Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[Pete]

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and it's economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

The Miami project has been covered in depth earlier in this thread.

He may have had some very small role in the land speculation a long time ago, but I have not been able to find any evidence he's had anything to with any of that development, regardless of his claims (which is a huge red flag).

[jn1780]

The entire point of these posts is that it COULD be done IF enough money changed hands and the required work was put in (may not be easy or quick, but it could be done). All that would take is a legitimate project that has the funds, political power, was a lock to go through.

This project has none of that, so this particular project is irrelevant and won't be able to force the issue.

Actually, it would be a huge uphill battle even if the tower seemed like a realistic possibility.

I doubt any of the armchair aviation experts actually read the report.

1. The building would be so tall that it would affect navigation equipment and radars. The report mentioned there may need to be an additional radar site to handle a blind spot and there would be an increase in false positives.
2. Losing VFR corridors. VFR's use natural landmarks like highways, roads, rivers, mountains, etc. These are important for the smaller planes and allows them to have to not contact ATC. If you don't have VFR corridors you have to have more ATC personal. The report mentions Westheimer (OUN) would be heavily impacted.
3. New IVR corridors would result in the airlines to make more significant climb rates and maneuvers that would put more stress on the vehicles.

I think you guys seem to forget that Will Rogers is not the only airport in the metro area. There are 5 with runways that each require flight paths.

Calling the aviation interests NIMBY's is gross oversimplification. Its not like the FAA doesn't agree with the comments, they just used that as confirmation on what they reported.

[PhiAlpha]

I think it's more of a matter that he's the only one really looking into the claims surrounding the developer. I'm sure if there was an 1100 ft building in Miami that Matteson spearheaded, Pete would have gladly shared that information with us. But not only did Matteson not develop such a building, no such building exists. It's not "negative/skeptical" to refute bogus claims. it's just factual reporting.

Right, and once you catch someone in an obvious lie, they have invited scrutiny.

I was suspicious before this was even announced in its far more humble scope. I had talked to several local people behind the scenes who had been approached about this project and all felt like it was unrealistic. And this was back when it was three towers, two hotels, and infinitely more modest. All of them passed and to this day I haven't heard of anyone in OKC who has opted in.

Then, I immediately started to research Matteson. I would have been thrilled to find all these amazing projects with his role clearly defined, but I couldn't find anything recent at all and then he started to claim projects as 'his' when he was clearly taking credit for the work of other people.

That is a lot of red flags long before things got really crazy.

Here is something else from that Journal Record article:



This is the project: https://miamiworldcenter.com/.

If you go through that website and research the entire project, there is nothing approaching 1,100 feet built, under construction or planned.

But more importantly, there is absolutely no reference to Matteson or Centurian Partners since 2011. It seems Centurian was involved in the initial purchase of the land in 2008, then a big equity partner (CIM) entered the picture in 2011, and that's the last Centurian is mentioned in 13 years of subsequent press releases, in any capacity.

Matteson certainly has not developed anything at the Miami World Center (I've read all 14 pages of press and press releases on their website) and it seems he and Centurian have no involvement since the initial land purchase.

Matteson keeps bringing up this big Miami project as proof of his development experience and seems to be purposely lying about his involvement.

Here it is from Pete. The Miami project was a product of bad journalism.

[Pete]

Yes, and downtown Seattle CBD DOES lie in the flight path for not only SeaTac International Airport but also King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is closer to the CBD. Planes regularly fly from Capital Hill to the E (by a mile) of the CBD toward White Center then to SeaTac. Boeing Field pattern is on the W side of the CBD over puget sound, much lower near downtown. There is also a THIRD airdrome near downtown Seattle which is a seaport at Lake Union. All of this, yet if anybody's been to Seattle you see lots of towers (yes, height restricted) and lots of airplanes - FAR more than KOKC and KTIK.

Also consider that Downtown Seattle is not flat like OKC, it is on hills rising up sharply from Puget Sound, effectively adding 200-300 feet to any towers built depending upon the location - thereby giving Seattle a dramatic skyline presence in the process as the towers appear much taller than they are.

Downtown Seattle HAS height restrictions, Downtown Oklahoma City does not. Seattle was a bad comparison for Oklahoma City.

This makes zero sense.

The FAA report clearly states that Legends Tower would be in the flight path of several airports.

And what on earth do you mean 'downtown Seattle has height restrictions and OKC does not'? The only issue with the Seattle tower was from the FAA, which is why they specifically agreed to lower the height.

FYI, the Seattle airport is 10 miles from the center of their downtown; Will Rogers is 6 and Tinker is 7 miles from downtown OKC.

The FAA issues are exactly the same between these two towers, which is why I posted it as an example. There are many more.

[PhiAlpha]

Nm

[PhiAlpha]

Actually, it would be a huge uphill battle even if the tower seemed like a realistic possibility.

I doubt any of the armchair aviation experts actually read the report.

1. The building is would be so tall that it would affect navigation equipment and radars. The report mentioned there may need to be an additional radar site to handle a blind spot and there would be an increase in false positives.
2. Losing VFR corridors. VFR's use natural landmarks like highways, roads, rivers, mountains, etc. These are important for the smaller planes and allows them to have to not contact ATC. If you don't have VFR corridors you have to have more ATC personal. The report mentions Westheimer (OUN) would be heavily impacted.
3. New IVR corridors would result in the airlines to make more significant climb rates and maneuvers that would put more stress on the vehicles.

I think you guys seem to forget that Will Rogers is not the only airport in the metro area. There are 5 with runways that each require flight paths.

Calling the aviation interests NIMBY's is gross oversimplification. Its not like the FAA doesn't disagrees with the comments, they just used that as confirmation on what they reported.

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

[JOHNOKC25]

Wow! I hadn't seen the JR article. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he actually IS serious. Thanks for the clarification, Pete and PhiAlpha!

[barrettd]

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

They giveth and they taketh away.

[jn1780]

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

OKC can have the building. Just a little bit to the west and not have a random supertall sitting by itself away from the downtown core.

[CaptDave]

OKC can have the building. Just a little bit to the west and not have a random supertall sitting by itself away from the downtown core.

Maybe somewhere like just west of Paycom? Or maybe on the Paycom site in a few years?? That makes more sense than Bricktown any way.

[HOT ROD]

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

[Pete]

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

The FAA report says precisely that downtown OKC IS in the flight path of 3 different airports, which you can read for yourself and has been summarized here like 10 times.

Before you call other arguments 'stupid', try making the least bit of sense.

[PhiAlpha]

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

I dont understand how you are this freaking ridiculous…at least three of us have posted the flight path for one of the runways (17L) at Will Rogers. Downtown is in the damn flight path. Being in the flight path does not mean it has to be directly in front of one of the damn runways.

You may not be senile about where you live but you certainly may be about OKC and reality in general if you actually think this development is going to happen based on any/all of the evidence presented so far. There is wishful thinking and then there is blind stupidity. You have descended to the latter at this point. Jesus Christ.

[soonerguru]

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention that the developer is using this argument as a fig leaf to cover for the delays in the project launching.

The FAA decision on the wishful thinking imaginary "aspirational tower" has no bearing on the developer's ability to construct the three towers in phase one, for which the City of OKC has pledged millions of dollars in TIF funding.

[OUGrad05]

^

The height of the 4th tower was always TBD.

So why doesn't Matteson have a plan for the infrastructure that would allow them to adapt the height as needed, given that it was always going to be determined by demand after the first 3 buildings were complete? That part hasn't changed at all and has nothing to do with the FAA.

Yup. The big tower isn't getting built IMO. But honestly I think that's good for the city.

If that market gets overdeveloped and hampers pricing it'll also hamper growth and turn off other developers. There's nothing wrong with a couple nice towers in the 20-25 floor range and probably prevents overbuilding which will foster additional growth in the medium term.

I'm still questioning, despite recent articles if this project gets down with the 3 mid-rise towers.

[Laramie]

Yup. The big tower isn't getting built IMO. But honestly I think that's good for the city.

If that market gets overdeveloped and hampers pricing it'll also hamper growth and turn off other developers. There's nothing wrong with a couple nice towers in the 20-25 floor range and probably prevents overbuilding which will foster additional growth in the medium term.

I'm still questioning, despite recent articles if this project gets down with the 3 mid-rise towers.

If OKC could get this accomplished, it would be a great addition to the skyline. Hope it get completed about the same time as the billion dollar arena.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think the tower getting built would be great for the city. Just the proposal alone has already put OKC on the map in ways I’ve never even seen since The Thunder. But at this point, I’m just hoping the project even without the tower happens. Of which I’m getting more and more skeptical by the day.

[Rover]

I think the tower getting built would be great for the city. Just the proposal alone has already put OKC on the map in ways I’ve never even seen since The Thunder. But at this point, I’m just hoping the project even without the tower happens. Of which I’m getting more and more skeptical by the day.

The mythical tower hasn’t put OKC on any map. It has just incited a bunch of gossip. On the less than zero chance it gets built as boasted about then it will put a tiny dot on the map for OKC.

[Plutonic Panda]

The mythical tower hasn’t put OKC on any map. It has just incited a bunch of gossip. On the less than zero chance it gets built as boasted about then it will put a tiny dot on the map for OKC.

I completely disagree. I’ve seen so much content on it on just about every platform you could possibly imagine. It’s definitely brought the words OKC into the mouths of people who would never have spoken of it otherwise and this is just a mere proposal. If this behemoth was actually built, it would absolutely throw OKC on the map.

[Rover]

I completely disagree. I’ve seen so much content on it on just about every platform you could possibly imagine. It’s definitely brought the words OKC into the mouths of people who would never have spoken of it otherwise and this is just a mere proposal. If this behemoth was actually built, it would absolutely throw OKC on the map.

Perspective is needed. While this unlikely project is talked about because of its odd fit conceptually as well as the unlikelihood of it actually being built, Dallas has many impressive developments under way and way more on the drawing boards, as is the case in other places. It is being mentioned elsewhere out of incredulity, or that it is odd - not as a discovery of OKC as a development hub but how out of place it would be here (which it would be) . We will be on the map when something like this actually draws LESS OMGs.

Being talked about is not the same as being "on the map". Right now it's just gossip and and an interesting little story that has died off quickly except the locals. .

[JOHNOKC25]

I know we've been talking about this development and the chances of it being completed as planned, but what about other possible mixed use proposals that could potentially be revealed in the future? Perhaps a few that could grace our skyline like some of the residential towers in Austin? I feel like once construction is somewhat ongoing with the Ruby and Emerald, there could be other developers who might come in to build as well. Thoughts?

[Pete]

I know we've been talking about this development and the chances of it being completed as planned, but what about other possible mixed use proposals that could potentially be revealed in the future? Perhaps a few that could grace our skyline like some of the residential towers in Austin? I feel like once construction is somewhat ongoing with the Ruby and Emerald, there could be other developers who might come in to build as well. Thoughts?

The best chance would be the REHCO land between the Myriad Gardens and Scissortail Park.

Owned by Midtown Renaissance and Fred Jones, they have the money and commitment to do something grand there, but nothing so far.


The biggest problem for larger projects is that there is no demand for office space in an already over-built market. So, would have to be all residential/hotel/retail/restaurant space.

[JOHNOKC25]

Hopefully, we will hear something about that REHCO land within the next year. It has SO much potential to be something special. Since the new arena is on its way towards construction and the new multipurpose stadium and district is in the planning stages, it's probably the right time for movement on the REHCO site. It's going to be fun watching all of this construction over the next few years!

[Pete]

I've said from the beginning that this crazy Boardwalk project would only lessen the immediacy of the REHCO site.

There are only so many hotels and residential units downtown OKC can absorb.

[HOT ROD]

The FAA report says precisely that downtown OKC IS in the flight path of 3 different airports, which you can read for yourself and has been summarized here like 10 times.

Before you call other arguments 'stupid', try making the least bit of sense.

Hey there, Plenty of people on this site have more than called me out of my name, consistently, yet nothing is done about it. Interesting when I return in kind, the response. It's VERY clear that you and others go after those of us on this site who have a different opinion.

For the record, I didn't call your argument against this tower stupid (I called it hyper critical, yes and at-times fundameltally flawed, yes). if you read my post instead of skimming it and getting angry, I called you're citing Seattle's downsizing our propsed tower a stupid comparison for Legends tower, since we're completely different than OKC and have significant airspace and geography restrictions that OKC does not have in any way.

...