicer, friendlier Spartan... But you have the forward thinking vision of an entity several times the age of OKC.

[soonerguru]

Not peachy. Just not near as comically dire as half the people here are making it out to be. I think you and some others here are being far, far too pessimistic.

At any rate, taking a "sky is falling" approach, complaining about the situation on a message board and actually doing something constructive are two completely different things. There is very little constructive thought being provided here, though some, like BDP, are actually taking a level headed approach to their annoyance with the situation.

What do you suggest I do? Seriously. These aren't minor problems. Do you think things are great? Are you cool with public schools closing, programs at schools being denied to students, our higher ed system being drained of resources? If you think pointing out these problems is "overly pessimistic" I would love to live in your rose-colored universe.

This message forum provides an opportunity to publicly criticize officials we otherwise have no way to influence. And sorry, if you've ever made a constituent phone call to Mary Fallin's office you're a sucker. It is a waste of oxygen.

Please don't be "that guy."

We have a self-inflicted budget crisis now being blamed on low oil prices. Our public sector has been starved to death for tax breaks for oil companies that were going to "incentivize drilling." We're not effing idiots. We know a good ruse when we see one.

And who can forget one of our local O&G sages proudly boasting before the Chamber that oil would never go below $100 a barrel? What a laugher. If I want to gamble I'll go to Vegas. I'm done with oilies planning our future.

[soonerguru]

Can we quit with this "it was functionally obsolete" argument? Bull****. It was too expensive for arts non-profits to repair. That's it. It could have been made usable for a fraction, a tiny fraction, of the TIF funds OG&E sought.

The haters of this building created a false choice, and many of the people on this forum fell for it, and continue to trumpet this propaganda. The building could have been made functional for about $4 million. That is peanuts compared to the $60 million that OG&E tried to extort out of our city.

This is a shameful episode. And the shame goes all around, from Larry Nichols to the Oklahoman, and most certainly to Rainey Williams.

[Spartan]

What do you suggest I do? Seriously. These aren't minor problems. Do you think things are great? Are you cool with public schools closing, programs at schools being denied to students, our higher ed system being drained of resources? If you think pointing out these problems is "overly pessimistic" I would love to live in your rose-colored universe.

This message forum provides an opportunity to publicly criticize officials we otherwise have no way to influence. And sorry, if you've ever made a constituent phone call to Mary Fallin's office you're a sucker. It is a waste of oxygen.

Please don't be "that guy."

We have a self-inflicted budget crisis now being blamed on low oil prices. Our public sector has been starved to death for tax breaks for oil companies that were going to "incentivize drilling." We're not effing idiots. We know a good ruse when we see one.

And who can forget one of our local O&G sages proudly boasting before the Chamber that oil would never go below $100 a barrel? What a laugher. If I want to gamble I'll go to Vegas. I'm done with oilies planning our future.

The funny thing about the oil and gas tax credits, even w fracking, is we subsidized the earthquakes.

[jccouger]

Its funny that OGE blames oil prices, but I haven't seen my bill drop at all.

[Just the facts]

I think OGE is blaming low oil prices because they were hoping to lease the extra space to oil companies.

[SoonerDave]

What's funny is despite trying to come off as snarky, you really display your basic understanding of how cities evolve. Never mind that OKC reached 100,000 very early.

Not sure what you have against transit paradise. OKC was once that, but we also destroyed that, not unlike really any other city I'm also not sure what any of your arguments have to do with what happened here at Lake Rainey. Are you defending Rainey? If so I don't get why you're asking for a plan from bchris as if he shan't dare go here. Saving Stage Center was the most actionable plan this site has seen in a while, not to mention the only one with "world class" potential.

And what does any of this have to do with Good Year Wranglers? I am honestly having a harder-than-usual time following your posts. It's scary to read, honestly. I'm trying to be a nicer, friendlier Spartan... But you have the forward thinking vision of an entity several times the age of OKC.

It is positively ludicrous to create and perpetuate the illusion that the entire future of Oklahoma City's downtown renaissance somehow pivoted on that building. The myth is becoming so ridiculous that it risks turning the place into an urban renewal martyr, and the snob appeal in the notion it was the "only" plan with "world class" potential speaks volumes in raw condescension toward OKC in general. The Pei Plan did a great deal more damage over a much longer period to much more appreciated structures than this project did to a building that had almost *no* emotional tie to the city.

It's time - well past time - to move on.

[SoonerDave]

n/m unintentional duplicate.

[UnFrSaKn]

Ed Shadid on the decision

[OkieDave]

Ed Shadid on the decision

Starts at the 1:00:22 mark. What I think is being missed is that Shadid is stating that during the deliberation of whether to tear down Stage Center, and during almost the entirety of the public and city council decisions about the possibility of TIF financing, OG&E was using the ruse that Rainey Williams was the developer when in reality it was a public utility company, regulated by the corporation commission and guaranteed a profit, who was asking for public assistance. It was only at the very end of the process that the city council was informed that the TIF check would be made out to OG&E and not Williams/Clayco etc.. From a policy standpoint that is a very important distinction (private developer vs public utility company). Shadid is arguing that by running this ruse (similar in every way to the one run by Devon Energy with Preftakes as the frontman), OG&E (and the Oklahoman) deprived the public and the city council of processing this important policy decision. What if the city council knew this up front and said "no, we are not going to give tens of millions of TIF dollars to a public utility company." The process would have been radically altered. As a policy, wouldn't it be prudent to know exactly who is asking for TIF funds, especially where demolition of historic structures is involved?

[Pete]

I think OGE is blaming low oil prices because they were hoping to lease the extra space to oil companies.

Oil companies only make a very small percentage of the jobs in OKC.

And, OG&E was only to have 27% of spec space and it wouldn't be on-line until two years.

[zookeeper]

Starts at the 1:00:22 mark. What I think is being missed is that Shadid is stating that during the deliberation of whether to tear down Stage Center, and during almost the entirety of the public and city council decisions about the possibility of TIF financing, OG&E was using the ruse that Rainey Williams was the developer when in reality it was a public utility company, regulated by the corporation commission and guaranteed a profit, who was asking for public assistance. It was only at the very end of the process that the city council was informed that the TIF check would be made out to OG&E and not Williams/Clayco etc.. From a policy standpoint that is a very important distinction (private developer vs public utility company). Shadid is arguing that by running this ruse (similar in every way to the one run by Devon Energy with Preftakes as the frontman), OG&E (and the Oklahoman) deprived the public and the city council of processing this important policy decision. What if the city council knew this up front and said "no, we are not going to give tens of millions of TIF dollars to a public utility company." The process would have been radically altered. As a policy, wouldn't it be prudent to know exactly who is asking for TIF funds, especially where demolition of historic structures is involved?

Ed is good at cutting through the bull$%## and laying it out like it is. We can either defend the chicanery or we can speak out against it. There's really no middle ground. When it gets right down to it, if it is like described above - it was a criminal act consisting of fraud, conspiracy, and no telling what else. But again, we're dealing with movers and shakers and the chances of their being held accountable by our prosecutors at the local and federal level are nil. They are all more concerned with their own futures.

[OKCRT]

Everyone knew that Rainey Williams wasn't going to develop anything on that property. Everyone knew that the Stage center property was for OG&E. Everyone Knows that OG&E is a public utility and they make their profits regardless. So why would OG&E think they could get millions in TIF money to develop their building? I mean this is just crazy and if the public via Daily Oklahoman would have reported truthfully on what was going on the Stage Center is prob. still standing today. Not that I really care about the Stage center but some people did and many more would have prob. come forward if they weren't being hood winked.But,they made this sound like such a sure thing the masses just let it go thinking we were going to get 4 nice midrise buildings for our downtown skyline.

I wish someone could find out the real story on what's going on here because low oil prices don't pass the smell test on this deal. Maybe oil money was going to help develop the other buildings but OG&E is not dependent on oil prices. They have no fear of losing money because oil goes down. Maybe they had their money tied up in oil stocks that have taken a beating? I don't know but I wish we could find out. I seriously doubt if OG&E will ever build on that site. So what's next?

[Pete]

The Oklahoman not only did not ask any questions and merely published what OG&E and Rainey Williams wanted, they then defended him multiple times, as we all know.

Then, they turn around and write an editorial yesterday basically covering for all of them again and telling preservationists to pipe down.


It's all downright scandalous, which I pointed out from the very beginning.


I honestly believe that without the raised scrutiny on TIF's from this site and with Ed Shadid's town hall meeting, very large public incentives would probably have sailed through without the admission on OG&E's part until well after the fact.

[zookeeper]

The Oklahoman not only did not ask any questions and merely published what OG&E and Rainey Williams wanted, they then defended him multiple times, as we all know.

Then, they turn around and write an editorial yesterday basically covering for all of them again and telling preservationists to pipe down.


It's all downright scandalous, which I pointed out from the very beginning.


I honestly believe that without the raised scrutiny on TIF's from this site and with Ed Shadid's town hall meeting, very large public incentives would probably have sailed through without the admission on OG&E's part until well after the fact.

Yes you did. Credit where credit is due. I remember well and - thank you.

[SouthsideSooner]

Starts at the 1:00:22 mark. What I think is being missed is that Shadid is stating that during the deliberation of whether to tear down Stage Center, and during almost the entirety of the public and city council decisions about the possibility of TIF financing, OG&E was using the ruse that Rainey Williams was the developer when in reality it was a public utility company, regulated by the corporation commission and guaranteed a profit, who was asking for public assistance. It was only at the very end of the process that the city council was informed that the TIF check would be made out to OG&E and not Williams/Clayco etc.. From a policy standpoint that is a very important distinction (private developer vs public utility company). Shadid is arguing that by running this ruse (similar in every way to the one run by Devon Energy with Preftakes as the frontman), OG&E (and the Oklahoman) deprived the public and the city council of processing this important policy decision. What if the city council knew this up front and said "no, we are not going to give tens of millions of TIF dollars to a public utility company." The process would have been radically altered. As a policy, wouldn't it be prudent to know exactly who is asking for TIF funds, especially where demolition of historic structures is involved?

Seriously? How can they be similar in every way when there was never a TIF request from Devon/Preftakes? They weren't similar at all...

[gopokes88]

The Oklahoman not only did not ask any questions and merely published what OG&E and Rainey Williams wanted, they then defended him multiple times, as we all know.

Then, they turn around and write an editorial yesterday basically covering for all of them again and telling preservationists to pipe down.


It's all downright scandalous, which I pointed out from the very beginning.


I honestly believe that without the raised scrutiny on TIF's from this site and with Ed Shadid's town hall meeting, very large public incentives would probably have sailed through without the admission on OG&E's part until well after the fact.

Oh so you're the real reason this project is dead. Nice work.

(That was dripping in sarcasm btw)

[bombermwc]

Can we quit with this "it was functionally obsolete" argument? Bull****. It was too expensive for arts non-profits to repair. That's it. It could have been made usable for a fraction, a tiny fraction, of the TIF funds OG&E sought.

The haters of this building created a false choice, and many of the people on this forum fell for it, and continue to trumpet this propaganda. The building could have been made functional for about $4 million. That is peanuts compared to the $60 million that OG&E tried to extort out of our city.

This is a shameful episode. And the shame goes all around, from Larry Nichols to the Oklahoman, and most certainly to Rainey Williams.

You absolutely cannot talk about Stage Center without discussing the function issues with the way the building was designed. Since you feel that 4 million would have been easy to come up with, can I ask who you think should have given that? And can I also ask why it was never given during the several years the place was left empty after the most recent flood (the one that finally did the place in). People were passionate about the place (in both camps). But to call the architectural failings bullcrap, are to completely ignore the failings of the architect. The place operated as a non-profit facility. It COULD have been part of Allied Arts and COULD have been run by the city as part of our arts programs. But that's not how we work. Those are all independent groups that don't own facilities, rather their member organizations simply rent them for their use (ie the Philharmonic).

We can piss and moan all day, but in the end, the place was sold by its owners to a real estate developer. The place is gone, and the developers idea for construction went down the toilet. We could argue "shoulda coulda wouldas" until we're blue in the face. Had someone stepped up to work with the place, the story would look very different now. The "mystery tower" was either this or BOK. So now we'll just have to sit back until Mr. Lackmeyer gives us some new piece of worthless information about a "possible" project "coming soon" that will "transform" something. Yawn.

[TU 'cane]

bchris already brought up the point the other day that OGE using oil prices is a complete farce because when they submitted these proposals and were wanting to start work, oil was still around $100. So we can take that theory out of the equation, and when you do, you understand that there was something "sinister" so to speak with this entire proposal from the beginning. Something that Pete I think has tried alluding to a time or two.

[Spartan]

It is positively ludicrous to create and perpetuate the illusion that the entire future of Oklahoma City's downtown renaissance somehow pivoted on that building. The myth is becoming so ridiculous that it risks turning the place into an urban renewal martyr, and the snob appeal in the notion it was the "only" plan with "world class" potential speaks volumes in raw condescension toward OKC in general. The Pei Plan did a great deal more damage over a much longer period to much more appreciated structures than this project did to a building that had almost *no* emotional tie to the city.

It's time - well past time - to move on.

Can you define urban renewal martyr for us? Since those are your words, not mine. I think you're reading tea leaves or focusing too much between the lines.

There was a group with decent capacity that formed and wanted to do a children's museum. We don't have a children's museum, whereas most cities do. You have to drive out to Tecumseh for a children's museum in Central OK. They needed $20 million of support. The philanthropic communities' hands were tied due to the influence of big oil, which isn't being conspiratorial as much as realistic. However, you can't make this fact go away, that they only needed $20 million from any source to preserve and refresh a modernist landmark designed by a famous architect, financed by the Betty Ford Foundation, etc etc. Stage Center had a world-class history that you just can't deny.

Rainey Williams promised world-class. He had a world-class public subsidy request, which I still supported, because once Stage Center was gone I felt obliged to support completing this block. It's an important block. Now we have world-class mosquitos and gnats and other public health hazards breeding in our world-class pond. Even when he was pursuing public subsidy, not once did Rainey propose anything truly world-class. He came close after a few revisions, but you have to admit before hiring Robert A.M. Sterns, Rainey's idea of "world-class" was looking pretty Memorial Road.

You keep pressing to move on. Move on to what? Have we learned any lessons here? What are we going to do in the big picture the next time we have a landmark on a high-profile site? What are we doing with the Walcourt? What are we doing up and down Classen Blvd., which is just lined with potentially-great landmarks that have seen better days. I'm all for moving on. Let's move on together and in a positive manner. Let's not just move on because we eventually got what you really wanted, which is a giant lake where the ghastly (too bold) Stage Center once stood.

[hoya]

You absolutely cannot talk about Stage Center without discussing the function issues with the way the building was designed. Since you feel that 4 million would have been easy to come up with, can I ask who you think should have given that? And can I also ask why it was never given during the several years the place was left empty after the most recent flood (the one that finally did the place in). People were passionate about the place (in both camps). But to call the architectural failings bullcrap, are to completely ignore the failings of the architect. The place operated as a non-profit facility. It COULD have been part of Allied Arts and COULD have been run by the city as part of our arts programs. But that's not how we work. Those are all independent groups that don't own facilities, rather their member organizations simply rent them for their use (ie the Philharmonic).

We can piss and moan all day, but in the end, the place was sold by its owners to a real estate developer. The place is gone, and the developers idea for construction went down the toilet. We could argue "shoulda coulda wouldas" until we're blue in the face. Had someone stepped up to work with the place, the story would look very different now. The "mystery tower" was either this or BOK. So now we'll just have to sit back until Mr. Lackmeyer gives us some new piece of worthless information about a "possible" project "coming soon" that will "transform" something. Yawn.

The truth is, the people who wanted to bulldoze the place had a lot more money than the people who wanted to save it. That doesn't make them "right", it just means they got their way.

Stage Center was a quirky property that would have required work and effort to save. The city didn't value it. Larry Nichols didn't value it. OG&E didn't value it. Now perhaps the people who did value Stage Center dropped the ball by not being more proactive earlier in the process. By the time they realized what was at stake, it was too late to save it. Turning Stage Center into a children's museum would have been a simple addition to a new MAPS program. We could have added that to MAPS 3 and it would just be a rounding error in the cost of the convention center.

I don't think the people who wanted to save it realized the danger it was in until it was too late.

[Just the facts]

I hate to relive the whole Stage Center debate - but IF it had been made into a Children's Museum - it would have been the most expensive in the history of the planet. It was $30 million just to bring the place up to code and get a certificate of occupancy AND then the cost to outfit it as a Children's Museum (plus acquisition costs). Does anyone realize what kind of Children's Museum could be built from scratch with those kinds of dollars?

[David]

Honestly, it sounds like that would be just yet another non-profit doomed to failure in a non-functional building.

[BDP]

The problem is that any time anything is demolished, there is never any guarantee after that.

Even if you have building permits and financing lined up, projects come off the rails for all sorts of reasons.

So, I think it's a waste of energy to think in terms of trading something for something else. What we are always doing is determining if something is worth saving or not regardless of what may or may not replace it.

This is a good point. A better approach may be to find a way to better encourage preservation, rather than preventing demolition. If we're going to forgo tax revenues and offer incentives, maybe we should designate where and how those incentives will be available in a way that encourages preservation of existing structures and more development on underdeveloped real estate in the core. It'd be easy to walk around downtown and find some empty lots, surface lots, and unused structures and say "if you develop or renovate these properties, you can get your TIF (or whatever is appropriate), while at the same time saying no TIF's can be offered for developments that involve demolition of certain structures. Maybe if these developers knew that statutorily the city could not offer any assistance with the property, they would have taken it a block or two away and done it on undeveloped land that they already knew was eligible for assistance.

Obviously, that's a very simplistic outline. There'd be problems to work out in it, but I do think that the problem isn't just that the city allows this to happen, it's that in a some ways it encourages it.