Originally Posted by Rover

Again, if you are only considering cheap rents, go to the suburbs. You want something for nothing. No one is going to re-do the building for $500 per month rents. Let's get real. I have an apartment in New York City. I would love to be on Park Avenue near Central Park. However, we are in Chelsea. It is great, near the hipper areas, but it isn't in the higher rent area. If you want absolutely the best locations you will pay for it anywhere. You can dream, I guess, but it isn't realistic.

Rover, you are the one with the mixed socio-economic idea for FNC, not me.

Kerry - you want to know what I would like to see? I want to see an apartment that gives you the space for the price that doesn't make you stupid to pay for it rather than buy a freaking house. That's what I want to see. If i'm going to pay ~$1K a month for ~1800sqft, ok so that's about a mortgage payment right now. That one I can see a person going either way...just depends on their choice in having yard or not. HOWEVER, all this crap we're seeing where the price of the place is double that. They are making that price point because the developer either is saying "i only want a certain income level in my building" (which means yes it is a class choice), or they are't really making a long-term investment and are looking to fill the place enough to sell it off and make a buck.

So what I want to see is someong that offers a reasonable price for the average joe to come in and pay that 1K for that 1500-1800 and get a place. It doesn't have to be fancy, it's just an average apartment. it doesn't have to have granite counters, oak crown molding, etc. But you know what, you're going to attract the 20 somethings with lots of disposable income this way. Most folks in that demographic (look at it statistically) in OKC move OUT when they have children. Why not grab them before they get there so they can get in on the wagon first? You can count on a couple hands how many families live in these "upscale" places with children. Oh and anyone have a pet? No? Ok, then I guess these will work for you.

I'm not saying every development needs to offer something, but SOMEONE needs to. It's absolutely, 100%, NEVER going to turn downtown into a honest sustainable place to LIVE if something other than upscale exists. Next time the economy tanks, these upscale places are going to be the first places to go. And the owners of each unit are going to lose a TON of money on them. Same old story that has happened time and time again in the overbuilt urban environment....see Miami.

a 20 something doesn't need an apt that has 1800 sq feet .. that is much bigger than lots of houses all over the metro ..

Originally Posted by bombermwc

Kerry - you want to know what I would like to see? I want to see an apartment that gives you the space for the price that doesn't make you stupid to pay for it rather than buy a freaking house. That's what I want to see. If i'm going to pay ~$1K a month for ~1800sqft, ok so that's about a mortgage payment right now. That one I can see a person going either way...just depends on their choice in having yard or not. HOWEVER, all this crap we're seeing where the price of the place is double that. They are making that price point because the developer either is saying "i only want a certain income level in my building" (which means yes it is a class choice), or they are't really making a long-term investment and are looking to fill the place enough to sell it off and make a buck.

So what I want to see is someong that offers a reasonable price for the average joe to come in and pay that 1K for that 1500-1800 and get a place. It doesn't have to be fancy, it's just an average apartment. it doesn't have to have granite counters, oak crown molding, etc. But you know what, you're going to attract the 20 somethings with lots of disposable income this way. Most folks in that demographic (look at it statistically) in OKC move OUT when they have children. Why not grab them before they get there so they can get in on the wagon first? You can count on a couple hands how many families live in these "upscale" places with children. Oh and anyone have a pet? No? Ok, then I guess these will work for you.

I'm not saying every development needs to offer something, but SOMEONE needs to. It's absolutely, 100%, NEVER going to turn downtown into a honest sustainable place to LIVE if something other than upscale exists. Next time the economy tanks, these upscale places are going to be the first places to go. And the owners of each unit are going to lose a TON of money on them. Same old story that has happened time and time again in the overbuilt urban environment....see Miami.

1800 sq ft apartment downtown for $1,000 per month? Won't happen unless it is a dump. People need to get real about what it takes. Office rent for class A downtown is $1.50 to $2 per foot per month. 1800 feet would be $3000 per month. Why in the world build an apartment building with club rooms, pools, etc. or space with kitchens, more bathrooms, etc. Decent hotels run from $150,000 to $300,000 per key (room) to build and that would be 300-500 sq feet. Building downtown is expensive and building UP is expensive. If people want cheap, then they give up location and lifestyle.

Rover, that's my entire point. Office space does not go for the same as residential...apples and oranges. You guys just made entire ever loving point.

Remember we're not talking about building either, we're talking about conversion.

And last time I checked, NYC and every other large city had exactlly what I'm talking about. Obivously they are more expensive because of their market, but don't pretend to create a false market in OKC.

And BTW, there are units in the area that are more in the 1200ft for about 1K a month downtown right now. Guess what, they are in normal average apartment buildings too. So again, if you're going to have to go to a normal 2 story apartment building, why live there instead of somewhere further out where there are things like grocery stores, gas stations, schools, etc. Oh please let me take twice as long to get in/out of my area while i work my way through downtown traffic. i guess I could hop on the train and ride it out....oh no wait, we don't have a real commuter line.

The demographics they are pulling for downtown in these upscale places just aren't sustainable forever. The "scale" needs to expand out. That doesn't mean you have to provide freaking section 8, but it does mean you need to have something besides a 2K a month unit or a 250K lease.

I see what you are saying Bomber but the expense in building downtown is not the 'finishing touches'. Putting laminate counter tops in a mid-rise condo building instead of granite lowers the price from $300,000 to $297,000. If you are going to be spending that much doesn't it make more sense to have the nicer finishes?

Perhaps if you took out on-site parking, a pool, rec room, and other amenities you could get the price down to $200,000. Most apartment and condo buildings in NYC don't have them. If you look at all the recent residential construction downtown there are pools, on-site parking, common lounges, patios, decks, social gathering places, etc. Do you think there is a market for a building without all that? There might be.

Originally Posted by bombermwc

Rover, that's my entire point. Office space does not go for the same as residential...apples and oranges. You guys just made entire ever loving point.

Remember we're not talking about building either, we're talking about conversion.

And last time I checked, NYC and every other large city had exactlly what I'm talking about. Obivously they are more expensive because of their market, but don't pretend to create a false market in OKC.

And BTW, there are units in the area that are more in the 1200ft for about 1K a month downtown right now. Guess what, they are in normal average apartment buildings too. So again, if you're going to have to go to a normal 2 story apartment building, why live there instead of somewhere further out where there are things like grocery stores, gas stations, schools, etc. Oh please let me take twice as long to get in/out of my area while i work my way through downtown traffic. i guess I could hop on the train and ride it out....oh no wait, we don't have a real commuter line.

The demographics they are pulling for downtown in these upscale places just aren't sustainable forever. The "scale" needs to expand out. That doesn't mean you have to provide freaking section 8, but it does mean you need to have something besides a 2K a month unit or a 250K lease.

I think you should use your logic and put together an investment group and go make lots of money. You have figured something out the others haven't. Good luck and let me know when you are vacationing on the Mediterranean.

Originally Posted by Kerry

I see what you are saying Bomber but the expense in building downtown is not the 'finishing touches'. Putting laminate counter tops in a mid-rise condo building instead of granite lowers the price from $300,000 to $297,000. If you are going to be spending that much doesn't it make more sense to have the nicer finishes?

Perhaps if you took out on-site parking, a pool, rec room, and other amenities you could get the price down to $200,000. Most apartment and condo buildings in NYC don't have them. If you look at all the recent residential construction downtown there are pools, on-site parking, common lounges, patios, decks, social gathering places, etc. Do you think there is a market for a building without all that? There might be.

Repurposing an office building to meet 2011 building standards and codes as well as adding kitchens, bathrooms, closets, lighting etc. is extremely expensive. Most likely it is a complete retrofit of HVAC and plumbing, and possibly electrical. May even change what is required in fire systems. People who think all you do is slap some counter tops in and apply a fresh coat of paint are obviously not in the business and not realistic.

Originally Posted by Rover

Repurposing an office building to meet 2011 building standards and codes as well as adding kitchens, bathrooms, closets, lighting etc. is extremely expensive. Most likely it is a complete retrofit of HVAC and plumbing, and possibly electrical. May even change what is required in fire systems. People who think all you do is slap some counter tops in and apply a fresh coat of paint are obviously not in the business and not realistic.

Rover is 100% correct. To those that are suggesting that the FNC tower be transformed into condos/apartments/residential, I ask: Have you been inside the FNC tower above the 3rd floor? Sure the Great Banking Hall is awesome and gorgeous, the art deco outside is unique and the granite building will survive whatever natural disaster is thrust upon it. However, the fact of the matter is the building is stuck in the 1940/50's as far as technology and infrastructure. That's why the FNC is bleeding non-governmental tenants. When was the last time we heard of a big law firm, engineering firm or architecture group moving IN to the FNC? I know plenty have moved out to more modern space. What about a restaurant? The Beacon Club was up there but why hasn't that space been filled in the years since they moved across the street?

I could be very wrong but I can't see any way that any major corporate HQ is moving into the FNC on a permanent basis without first completely gutting the entire building. The elevators are constantly being worked on. The windows rattle, hum and howl like there's no tomorrow when the Oklahoma wind blows (and let's not discuss the Depression-era "chicken-wire embedded in glass" panes in some of the windows not facing the street). Want to go to the restroom on one of the upper tower floors? Then you better hoof it to the northside stairwell and go up or down a half-flight as that is where they hide the plumbing. Drop ceilings to hide cables/wiring/pipes? Dream on, those tiles are glued to the ceiling. The walls are solid so there's no hiding cables/wires/pipes inside them. Sure, there's a closet or two on each floor for trunk lines but how does that help you hide the cords and lines for that flat-screen you want to hang in your conference room, reception area or super-duper luxury condo? And yeah, what about that sprinkling system? I never saw one in the 20 years I officed in that building but maybe other floors were sprinkled on a "hodge-podge" basis.

The FNC is a great old lady of a building. But no amount of patchwork plastic surgery here and there is going to turn her into a young buxom desirable building that people will want to live in or work in. What the FNC tower needs is a complete "Skirvin-ish" redo to bring the place up to the expectations and needs of today's corporate or residential clientele. Until the City or some private benefactor steps up with a lot of $$$, time and thoughtful planning to return her to her former glory, she'll just continue to wither away like she's been doing since long before Boatmen's Bank abandoned her for Leadership Square.

blendd

Originally Posted by blendd

Rover is 100% correct. To those that are suggesting that the FNC tower be transformed into condos/apartments/residential, I ask: Have you been inside the FNC tower above the 3rd floor? Sure the Great Banking Hall is awesome and gorgeous, the art deco outside is unique and the granite building will survive whatever natural disaster is thrust upon it. However, the fact of the matter is the building is stuck in the 1940/50's as far as technology and infrastructure. That's why the FNC is bleeding non-governmental tenants. When was the last time we heard of a big law firm, engineering firm or architecture group moving IN to the FNC? I know plenty have moved out to more modern space. What about a restaurant? The Beacon Club was up there but why hasn't that space been filled in the years since they moved across the street?

I could be very wrong but I can't see any way that any major corporate HQ is moving into the FNC on a permanent basis without first completely gutting the entire building. The elevators are constantly being worked on. The windows rattle, hum and howl like there's no tomorrow when the Oklahoma wind blows (and let's not discuss the Depression-era "chicken-wire embedded in glass" panes in some of the windows not facing the street). Want to go to the restroom on one of the upper tower floors? Then you better hoof it to the northside stairwell and go up or down a half-flight as that is where they hide the plumbing. Drop ceilings to hide cables/wiring/pipes? Dream on, those tiles are glued to the ceiling. The walls are solid so there's no hiding cables/wires/pipes inside them. Sure, there's a closet or two on each floor for trunk lines but how does that help you hide the cords and lines for that flat-screen you want to hang in your conference room, reception area or super-duper luxury condo? And yeah, what about that sprinkling system? I never saw one in the 20 years I officed in that building but maybe other floors were sprinkled on a "hodge-podge" basis.

The FNC is a great old lady of a building. But no amount of patchwork plastic surgery here and there is going to turn her into a young buxom desirable building that people will want to live in or work in. What the FNC tower needs is a complete "Skirvin-ish" redo to bring the place up to the expectations and needs of today's corporate or residential clientele. Until the City or some private benefactor steps up with a lot of $$$, time and thoughtful planning to return her to her former glory, she'll just continue to wither away like she's been doing since long before Boatmen's Bank abandoned her for Leadership Square.

blendd

I hope nobody that hopes to see the FNC returned to life expects it to happen any other way...of course you don't get something for nothing. I think (or hope) that the point of Kerry and Bomber is that the FNC could easily produce enough revenue streams if renovated and brought back to glory to pay for what would be such an enormous renovation project.

Well, one thing is for sure. These $5 million rehabs every few years aren't going to cut it. Go big or go home.

Originally Posted by Spartan

I hope nobody that hopes to see the FNC returned to life expects it to happen any other way...of course you don't get something for nothing. I think (or hope) that the point of Kerry and Bomber is that the FNC could easily produce enough revenue streams if renovated and brought back to glory to pay for what would be such an enormous renovation project.

But not at $500 for a 1800 ft apartment. It won't cash flow after renovation if that is the target. There is an adaptive reuse in that building, but it isn't cheap apartments alone.

Originally Posted by Kerry

Well, one thing is for sure. These $5 million rehabs every few years aren't going to cut it. Go big or go home.

That's why everyone has gone home, so far.

Originally Posted by Rover

But not at $500 for a 1800 ft apartment. It won't cash flow after renovation if that is the target. There is an adaptive reuse in that building, but it isn't cheap apartments alone.

You can't even get $500 apartments with 1800 sf in the suburbs, not even in Del City lol. Realistically, along Memorial Rd I think $600/mo might fetch you around 600 sf. So at that proportion, I think $600/mo for a studio, and $800/mo for 600 sf sounds reasonable, and I do think that would cash flow. I also like the idea of having a mix of more upscale units such as 10-20 penthouse apartments going for >$2,000/mo within the property, because that will ensure long-term upkeep and maintenance of the FNC.

I think people need to realize that urban floorplans are a lot more open and efficient than suburban floor plans. Plus, the intended demographic is usually single, so I think something smaller and more stylish would be perfect. Somehow 100 sf in an inner city often feels more like 200 sf in the suburbs. A 600 sf downtown apartment is more than enough space for someone without a family.

And to go along with what betts and rover often preach, that I think bomber and others need to see a few more times, is that downtown residential is a lifestyle product. A lot of that is selling a particular lifestyle. Just as Memorial Rd apartments are a lifestyle product, albeit, a highly inferior one. As far as the lack of a grocery store goes, downtown living is a lifestyle that is slowly emerging with real milestones in OKC. A downtown grocery option is just one of those milestones that lay ahead.

OMG, i don't care if it turns residential or not, it is still going to require gutting. Just as you said, "brining it up to 2011 standards". It's woefully inadequate for ANYTHING, residential or commercial. It has such a narrow niche of types of offices that can use such a small floorplan per floor, that's just one more strike against it. That's why they built the expansions in the first place....twice.

And I'll restate the same thing I did earlier. My idea on the residential is done every day in other cities. No, the owners aren't going to retire to the mediteranean on them. But they will still be profitable. If they weren't, you wouldn't have places for anyone to live in NYC now would you. Or how about LA, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, etc. It can be done, it has been done, and IS being done. We just don't have anyone here that has the balls to do something without some assumed large wealth strategy out of it. Yeah it requires upfront capital and a slower ROI. So what we need is a LONG TERM investor instead of someone just looking to flip a building. For me, that's a pretty good deal because that owner is going to stick it out to make the place work instead of just trying to off-load it.

Oh and FYI - here's a quote from the Regency Tower thread.

"I used to live there. As far as being a stand alone apartment complex, it doesn't get much better for price/view/safety etc.. Obviously I would have rather had more to do within a couple blocks walking distance, but other than that, it was great.
When I moved out, almost 2 yrs ago, I was paying $775 (which included all bills except Cox), and I had a one-bedroom apartment on the 17th floor with my own balcony and ceiling to floor windows...it was great."

So a 1 bed goes for 775. Throw in a second bedroom and you've got the standard apartment around town. Tack on another couple hundred bucks a month for that apartment to pay for the room and BAM. There's my point. We need more of THIS. Oh and what city is that already being done in...oh yeah, ours.

Yes, but the Regency was built as an apartment building, not converted. I don't think you can compare the rent that Regency gets with what would be required to make FNC a financially viable project with just cheap rental. This thread is about ideas for FNC, right?

Is remodeling an 80 year old building to compete against a 44 year old building a sensible thing to do?

Oh please let me take twice as long to get in/out of my area while i work my way through downtown traffic

Downtown traffic? Did you mean Edmond?

I agree downtown needs services to make it work, but it is no more inconvenient that living in the suburbs. You still have to drive to get groceries no matter where you live in this city and, on the average day, there is way more congestion on Broadway in Edmond than on Broadway downtown.

This is interesting to tap into though. "That downtown traffic..."

More like, "That Okie anti-downtown impulse..."

I live in Bixby. Aside from event nights, traffic is generally worse here than in downtown OKC or Tulsa. People just don't seem to get that downtown traffic is no worse than the suburbs. This isn't NYC or Chicago. Just because there all tall buildings around you does not mean you are stuck in a gridlock.

Originally Posted by ZYX2

I live in Bixby. Aside from event nights, traffic is generally worse here than in downtown OKC or Tulsa. People just don't seem to get that downtown traffic is no worse than the suburbs. This isn't NYC or Chicago. Just because there all tall buildings around you does not mean you are stuck in a gridlock.

That is because most people only see downtown streets at 7:45AM to 8:15AM, 4:45PM to 5:15PM, and during Thunder game nights. What they don't see is at 8PM on a non-game night you could lay down on Park Ave and not worry about getting run over. Try that on a any street in Edmond at the same time.

Originally Posted by Kerry

Is remodeling an 80 year old building to compete against a 44 year old building a sensible thing to do?

In my opinion, if done right, there wouldn't be any competition. To use a hotel metaphor, it would be like comparing a newer high rise Holiday Inn to an older, but far more plush, Ritz-Carlton.

Originally Posted by MikeOKC

In my opinion, if done right, there wouldn't be any competition. To use a hotel metaphor, it would be like comparing a newer high rise Holiday Inn to an older, but far more plush, Ritz-Carlton.

Maybe. Let's see, Holiday Inn - $120 per night. Ritz, $1200 per night.

Oh well, I guess we can dream...or fantasize.

Originally Posted by Rover

Maybe. Let's see, Holiday Inn - $120 per night. Ritz, $1200 per night.

Oh well, I guess we can dream...or fantasize.

Yep. Why the hell not?

There are goals to be achieved, or fantasies that rarely are. FNC will not be retrofitted into cheap apartments. I know how you hate subsidies Mike, and it would only happen with a boatload of cash dumped on an investor by the city.

What is the total footage of the tower and the avg sq. ft. of each floorplate? Ceiling heights? Is the hvac a chilled/hot water system? Does it have a fire suppression system throughout? Operable windows?

Originally Posted by Rover

There are goals to be achieved, or fantasies that rarely are. FNC will not be retrofitted into cheap apartments. I know how you hate subsidies Mike, and it would only happen with a boatload of cash dumped on an investor by the city.

I was responding to it being nice condos or luxury apartments. Nothing less for the old FNB. No way can I see it as a low rent, or even an average rental building. That's just the way it is. You're certainly right about that.

The "center" has 990K sf of office space. I don't know how to split that up to see what the tower itself has. The additions had larger floorplans than the tower though. If you've ever been in an office in the tower, you know how small they are...just take a glance at the side of the building and you can see hos small it is...it's just wide.

I'm not 100% on this, but the TOWER section is probablly chilled water....unless you see enough condensors hidden somewhere. The additions would have newer equipment.

Same goes for fire suppression. Basically, not there. Fire alarm yes, sprinklers, no.

I'm also fairly certain that the windows (if they ever opened) have been sealed so no one can open them now. Just scroll back to post #261 to see some of the lovely states of the tower.

For a conversion, you have to gut it. The place has solid walls, so you can't run cabling in them (that means pipes too). The ceiling tiles are glued on like they did back then, so no hiding wires or pipes in a dropped ceiling either. What you see is what you get. Post #261 is a pretty good exaplanation of why I have geen so adamant about gutting the place. blendd worekd there for 20 years. My cousin worked for the leasing office for the tower at one time as well. It is a gem on the outside, but most of the inside is terrible.

I would not put much stock in hoping that the annex is much more modern. Also, for some reason I had a strong gut feeling that it was a figure over 1 million sf. It is downtown's largest property. Well, however much sf it is, it's more than enough to do anything with... not an issue.

The tower itself has wide enough floor plates to actually work with. It's not like CityPlace across the street...and even there, residential is going to be a success I think. Amazing to see the difference across the street that local ownership makes, not to mention continued strong ownership...two things the FNC hasn't had for a long time.

Originally Posted by Spartan

The tower itself has wide enough floor plates to actually work with.

It depends on what your target tenant is. Every owner of the building in the last 20 years has complained about the small footprint of each floor. They can't attract any large scale tenants in that tower and are limited to things like law offices, mortgage firms, insurance, etc. The problem is contiguous space...which is something it does not have. The additions do, but not the tower. You can fit several offices into a suite, but if you're looking to put a department for a larger company or something like that, it just doesn't fit. Remember you have to remove the central core from each floor as well, you have to look at the leasable sq footage. The "lobby" of each floor makes a U, so it takes up more space than if it just cut off right outside the elevator door.

You asked about my experience on another thread, well remember here I can offer inside information based on the leasing office for a previous owner. An owner, that at that time, OKC was friendly with....before it started changing hands every few years. Having been up in that office several times as well. An example to think of how small the floorplans are, that office was up on something like the 13th or 17th floor. I can't remember exactly. You could look from the wall of the elevator shaft, through the leasing office's glass door, out the window to the outside....a depth for the entire suite that is smaller than the depth of my personal office.

Originally Posted by blendd

Rover is 100% correct. To those that are suggesting that the FNC tower be transformed into condos/apartments/residential, I ask: Have you been inside the FNC tower above the 3rd floor? Sure the Great Banking Hall is awesome and gorgeous, the art deco outside is unique and the granite building will survive whatever natural disaster is thrust upon it. However, the fact of the matter is the building is stuck in the 1940/50's as far as technology and infrastructure. That's why the FNC is bleeding non-governmental tenants. When was the last time we heard of a big law firm, engineering firm or architecture group moving IN to the FNC? I know plenty have moved out to more modern space. What about a restaurant? The Beacon Club was up there but why hasn't that space been filled in the years since they moved across the street?

I could be very wrong but I can't see any way that any major corporate HQ is moving into the FNC on a permanent basis without first completely gutting the entire building. The elevators are constantly being worked on. The windows rattle, hum and howl like there's no tomorrow when the Oklahoma wind blows (and let's not discuss the Depression-era "chicken-wire embedded in glass" panes in some of the windows not facing the street). Want to go to the restroom on one of the upper tower floors? Then you better hoof it to the northside stairwell and go up or down a half-flight as that is where they hide the plumbing. Drop ceilings to hide cables/wiring/pipes? Dream on, those tiles are glued to the ceiling. The walls are solid so there's no hiding cables/wires/pipes inside them. Sure, there's a closet or two on each floor for trunk lines but how does that help you hide the cords and lines for that flat-screen you want to hang in your conference room, reception area or super-duper luxury condo? And yeah, what about that sprinkling system? I never saw one in the 20 years I officed in that building but maybe other floors were sprinkled on a "hodge-podge" basis.

The FNC is a great old lady of a building. But no amount of patchwork plastic surgery here and there is going to turn her into a young buxom desirable building that people will want to live in or work in. What the FNC tower needs is a complete "Skirvin-ish" redo to bring the place up to the expectations and needs of today's corporate or residential clientele. Until the City or some private benefactor steps up with a lot of $$$, time and thoughtful planning to return her to her former glory, she'll just continue to wither away like she's been doing since long before Boatmen's Bank abandoned her for Leadership Square.

blendd

To be fair, the windows in Leadership Square flex, vibrate, and hum when it's windy

Originally Posted by bombermwc

It depends on what your target tenant is. Every owner of the building in the last 20 years has complained about the small footprint of each floor. They can't attract any large scale tenants in that tower and are limited to things like law offices, mortgage firms, insurance, etc. The problem is contiguous space...which is something it does not have. The additions do, but not the tower. You can fit several offices into a suite, but if you're looking to put a department for a larger company or something like that, it just doesn't fit. Remember you have to remove the central core from each floor as well, you have to look at the leasable sq footage. The "lobby" of each floor makes a U, so it takes up more space than if it just cut off right outside the elevator door.

You asked about my experience on another thread, well remember here I can offer inside information based on the leasing office for a previous owner. An owner, that at that time, OKC was friendly with....before it started changing hands every few years. Having been up in that office several times as well. An example to think of how small the floorplans are, that office was up on something like the 13th or 17th floor. I can't remember exactly. You could look from the wall of the elevator shaft, through the leasing office's glass door, out the window to the outside....a depth for the entire suite that is smaller than the depth of my personal office.

I would say that the floorplates are considerably wider than in CityPlace, though.

The windows definitely open and there's a sprinkler system (I assume they work).

Originally Posted by bombermwc

The "center" has 990K sf of office space. I don't know how to split that up to see what the tower itself has. The additions had larger floorplans than the tower though. If you've ever been in an office in the tower, you know how small they are...just take a glance at the side of the building and you can see hos small it is...it's just wide.

I'm not 100% on this, but the TOWER section is probablly chilled water....unless you see enough condensors hidden somewhere. The additions would have newer equipment.

Same goes for fire suppression. Basically, not there. Fire alarm yes, sprinklers, no.

I'm also fairly certain that the windows (if they ever opened) have been sealed so no one can open them now. Just scroll back to post #261 to see some of the lovely states of the tower.

For a conversion, you have to gut it. The place has solid walls, so you can't run cabling in them (that means pipes too). The ceiling tiles are glued on like they did back then, so no hiding wires or pipes in a dropped ceiling either. What you see is what you get. Post #261 is a pretty good exaplanation of why I have geen so adamant about gutting the place. blendd worekd there for 20 years. My cousin worked for the leasing office for the tower at one time as well. It is a gem on the outside, but most of the inside is terrible.

FNC is in no worse shape than Skirvin was. All it needs is leadership, a vision, and bucks...like blendd said....she needs a total Oprah-like makeover, lol.

Got some amazing detail shots of the front of First National. Also some old photo comparisons in the next video from today.

Originally Posted by UnFrSaKn

Got some amazing detail shots of the front of First National. Also some old photo comparisons in the next video from today.

Will you be posting? I saw in the Stage Center thread that you did some shooting there today as well.

Originally Posted by earlywinegareth

FNC is in no worse shape than Skirvin was. All it needs is leadership, a vision, and bucks...like blendd said....she needs a total Oprah-like makeover, lol.

Except the FNC is much larger and the Skirvin rates make the financials much different.

The floorplates in the FNC tower are 8,000 - 10,000 square feet from 14 floors up; the bottom 13 are about 20,000 each (in a u-shape). The top three floors are only about 4,000 sq. ft. -- would be great for condos (ala City Place) or penthouse hotel suites.

Then, there are actually two separate buildings adjacent and part of the complex. The Center Building has 14 floors with about 14,000 sq. ft. each. The East Building has 14 floors of about 25,000 sq. ft. each.

The Tower is 451,000 square feet total; Center Building is 202,000 and the East Building is 347,000. So of the approx. 1 million sq. ft., the tower is almost half that.


All of City Place is only 330,00 square feet and the floor sizes are 15,000 to 12,000 for the first 16 levels, then only about 6,000 for 17-33.

Originally Posted by Pete Brzycki

All of City Place is only 330,00 square feet and the floor sizes are 15,000 to 12,000 for the first 16 levels, then only about 6,000 for 17-33.

They are small, when I worked at TAP we had the entire 29th floor, there is only one restroom per floor and were small, you alternated the mens and womens restrooms per floor. When I interviewed they were building out the new space on the 29th floor and were located on the 27th floor. At the time I was on the 27th floor of a building in Downtown Dallas.

Originally Posted by ClaytonH

The windows definitely open and there's a sprinkler system (I assume they work).

There are sprinklers only on those floors which have been renovated since the codes went in requiring sprinklers. If you're just moving in and not doing renovations to a space that doesn't have sprinklers, you didn't have to install them. My office and floor never had any sprinklers in the 20 years I was there. And yes, the windows do indeed open.

Originally Posted by bombermwc

I'm not 100% on this, but the TOWER section is probablly chilled water....unless you see enough condensors hidden somewhere. The additions would have newer equipment.

Heat and air is one of the main issues that will have to be addressed by anyone wanting to completely renovate the FNC tower instead of just being a caretaker. There's no way to properly moderate the heat/air to a particular temperature. Right now, if you want A/C, you've got to call the leasing office to ask them to turn on a particular fan and hope that within the next 10 minutes you hear a (literal) blast of air coming through the air vents. I understand the fans that provide the air to the FNC tower are located in the middle FNC building (13th floor?). Heat is provided by hot water piped to radiators, all located along the outer walls of the FNC tower and many of which are hidden under countertops/backbars, which restricts easy access for proper temperature moderation. So if you're in an office that is not along the tower's exterior, you've got to go without or hope that your pal in that outer office doesn't mind an overheated office just to make you semi-comfortable.

The leasing office was on 24 before they inexplicably moved to 3 into prime rental space overlooking the Great Banking Hall for their own use. Short-sighted move IMO.

blendd

Good job, beautiful photos. I can't wait till the powers that be cook up a scheme to demolish this building, as well...

Looks like they've used filler all around the metal detail and have done it in a very sloppy manner.

At least the lights are still on... Will be very interesting to see what happens when the bankruptcy dust clears and Devon moves out.

If nothing else, I hope that the rich hand of God (Devon) would do something to re-purpose this magnificent building. If OKC were to really let the FNC go, for whatever reason, I would disown the city as my place of birth and claim to have come from a more civilized land... like Antartica! Seriously though isn't the FNC a listed monument so that it HAS to be preserved? Can someone enlighten me?

The Biltmore was like a cousin or sibling to First National. Same era, about the same height. Why it was allowed to go into such a disrepair, I don't know. If it was turned to rubble, then I wouldn't doubt what people would try to get away with.

Originally Posted by UnFrSaKn

The Biltmore was like a cousin or sibling to First National. Same era, about the same height. Why it was allowed to go into such a disrepair, I don't know. If it was turned to rubble, then I wouldn't doubt what people would try to get away with.

That was in a different era. If the Biltmore had survived until 2011, there is no chance it would have been imploded, Sandridge or not.

Do you mean, instead of imploding, they would have de-constructed it from the inside instead?

Originally Posted by ljbab728

That was in a different era. If the Biltmore had survived until 2011, there is no chance it would have been imploded, Sandridge or not.

Well, it was. So you're trying to say that today we only implode dozens of little historic buildings? The problem with that argument is that they're getting bigger and bolder.