If it gets the TIF, that will make this project very well-positioned.

It got the TIF, I think it will be whether or not historic tax credits are frozen next year.

Huge news!

$2.6 million building permit issued today for this project. 19 apartments, parking plus retail/office space.

Here are their rental rates: http://www.carnegieokc.com/pdfs/carnegie-lease-rates-2011.pdf


Looks like they'll finally be starting soon.


Wow, that once-dead area of downtown is coming back to life all at once.

Awesome project. Good news.

excellent news. remind me where this is located?

On an iPad at work... but it's at Dean McGee and Robinson. http://www.carnegieokc.com/

131 Dean McGee Ave
Oklahoma City‎ Oklahoma‎ 73102
United States

Directly north of the SandRidge campus; or more specifically, immediately north of the under-renovation Braniff Building.

Any renderings? The NewsOK link died.

http://www.downtownokc.com/Portals/0/images/SkylineSnapShotImages/SkylineContent/small%20for%20q1%20web/Carnegie%20to%20City%20small%204%201.jpg

I thought they had to keep the historical facade. Hrm...

I thought they had to keep the historical facade. Hrm...

The historical facade was covered a long time ago and probably removed with what is there. The glass covers the ugly facade added.

The good news it looks like this project is getting ready to move forward.

The bad news is they aren't going to change anything on the facade other than clean it up -- including the windows. It's been added to the National Historic Register and thus can't change the exterior.




http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegiec.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegied.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegiea.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegieb.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegie.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegie2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegie3.jpg

Just to clarify that: she can't change the windows...if she wants to retain National Register status, and/or if she applied for tax credits. Other than that, nothing whatsoever precludes her from changing the windows.

Sorry to be such a stickler on this, but most readers don't have a complete understanding of what NR status means, and most think it somehow overburdens a developer, makes demands on them or protects the building in some way. She chose to pursue NR status, and is choosing to abide by those standards, which is tremendously admirable.

I thought there was a Carnegie Sign on the exterior that is now gone. But I could be mistaken all together.

THERE IS THE PICTURE of the building with the rendering on it that I referenced I while back!!! I knew I did not make that up!

yuck... hope they do a good job staging the outside...ugly building in my opinion.

I noticed several references to "restoring to the original plans". I guess what we see in the pictures are not the original design. Anyone know what this building looked like when it opened?

I think by original plans they are talking about the ones the current developer submitted with all the external louvers and such.

Just to clarify that: she can't change the windows...if she wants to retain National Register status, and/or if she applied for tax credits

I thought she did apply for tax credits.

I think by original plans they are talking about the ones the current developer submitted with all the external louvers and such.

Line 3 reads, "The main enterance for reconstruction to the original plans."

I take that to mean it is going to be restored to how the building was orginally built, which is different then what we see now. Is that not how you read it?

I thought she did apply for tax credits.
If so, Pete's correct in saying she cannot change them, if they contribute to the historic designation. Again, it's her choice to apply for tax credits, and using them is the only reason retention of historic elements is mandated.

I'm not going to lie. It is an absolute bastardization (IMO) of the NHPA of 1966 and subsequent accomplishments of the historic preservation movement to use historic tax credits for THIS building. This is not a historic building, especially not in context. This is an anti-historic building if you look at it in the proper context.

This is what you do when you've got a project that's been endlessly stalled, but you've suck a lot of money into a useless project, so you try desperately to save face and go after the historic tax credits, and try and pass THIS as "historic."

If they're not going to try some facade improvements, and I do think that the minor changes that were previously proposed made a huge difference, but if this facade goes unchanged--this is not a quality project. Right now I'm kind of wishing this project would just go away, which it always seems pretty likely at any given moment that I'll get that wish.

I just find it hard to believe that the old downtown library was ever even considered beautiful when it was first built. Kind of like the Cox and Chesapeake Arena, none of us are under the pretense that those are beautiful masterpieces. We like them because of what goes on inside and we're able to ignore the edifices. But, I would be interested to hear or see any first-hand accounts from people who can confirm that this was considered beautiful at one point.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/carnegieb.jpg

I totally agree that there is nothing attractive or historic looking about this building. I don't think that wishing the project would go away accomplishes anything positive, however. If you want to wait for another developer to do something different that could be 20 years from now.

I agree on this one - looks like a concrete box with a few openings. I do not know the history of the building but it does seem to be a rather tenuous "historic" claim based solely on appearance. (I also realize that personal preference in appearance is not a criteria for historic designation.)

I personally like the "concrete box" look better than the rendering. Feel free to commence throwing your rotten vegetables now.

The historic tax credits were the only way Hatfield could make this deal work, that in addition to $400K in TIF funds.

She tried for years to do an upscale condo project and there wasn't a market for it at the necessary prices.


I give her a lot of credit... She's been working on this for years and ultimately found a way to make it happen.

The building will look much better when it's cleaned up and full of life.

The historic tax credits were the only way Hatfield could make this deal work, that in addition to $400K in TIF funds.

She tried for years to do an upscale condo project and there wasn't a market for it at the necessary prices.


I give her a lot of credit... She's been working on this for years and ultimately found a way to make it happen.

The building will look much better when it's cleaned up and full of life.

I definitely agree on this - kudos to anyone willing to take a on risk and project like this.

The historic tax credits were the only way Hatfield could make this deal work, that in addition to $400K in TIF funds.

She tried for years to do an upscale condo project and there wasn't a market for it at the necessary prices.


I give her a lot of credit... She's been working on this for years and ultimately found a way to make it happen.

The building will look much better when it's cleaned up and full of life.

This is nothing more than a failed project one its last leg. That last leg happens to be a dubious claim as a historic preservation project just so that she can milk the public for tax credits just like she milked the city for a TIF, whilst no progress on the railroad quiet zone, let alone other real concerns the city could have put the $400,000 toward.

I have problems seeing thing building exude signs of life. You typically need windows at the very least, and my understanding is that only two new windows will be added to the edifice that I pictured above.

It's the opposite of a failed project... It's one that is going forward and will soon be under construction. If the units don't lease, then that's another matter but I bet they will do just fine.

And as far as "milking the public" for tax credit and TIF funds, it's no different than any other downtown housing project.

You don't like the way it looks but it is preserving and repurposing a key downtown property that has been sitting empty for a decade. And it seems Hatfield spent a lot of time, money and effort trying to develop it differently but could not make the economics work.

I give her a lot of credit for hanging in there and finding a way.

History and aesthetics are two different things. It is funny that one can argue to save one historic buildings one likes but lambast the effort to save another just based on the personal preference of the looks.

I have problems seeing thing building exude signs of life. You typically need windows at the very least, and my understanding is that only two new windows will be added to the edifice that I pictured above.

That is 2 more windows than Stage Center.

That is 2 more windows than Stage Center.

Of course the difference is that you don't want windows in a theater and you do in a dwelling.

All of Stage Center is not part of the actual theater though and windows are required in a dwelling.

All of Stage Center is not part of the actual theater though and windows are required in a dwelling.

Well I don't think there are any proposals to turn the Stage Center into housing so no problem. And the building actually has quite a few windows.

It is funny that one can argue to save one historic buildings one likes but lambast the effort to save another just based on the personal preference of the looks.

Come on Rover, just as my point about street naming fell pretty flat in the other thread, this point here is about the same. I think you're inventing an issue to stick to preservationists--here's where you're wrong: First of all, preservation must be systematic rather than random and haphazard, but it also must be in CONTEXT. Many of us would be on the front lines if a great example of mid-century modern architecture was under attack, and I can think of precisely such a building at Sheridan and Walker that certainly stands as a distant outlier to your typical victorians, colonials, revivals, and so on...

During the SR debacle, there were 2 buildings out of like 6/7 that preservationists were concerned with. Trust me, we were glad that the other 5 were going. I think that the old downtown library falls under the category of the 5, and not the 2.

So my point was: how much of preservation choice is subjective and who decides what is really significant?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/20110816_E1_E1cityhall0816.jpg

Tulsa's old City Hall redevelopment is an excellent example of making an unattractive mid-century building a really cool development nonetheless. There were ways for her to "preserve" the Carnegie that would have involved interpretations of authentic mid-century design elements that were actually positive, lasting influences.

The most pressing need the Carnegie has is needing significantly more windows and/or something to break up that blank wall. Ignoring the building's most pressing need doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

I'd much rather have a few "boring" box buildings that are kept up and used downtown that make the rest of the buildings look better than have even a couple blighted, unused, dilapidated buildings downtown that are never improved upon because they cannot be matched to the styling of the Concord or the Devon Tower.

Just like the world needs top scientist as well as people to work the most medial of jobs, sometimes you just need nice buildings that are good at being buildings, and nothing more. It doesn't all have to be groundbreaking art. Lets all remember we live in Oklahoma City, not Austin or New York. This building is far better than some of the other crap in this state.

Amen.

Not Austin or New York? Well, I agree with the New York part. But Austin is something we can attain.

Anyways, I don't get the negativity about this project when it's moving FORWARD. This building will be UTILIZED and LIVED IN. Yeah, it's ugly. We ALL KNOW THAT, but if this building can become a useful part of our downtown urban fabric, if it allows more people to live downtown, or if it brings different uses to a part of downtown that was formerly dead, then by all means we should judge it by those successes and not by it's unfortunate "historic" facade. Which BTW was an important factor in this project moving forward at all.

Keep in mind also that down the line they could still change the building exterior, it would just probably mean being taken off the historic register and sacrificing future tax credits.

Keep in mind also that down the line they could still change the building exterior, it would just probably mean being taken off the historic register and sacrificing future tax credits.

Urbanized can correct me if I am wrong, but the 'historical' components only have to stay in place for 5 years from the time the credit it taken. After that they can do what they want. So in 2017 they can add as many windows as they want.

I moved about 3 pages to this thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24698


Back to talking about Carnegie Centre, please.

This is the House of Blues in Cleveland. I saw this and it immediately reminded me of the Carnegie.. perhaps this illustrates what the Carnegie could look like with a renovation.

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p191276-Cleveland-The_House_of_Blues.jpg

Spartan, maybe you're talking about interior renovations. It wouldn't take much exterior renovation other than slapping a sign on the outside to make the Carnegie look like that.

Exactly, I'm talking about the exterior resemblance. Obviously a HoB is a higher use than the old library will be put to, but for all of us criticizing the decision against significant exterior modifications that were planned, perhaps this can still turn out unique and attractive. I thought the Cleveland HoB had a very cool vintage art moderne look albeit quite minimalist.

When is this ever going to start?

I suspect the Carnegie Centre and the Edge are in a neck and neck race to start later.

I suspect the Carnegie Centre and the Edge are in a neck and neck race to start later.

the edge was projected to start next month (august) don't think we have had any news that changes that ?

The Edge is a real development, on the edge of beginning, if you will. I still have questions if the Carnegie, no matter how changed revised or otherwise reinvigorated, is a real development. Is Hatfield still waiting on pre-leasing? Anyone waiting for pre-leasing isn't going to get it - why should people wanting to move downtown commit to something a year in advance when they don't know if a developer can follow through? It makes a little more sense with pre-sales, but even then, I wouldn't take part in a developer's fishing excursion.

I'd take my lease interest to a project that is breaking ground whether or not it reaches a threshold. The market occupancy rates for downtown rental should more than suffice. I just don't think pre-leasing is a good idea, unless it were the only way to get a MidtownR unit, in which case you do what it takes due to the excellent stability and track record of the developer.

the edge was projected to start next month (august) don't think we have had any news that changes that ?

No, we haven't. Sorry, I was joking. I needed to use a tongue in cheek smiley.

The Edge is a real development, on the edge of beginning, if you will. I still have questions if the Carnegie, no matter how changed revised or otherwise reinvigorated, is a real development. Is Hatfield still waiting on pre-leasing? Anyone waiting for pre-leasing isn't going to get it - why should people wanting to move downtown commit to something a year in advance when they don't know if a developer can follow through? It makes a little more sense with pre-sales, but even then, I wouldn't take part in a developer's fishing excursion.

I'd take my lease interest to a project that is breaking ground whether or not it reaches a threshold. The market occupancy rates for downtown rental should more than suffice. I just don't think pre-leasing is a good idea, unless it were the only way to get a MidtownR unit, in which case you do what it takes due to the excellent stability and track record of the developer.

well said

Today the OKC Economic Development Trust awarded $400K in TIF funds for this project and it looks set to start in September.

A month or so I suggested that it seemed like there was very little news on new projects... Nevermind. A lot of good news has been rolling in lately.

A month or so I suggested that it seemed like there was very little news on new projects... Nevermind. A lot of good news has been rolling in lately.

Well the TIF deal was obligated a long time ago. There's a page somewhere in this thread about it.. I'm still not too bullish on this project, but I will happily eat those words because I really do want Judy Hatfield to have success here

Work started here yesterday with interior demo, I just did not realize it. Lots of old drywall being carried out into 2 dumpsters in the street.

Well the TIF deal was obligated a long time ago. There's a page somewhere in this thread about it.. I'm still not too bullish on this project, but I will happily eat those words because I really do want Judy Hatfield to have success here

they are "breaking ground" full force in august ..

This will also bring a decent number of living units into the CBD proper, which we all know is way too dead after business hours.

I hope more apartment conversions follow, especially since Park Harvey has been pretty successful.

I saw some pricing on a webpage, but it was pretty old. I wonder what they'll go for.

http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/wschnitt/IMG_0582.jpghttp://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/wschnitt/IMG_0584.jpghttp://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/wschnitt/IMG_0585.jpg

I think they were waiting for Lingo to move to their sweet new office-123 8th Street, so they could get started.

http://newsok.com/library-renovation-into-housing-set-to-begin/article/3699243