View Full Version : 5/26 Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Outlet Shoppes Update



Pages : [1] 2

bbhill
06-09-2009, 08:00 PM
Sorry if its a repost. I hadn't seen this anywhere else.

Oklahoma City projects stall, look for momentum. (http://okc.biz/article/05-26-2009/Oklahoma_City_projects_stall_look_for_momentum.asp x) via okcBIZ

Pamela A. Grady
5/26/2009 12:00:00 AM


In the Oklahoma City metro area and its surrounding communities, many development projects have been planned, talked about or reported as forthcoming. Looking back, some projects took off and did well, while others never came to fruition, or simply fell off of people’s radar.

OKCBiz takes a look at some of these commercial projects to see whether these deals are moving forward or dead in the water. Simply put, “Whatever happened to that?!?”

Tuscana

THE PLAN: Two years ago, local developer Larry Owsley of RCL Mortgage Corp. purchased 233 acres north of Quail Springs Mall for his Tuscana project, a Mediterranean-style, mixed-use development. He purchased the vacant land with plans to build Oklahoma City’s largest mixed-use destination project. Initially, the plan was to be completed within five to seven years.

THE PROBLEM: “We’ve been pushed back a year or two,” Owsley says, blaming delays on economic circumstances and retailers struggling to find new finance options. “Everybody’s just in slow-motion or holding back until their own financing can get worked out. A lot of their major financing from Wall Street, major investment firms or the REITs have gone away.”

THE PROSPECT: Nonetheless, Owsley says he’s not waiting any longer to begin working on the project’s infrastructure at its ceremonial entrance on May Avenue, where an 18-foot-tall, triple-layered, Tuscany-style fountain will be placed. He says roads are being paved on the Stillwater National Bank-financed project.

“Two years ago, our market feasibility study indicated (Tuscana) would be $700 million to $800 million in bricks and mortar,” he says, but admits the cost may be much higher once all is said and done.

Under the project’s planned unit development, the pedestrian-friendly Tuscana will provide more than 800,000 square feet of retail space, with an emphasis on family recreation.

“Around the perimeters, we have 10 acres on 150th that will be upscale boutique retail,” he says. “On the May Avenue frontage, the area is set up for restaurants with water features and more retail. The concept is everything is driven to the center of the development where the hub of activity will be.”

Additionally, more than 600,000 square feet of residential-size offices and larger corporate structure areas will be available. The project also will feature five to six different styles of residential living, including mid-rise, row homes, townhomes, condominiums and lofts.

“The demographics here in Oklahoma City, in terms of education, number of people, and the income in certain areas of Oklahoma City, is very strong,” Owsley says. “And our development center is in the center of the bull’s eye.”


Quail Springs Ranch

THE PLAN: Local commercial real estate broker Bob Sullivan of NAI Sullivan Group planned for Quail Springs Ranch at Western Avenue and Memorial Road to be a 90-acre, 1.5 million-square-foot, mixed-used project, including The Shops at Highland Park and The Offices at Highland Park, built by Retail Endeavors Group.

THE PROBLEM: Signs onsite indicate the project was to open in summer 2009, but the project has yet to break ground. Sullivan says it has been delayed due to the economy, but only for about 12 months.

THE PROSPECT: “The project is still on track, but with the national slowdown, it’s been pushed back,” he says.

Plans for the site include a 235,965-square-foot anchor, a 65,000-square-foot fitness center, 302,781 square feet of additional retail, 305,300 square feet of commercial offices, a 62,900-square-foot cinema, a 64,917-square-foot entertainment anchor, 23,225 square feet of freestanding restaurants, 243,100 square feet of residential and a 131,400-square-foot hotel. An IMAX theater by Dickinson Theaters is expected as a major tenant, as well as a Legoland theme park and boat rides.


The Outlet Shoppes at Oklahoma City

THE PLAN: In early 2008, Oklahoma City Council members signed a contract to approve $8 million in economic incentives for Horizon Group Properties and Cousins Properties to co-develop Oklahoma City’s first outlet center at Interstate 40 and Council Road, with the understanding that the developers would provide an initial $50 million investment. Depending on the success of the center, another 75,000 square feet could be added later.

The team retained Timberlake Construction as general contractor for its $65 million, 350,000-square-foot retail center, to be called The Outlet Shoppes at Oklahoma City.

THE PROBLEM: Construction was scheduled to begin in November 2008, then was delayed until this spring due to the economy.

THE PROSPECT: Horizon Group Properties Senior Vice President Thomas Rumptz says his group remains cautiously optimistic that construction will begin on the project this summer, with a target completion date of July 2010.

“We have some strong tenants in the marketplace that we’ve worked with and have had in the last 45 to 60 days,” Rumptz says. “So we hope to start construction by the latter part of summer and open by the latter part of 2010. This facility will be similar to our El Paso center (The Outlet Shoppes at El Paso). We built 380,000 square feet of retail in El Paso, and Oklahoma City’s will be 350,000 square feet, but still with 90 retailers on site.”
Despite the current economy, Rumptz says he believes outlets will continue to remain strong in the retail industry.

“If you look at the retail segments right now, the strongest retail segment is the outlet centers,” he says. “And it’s not always that way, so I don’t have the pleasure of saying that all of the time. Most of the retailers that we’re working with have stayed with the outlet project. It’s part of their growth plan, and their corporate success is outlet centers.”

fromdust
06-09-2009, 08:12 PM
this is good new to me! especially the tuscana project, but i was under the assumption that the imax would be here and not at the other project on the other side of the mall. not that thats important.

jbrown84
06-17-2009, 06:00 PM
I thought that about the Dickinson Theatre as well, fromdust. A mistake, possibly?

andimthomas
06-17-2009, 06:11 PM
OMG at Tuscana
Tuscana (http://www.massey-mann.com/mma1_006.htm)

My jaw literally dropped.

Luke
06-17-2009, 06:17 PM
OMG at Tuscana
Tuscana (http://www.massey-mann.com/mma1_006.htm)

My jaw literally dropped.

I hope it still happens.

warreng88
06-17-2009, 06:32 PM
this is good new to me! especially the tuscana project, but i was under the assumption that the imax would be here and not at the other project on the other side of the mall. not that thats important.

Not exactly sure what you are saying. For the record, Tuscana IS the development just north of Quail Springs Mall.

fromdust
06-17-2009, 08:39 PM
Not exactly sure what you are saying. For the record, Tuscana IS the development just north of Quail Springs Mall.

okay, i guess i didnt make it clear. i thought the imax was going to be part of the tuscana project, not the development on the other side of quail.

Tex
06-17-2009, 09:06 PM
okay, i guess i didnt make it clear. i thought the imax was going to be part of the tuscana project, not the development on the other side of quail.

It's not even on the other side of Quail. It's over there by Western & Memorial.

Patrick
06-18-2009, 11:50 AM
I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

Jesseda
06-18-2009, 01:09 PM
great thats what developers and possible retailers need to read (negativity) that if high end retailers come to okc they will hav to cheapen themselves to fit our okc class lol...

circuitboard
06-18-2009, 01:21 PM
I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

Wow, love your enthusiasm for OKC. I disagree; I believe OKC is more than ready to handle high end retail. OKC should not be saturated with it like Dallas and promote major credit card debt, but we could defiantly handle a few. Tulsa has had a wannabe saks for years, and they are fine.

Patrick
06-18-2009, 01:36 PM
Wow, love your enthusiasm for OKC. I disagree; I believe OKC is more than ready to handle high end retail. OKC should not be saturated with it like Dallas and promote major credit card debt, but we could defiantly handle a few. Tulsa has had a wannabe saks for years, and they are fine.

I agree with you, but what you believe, and what the retailers are actually saying are two different things. Reality is that the high end retailers ARE NOT considering OKC because of our demographics. In regards to Tulsa, if you look at demographics, they're actually better in Tulsa. That's not to say we don't have areas of concentrated wealth in OKC. But, from all of the demographic studies, Tulsa is stronger in this area. Also, Saks is getting dirt cheap rent in Utica Square.

Patrick
06-18-2009, 02:40 PM
Tulsa Demographics show 1% of population with salaries over 200K. OKC shows 0.6% of population with salaries over 200K.

Of note, Dallas has 1.3% of its population with salaries over 200K. LA and NY have similar results.

circuitboard
06-18-2009, 02:51 PM
Yeah it is unfortanate that our demographics reflect that. We are really spread out in the metro. Hopefully retailers will look closely.

Patrick
06-18-2009, 03:07 PM
Tulsa:
Avg HH Income $50,270
Median HH Income $35,316
Per Capita Income $21,534


Oklahoma City:
Avg HH income: $43,373
Median HH Income: $31,345
Per capita income: $18,311

FritterGirl
06-18-2009, 03:26 PM
Tulsa:
Avg HH Income $50,270
Median HH Income $35,316
Per Capita Income $21,534


Oklahoma City:
Avg HH income: $43,373
Median HH Income: $31,345
Per capita income: $18,311

Patrick,

Are those figures factoring the whole MSA, or just OKC proper? Can make a difference, especially if you throw in Norman and Edmond, the residents of which would likely travel to a central location if the right high-end retail was there.

bluedogok
06-18-2009, 08:09 PM
Wow, most Macy's that used to be Foley's are not much different than most other Macy's around. We have a brand new one at the new "high-end lifestyle center" (outdoor mall) where I work, it seems no different than the one at Penn Square. This is a two year old Simon lifestyle center (The Domain (http://www.simon.com/mall/default.aspx?id=1207)) with Needless Markups, Tiffany and all the other name brand stores. There is also a planned Nordstrom's and a relocation of Sak's destined for the third phase that was put on hold late last year.

ALL of the Macy's stores that I have been in pale in comparison to the original in NYC.

Oil Capital
06-19-2009, 06:53 AM
Tulsa Demographics show 1% of population with salaries over 200K. OKC shows 0.6% of population with salaries over 200K.

Of note, Dallas has 1.3% of its population with salaries over 200K. LA and NY have similar results.

You need to look at metro numbers, not city numbers (which I presume is what you did.) The city numbers are pretty much worthless for this purpose.

According to the US Census Bureau, 2.6% of households in OKC have income over 200K, compared to 2.5% of Tulsa households.

Oil Capital
06-19-2009, 06:59 AM
Tulsa:
Avg HH Income $50,270
Median HH Income $35,316
Per Capita Income $21,534


Oklahoma City:
Avg HH income: $43,373
Median HH Income: $31,345
Per capita income: $18,311

Again, you need to look at metro numbers. According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2007:

Tulsa metro:
Median HH Income: $43,749
Mean HH Income: $59,075
Per Capita Income: $23,723

OKC Metro:
Median HH Income: $ 43,652
Mean HH Income: $59,937
Per Capita Income: $24,075


(and, btw, not sure where you got your numbers, but they don't agree with the Census Bureau's city numbers either)

CuatrodeMayo
06-19-2009, 07:06 AM
ALL of the Macy's stores that I have been in pale in comparison to the original in NYC.

Yea...it doesn't even feel like the same company.

kevinpate
06-19-2009, 08:01 AM
tradin' on the presump, and hopin' the sheeple don't notice. Seems to be workin' by and large.

okcpulse
06-19-2009, 08:45 AM
Again, you need to look at metro numbers. According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2007:

Tulsa metro:
Median HH Income: $43,749
Mean HH Income: $59,075
Per Capita Income: $23,723

OKC Metro:
Median HH Income: $ 43,652
Mean HH Income: $59,937
Per Capita Income: $24,075


(and, btw, not sure where you got your numbers, but they don't agree with the Census Bureau's city numbers either)

Actually, Oklahoma City MSA's per capita income is $38,834 in 2007 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In Tulsa, the per capita income was $41,307. Dallas-Ft. Worth's per capita income in 2007 is $40,893.

However, Oklahoma City is outpacing both Tulsa and Dallas in per capita income growth.

Patrick, while demographics do play a role in what stores locate to a metro area, I still have a hard time believing Tulsa is THAT much stronger. According to my sources. Oklahoma City alone... not including Edmond, Nichols Hills and Norman... has 3,048 people that make more that $200K a year. Tulsa alone... not including Owasso, Jenks and Broken Arrow... has 3,862 people that make more than $200K a year.

Now, lets take a closer look at the 'burbs for both cities...

Individuals making more than $200K per year in...

Edmond - 1,017
Nichols Hills - 378
Norman - 675
Total including OKC - 5,118

Broken Arrow - 351
Jenks - 50
Owasso - 33
Total including Tulsa - 4,296

Please understand, I am not saying you are wrong Patrick. Tulsa no doubt has good demographics, percentage-wise. But Oklahoma City's tangible numbers are getting overlooked. If these retailers are looking at solely Oklahoma City and not the suburbs, therein lies our problem. Anyone in Oklahoma City and Edmond knows that Edmondites do the bulk of their weekend shopping in Oklahoma City (when they are not in Dallas, mind you). And given the geography of those demographics, between Nichols Hills, the Quail Springs Region and Edmond, and there is a lot of missed opportunity. Why?

Those figures above are based on the 2000 census as well. Given the growth in per capita income over the last eight years, OKC's demographics have gotten stronger. So I fail to see why OKC is getting overlooked. If it were 1995, I can understand why. But with the major presence of two energy companies, not to mention the gradual influx of bio-tech jobs and the full recovery from the oil bust 11 years ago, this is why I am such a strong ambassador for OKC.

I value your opinion, Patrick, so what are your thoughts?

Patrick
06-20-2009, 01:08 PM
I think at this point in the game, Tulsa and OKC are pretty equal. That's why we're getting similar retailers, NOW. But, you have to remember, Saks has been in Utica Square a long time.......and things were different back when they located there. OKC has moved up some in regards to per capita income, but in regards to Tulsa, as oil companies have left the former oil capital, I think what we've seen more is Tulsa go down in comparison to say 30-40 years ago......factoring in inflation of course. So, maybe Tulsa at one time was ahead of OKC in per capita income, but times have changed.

I think a lot of it has to due with population density too. You tend to see more upscale retailers in larger metro areas. We're just not there yet. And you're seeing it in faster growing cities like Austin and Albuqurque before you're seeing it here. Our growth rate just isn't as large as some of these other cities.

Oil Capital
06-20-2009, 02:44 PM
Actually, Oklahoma City MSA's per capita income is $38,834 in 2007 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In Tulsa, the per capita income was $41,307. Dallas-Ft. Worth's per capita income in 2007 is $40,893.


Interesting that the BEA numbers are so different from the Census Bureau numbers. Any idea why? (FWIW, the BEA numbers show the Houston metro (where I believe you live) with a Per capita income of $46,471)

LIL_WAYNE_4_PREZIDENT08
06-20-2009, 03:11 PM
im more exctied about the new outlet mall being built right up the street with stuff I can afford to buy then that stuff up in edmond with stuff I can afford to look at

okcpulse
06-20-2009, 10:40 PM
Interesting that the BEA numbers are so different from the Census Bureau numbers. Any idea why? (FWIW, the BEA numbers show the Houston metro (where I believe you live) with a Per capita income of $46,471)

The U.S. Census Bureau uses per capita income estimates derived from the Economic Census, whose most recent figures are from 2000.

The BEA uses income reported each year during tax return season, which is not just place of work, the only category in which the Economic Census reports. BEA derives data on income collected from place of work, rental income, proprietary income (royalties), dividends and interest income.

Yes, Houston MSA's income is the highest in the Texas-Oklahoma region, and is more reliant on energy than is Oklahoma City. In Montgomery County, where I live, The Woodlands boosts the average significantly.

Oil Capital
06-21-2009, 07:09 AM
The U.S. Census Bureau uses per capita income estimates derived from the Economic Census, whose most recent figures are from 2000.

The BEA uses income reported each year during tax return season, which is not just place of work, the only category in which the Economic Census reports. BEA derives data on income collected from place of work, rental income, proprietary income (royalties), dividends and interest income.


Not true.

(1) The Census Bureau numbers I quoted are from the "American FactFinder, which is updated on an ongoing basis. The most recent numbers are 2007 (same as the BEA's, I believe).

(2) "Income" for these purposes is: "‘‘Total income’’ is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income." (As you can see, not just "place of work")

okcpulse
06-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Not true.

(1) The Census Bureau numbers I quoted are from the "American FactFinder, which is updated on an ongoing basis. The most recent numbers are 2007 (same as the BEA's, I believe).

(2) "Income" for these purposes is: "‘‘Total income’’ is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income." (As you can see, not just "place of work")

Right, which is the basis of per capita income. I looked on the census.gov website for the source, and that source was from the Economic Census on the QuickFacts page.

But of American FactFinder's source is the BEA, then that makes their numbers disputable, because if you go straight to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page (http://www.bea.gov) and select State and Local Area Personal Income, the tables are all there, and are significantly different from what American FactFinder made available.

BEA's site releases new income figures each year at the end of April. State per capita income figures are available for 2008, while the counties and metro areas are a year behind in 2007 (BEA takes an extra year to break down the state figures by county).

When I used to research from the U.S. Statistical Abstract book, the Economic Census only reported per capita income from place of work, but that was in the 1990s and probably changed.

Either way, American FactFinder's 2007 figures do not match BEA's 2007 figures.

Oil Capital
06-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Right, which is the basis of per capita income. I looked on the census.gov website for the source, and that source was from the Economic Census on the QuickFacts page.

But of American FactFinder's source is the BEA, then that makes their numbers disputable, because if you go straight to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page (http://www.bea.gov) and select State and Local Area Personal Income, the tables are all there, and are significantly different from what American FactFinder made available.

BEA's site releases new income figures each year at the end of April. State per capita income figures are available for 2008, while the counties and metro areas are a year behind in 2007 (BEA takes an extra year to break down the state figures by county).

When I used to research from the U.S. Statistical Abstract book, the Economic Census only reported per capita income from place of work, but that was in the 1990s and probably changed.

Either way, American FactFinder's 2007 figures do not match BEA's 2007 figures.

The Census numbers I quoted are not from the "Economic Census". They are from the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey is done every year. Its source is not the BEA. Its source is the survey it does every year. You can find all of the tables in the Census Bureau Home Page (http://www.census.gov) website, under American FactFinder, then under American Community Survey. Apparently, the BEA and the Census are counting different things as part of income.

Edit: Here's some additional info I found: " Without going into the detailed differences we can say that BEA counts more things than the Census does. The Census asks about your specific income sources. The sources of income counted by the Census are:

* Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs

* Self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnership (Net income after business expenses).

* Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts

* Social Security or Railroad Retirement

* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

* Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office

* Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions — Do NOT include Social Security.

* Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony — Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home.


Apparently, the BEA calculation of income also adds in such things as: imputed income, lump-sum payments not received as part of earnings, certain in-kind personal current transfer receipts—such as Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—and employer contributions to private health and pension funds and to government employee retirement plans....and more.

okcpulse
06-21-2009, 05:44 PM
The Census numbers I quoted are not from the "Economic Census". They are from the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey is done every year. Its source is not the BEA. Its source is the survey it does every year. You can find all of the tables in the Census Bureau Home Page (http://www.census.gov) website, under American FactFinder, then under American Community Survey. Apparently, the BEA and the Census are counting different things as part of income.

Edit: Here's some additional info I found: " Without going into the detailed differences we can say that BEA counts more things than the Census does. The Census asks about your specific income sources. The sources of income counted by the Census are:

* Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs

* Self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnership (Net income after business expenses).

* Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts

* Social Security or Railroad Retirement

* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

* Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office

* Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions — Do NOT include Social Security.

* Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony — Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home.


Apparently, the BEA calculation of income also adds in such things as: imputed income, lump-sum payments not received as part of earnings, certain in-kind personal current transfer receipts—such as Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—and employer contributions to private health and pension funds and to government employee retirement plans....and more.

That makes sense. Either way, though, I prefer the BEA data because it is dollars you get in your bank account regardless of the source. It is tangible dollars that can be spent. It paints the most accurate picture of our overall well being.

Oil Capital
06-21-2009, 07:46 PM
That makes sense. Either way, though, I prefer the BEA data because it is dollars you get in your bank account regardless of the source. It is tangible dollars that can be spent. It paints the most accurate picture of our overall well being.

No, it is not actual tangible dollars that are in your bank account. Read the listings of what is included in the calculations again (the BEA numbers include imputed income, contributions to company and government retirement accounts made on your "account", etc. These are decidedly NOT money that is in one's bank account, not very tangible and cannot be spent, at least in any current short- or mid-term time line.

If what you are looking for is a number that reflects tangible dollars in your bank account, you should prefer the Census Bureau American Community Survey numbers.

metro
06-22-2009, 07:33 AM
:ot:

geterdone
07-16-2009, 12:18 PM
Good news drove by Tuscana today, and it looks like they have started on the development again. Two large holes have been dug, probably for the ponds, and also heavy equipment is operating.

megax11
07-17-2009, 09:36 AM
I'm more anxious in the ranch so they can get that IMAX put in.

Patrick
07-17-2009, 09:57 AM
I actually heard a report today that ponds may be put in, but that the owner of the development may be considering selling the land to homedevelopers, since the retail market may not recover for some time. With Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as strip malls surrounding the area, the place would be hard to sell now as a retail development. The current owner is considering a mix of office and home development instead of retail, so the concept of upscale retail being included may be forever off the table. Also, and IMAX development has been tabled. So, it looks like this land may be put to other uses, as the owner is looking for a quicker return.

bbhill
07-17-2009, 02:41 PM
great all we need are more generic suburban neighborhoods!! /sarcasm

MikeOKC
07-17-2009, 04:20 PM
I actually heard a report today that ponds may be put in, but that the owner of the development may be considering selling the land to homedevelopers, since the retail market may not recover for some time. With Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as strip malls surrounding the area, the place would be hard to sell now as a retail development. The current owner is considering a mix of office and home development instead of retail, so the concept of upscale retail being included may be forever off the table. Also, and IMAX development has been tabled. So, it looks like this land may be put to other uses, as the owner is looking for a quicker return.

Where did you hear that? Tuscana is helped by having Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as other retail. Tuscana wants to bring a touch of the urban lifestyle to the burbs as an upscale mixed-use development. Having such a variety of amenities nearby is the very reason that particular location was chosen for Tuscana. I have it on very good authority that your information is incorrect.

Patrick
07-17-2009, 10:10 PM
Where did you hear that? Tuscana is helped by having Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as other retail. Tuscana wants to bring a touch of the urban lifestyle to the burbs as an upscale mixed-use development. Having such a variety of amenities nearby is the very reason that particular location was chosen for Tuscana. I have it on very good authority that your information is incorrect.

That info is from some pretty solid real estate developers with Blanton Property group and Price Edwards and Co. I believe Blanton is actually representing the possible sale to a suburban home developer. Developers of Tuscana have come to the conclusion that almost all interest from retailers has dropped off, and thus they're wanting to move to something that will be more profitable and more realistic in this market.

megax11
07-17-2009, 11:02 PM
From what I understand, the IMAX wasn't even going to be on that property, but rather on a piece of land a mile or two east of Penn and Memorial.

If Tuscana is not going to fly, that should have no impact on the Quail Springs Ranch, where Dickinson wants to put the IMAX.

And if not, oh well... Maybe they will find a different place to put their IMAX. Maybe closer to southside.

Dustin
10-05-2009, 12:40 PM
I just got an email back from Matt Owsley, one of the owners of RCL Development Corp. who is building Tuscana. He said that the project is still a go!

Patrick
10-06-2009, 05:22 AM
I just got an email back from Matt Owsley, one of the owners of RCL Development Corp. who is building Tuscana. He said that the project is still a go!

The project is a go but with huge changes. It will be mostly suburban housing and maybe a little office space. Missing from the equation will be any substantial upscale retail space as originally planned to be incorporated into a town center concept. Retailers simply aren't expanding right now, and probably won't be for some time, possibly years. There will be some retail, but mostly local chains, and food extablishments. Don't expect any Saks, Nieman Marcus, Nordstroms, Crate and Barrell, or any other upscale national
retailer like that. The retail concept will be scaled back to nothing much better than Spring Creek Village in Edmond, if that. Also, Dickinson Theatres will not be building their theatre or IMAX as originally planned.

So, in summary, expect an upscale suburban housing development, a few office parks, and maybe a few retailers. Think Gaillardia, only not as ritsy.

okc_bel_air
10-06-2009, 07:43 AM
Do they have a home builder in mind? What type of price point?

Patrick
10-07-2009, 03:56 AM
Do they have a home builder in mind? What type of price point?

More in line with prices in Rose Creek. I'm not sure if they've selected a home builder yet.

Puppet
10-13-2009, 05:13 PM
I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

Case in point... Venture up to Tulsa and their Saks is not even remotely the same store as it would be in Dallas... Quite depressing...

okcpulse
10-13-2009, 06:16 PM
I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

ronronnie1
10-13-2009, 06:43 PM
^^^There was to be a Nordstroms in Alabama. Yeah, Alabama lol. I think they canned the idea due to the economy though. And don't forget, Tulsa has a Saks. I don't think it's such a stretch to think Nordstroms might consider OkC. Remember, Nordstroms isn't as exclusive as Neiman Marcus or Saks.

Oil Capital
10-13-2009, 08:08 PM
I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

Nordstrom goes well beyond the top 20 markets, e.g., Anchorage, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, Norfolk, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Austin, Nashville (under development), Providence, Raleigh-Durham, West Palm-Boca, Richmond (smaller than OKC).

In short, there are not all that many metros larger than OKC that do not already have a Nordstrom.

While we're at it, Saks 5th Ave. has quite a few stores outside of top 20 markets as well. Tulsa, Birmingham, and New Orleans come to mind real quickly.

OUGrad05
10-13-2009, 08:36 PM
FYI the Tulsa Saks is given major tax incentives to stay...

Patrick
10-14-2009, 04:16 AM
I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

With Whole Foods it's more the liquor issue, right?

Patrick
10-14-2009, 04:17 AM
^^^There was to be a Nordstroms in Alabama. Yeah, Alabama lol. I think they canned the idea due to the economy though. And don't forget, Tulsa has a Saks. I don't think it's such a stretch to think Nordstroms might consider OkC. Remember, Nordstroms isn't as exclusive as Neiman Marcus or Saks.


Wha? Nordstroms prices are way higher than Saks or Neiman.

progressiveboy
10-14-2009, 07:13 AM
Wha? Nordstroms prices are way higher than Saks or Neiman. Disagree. My vote would be Neiman's, aka Needless Markups:), however, I have been guilty of making a few purchases there myself.

Oil Capital
10-14-2009, 09:20 PM
Wha? Nordstroms prices are way higher than Saks or Neiman.

Not on this planet.

Oil Capital
10-14-2009, 09:23 PM
FYI the Tulsa Saks is given major tax incentives to stay...

Any source for that? Never heard that before. Have long heard they pay very low or no rent for their space.

Tex
10-14-2009, 11:01 PM
While we're talking about Saks...
Saks Fifth Avenue Online & In-Stores Friends & Family 25% Off (20% Off Jewelry and 10% Off Beauty and Fragrance) - Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/25329/Saks-Fifth-Avenue-Online--In-Stores-Friends--Family-25-Off-20-Off-Jewelry-and-10-Off-Beauty-and-Fragrance)

Patrick
10-15-2009, 04:42 AM
Well, okay, maybe Nieman is a little higher than Nordstroms, or more likely similar, but no way Saks is at the top of that list.

Oil Capital
10-15-2009, 10:22 PM
Well, okay, maybe Nieman is a little higher than Nordstroms, or more likely similar, but no way Saks is at the top of that list.

Keep trying.

Niemans and Saks are both well above Nordstrom.

okcpulse
10-15-2009, 10:27 PM
With Whole Foods it's more the liquor issue, right?

The liquor issue is a moot point now, especially since Whole Foods has locations in the following 3.2 beer states... Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and one of course in Tulsa.

Then they have a location in Little Rock, Arkansas, which based on my data, has demographics that just don't compare to Oklahoma City.

betts
10-16-2009, 12:23 AM
The liquor issue is a moot point now, especially since Whole Foods has locations in the following 3.2 beer states... Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and one of course in Tulsa.

Then they have a location in Little Rock, Arkansas, which based on my data, has demographics that just don't compare to Oklahoma City.

In New York they've got side-by-side stores, one of which sells liquor and the other groceries. I'm getting really annoyed with us being passed over for other cities with worse or similar demographics. Omaha has an Anthropologie. It's not doing well financially, but they've got one. I thought the Chamber was supposed to have a branch that was aggressively pursuing new retail in OKC. Granted, many stores aren't expanding at all right now, but clearly someone had been expanding to Little Rock and Omaha.

thatgirl77
10-16-2009, 02:02 AM
I appreciate everyone's input and market demographic statistics etc. Very interesting. As far as a planned Sak, Neiman's or Nordstorms coming to Oklahoma...it's a safe bet to say that sadly that has all been postponed thanks to our newest recession. I've waited 30 years for NM so I guess the wait marches on...:kicking:

Neiman's sadly has lost over 800 million since last December..haven't seen this last quarters losses. Saks has been quietly closing stores across the US for a year now. For the life of me, cannot figure out how the one in Tulsa hangs on...maybe because of a supposed tax incentive another poster had mentioned. Nordstrom's seems to be faring the best out of the three but any expansions this way have been put on hold. Three years ago there were plans for a Nordstom's in Norman where the newest Super Target is located. NM was slated for north of Quail, albeit on a smaller scale. Saks has been doing poorly way before the recession so there never was one planned for OKC. Got this info from several execs/ dept store heads ...but no one is talking much now!!
Oh yeah, Dillards stock has been plummeting and it is reflected in the cheaper merchandise they are stocking. They are in trouble too. What's a girl to do for shopping in this town...just kidding!! Still sad for classic retailers such as NM and Saks!!!
Anyone know if Balliet's will make it to Classen Curve.....??? They have been suffering similar losses...on a smaller scale , of course!!!
On another note.....would any gals out there like to see a upscale fashion accessories/shoe store in Classen Curve...or Nichol Hills?? Savy business men can chime in too!!! Would definitely have a online store to coincide with the brick n' mortar concept!!!!

thatgirl77
10-16-2009, 02:13 AM
Found this report while researching the retail mkt for 2009 and came upon this Pdf.....ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/.../PDF/.../RetailMarketSummary.pdf

sorry, do not know how to convert to a clickable link..will check later...:tiphat: