I drove through downtown today, and took a good look at the office buildings in the CBD. Seems like everytime I go to downtown, I focus on a different aspect of the area. I happened to notice that we have a lot of 3 or 4 story structures filling valuable space that could be used for more urban, office towers.

I do agree that Urban Renewal demolished several historically significant structures back in the 1960's and 1970's, but what some don't remember is that they also demolished some real eye sores as well, and replaced them with impressive large modern office towers. If it wasn't for Urban Renewal, we wouldn't have the impressive skyline we have today. Sure, we're nowhere close to Dallas's or Houston's skyline, but it's a huge impovement over the skyline of the 50's and 60's.

I do think we need to preserve structures that are historically significant. The Skirvin Hotel, First National, the Hightower Building, and the Colcord Buidling are fine examples. But other, less significant structures aren't as valuable historically, especially those that are an eyesore.

I think Urban Renewal needs to continue their mission, only more conservatively than the methods they used in the 60's and 70's.

New buildings will continue to be built downtown, as the area grows. I seriously think we need to start coming up with some rules that will allow our downtown area to grow in density. As I said, we have too many or 4 story building downtown, and we need to create a more dense downtown area.

I'm proposing that we place a height minimum on all new downtown office buildings in the CBD. We could create a minimum of 15 or 20 floors! Or, the corresponding height, if you wanted to use that method. Exceptions could be granted in rare instances, i.e., the Federal Campus, for security reasons.

New parking areas should be garages with at least 6 levels. No surface parking.

New hotels should be at least 10 floors.

New buildings should be built close to the street, not distanced away from the street like Bank One Tower and Kerr McGee Tower.

I agree. There are too many 1-story buildings being built downtown. I think this is unfortunate. In OKC, you can build cheaply just about anywhere. Why should we allow businesses to waste one of OKC's most precious resources (downtown property) like this?

I would also include something about the apartment complexes being built. For example, I think that Legacy Summit at Arts Central only being what... 3 stories? That's just too small in my opinion. I really do not want cookie cutter development downtown.

Some would say let "the market" dictate the presence of taller buildings -- in other words, if it's profitable to do so, they will be built. Personally, I am not so opposed to low slung buildings as long as they generate street life. Having seen downtowns like Philadelphia's where the downtown is of fairly decent size but there are relatively few skyscrapers, I've come to think that you don't need big buildings to create a bustling city center.

I do think there is a danger if you overbuild: you end up creating monsters that are a shadow of their former self and make people seem small and leave vacancy rates high. I consider a CBD skyline like Dallas' to be like the Gilded Age of the turn of the century -- things looked good, but they were empty on the inside. We have to return to the notion that downtowns are about people, their activities, and their interactions. It has to be seen as a neighborhood again.

Still, I understand the concerns about density, so maybe such minimums could be applied to specific streets and intersections. IMO the key to make such minimums work is to be selective about where they are placed -- not for the entire downtown area. It'll be interesting to see how the Flatiron Town Center concept will be planned; that (and the Galleria garage space) should be the area where downtown has its best chance of gaining a skyscraper or two.

Weren't you all just discussing the fact that Boldt should have built their 42,000 sf building downtown? That wouldn't have been more than four stories.

Weren't you all just discussing the fact that Boldt should have built their 42,000 sf building downtown? That wouldn't have been more than four stories.

We weren't really hoping Boldt would build a new structure downtown. Instead, we were hoping that Boldt might possibly fill some vacant office space downtown, possibly at First National or City Place.

I think most of us on this site would've been against Boldt building a low slung complex downtown.

floater I agree with you. My height minimums would only be placed on the CBD. Other areas like midtown, Bricktown, the Arts District, Automobile Alley, etc. wouldn't fall into that equation. I just thing we should try to build density int he center core of the CBD and leave lower slung building on the outer fringes.

I'm not suggesting that we build larger buildings just to build them. Vacant buildings would not create a good scenario.

At the present time, there really isn't a need for more office space downtown. But, in the future, I think we need to consider such minimums to maintain the overal urban feel of downtown.

A height minimum of 15 stories for office towers and 10 stories for hotels wouldn't be asking too much.

I agree, height minimums for most of downtown needs to be established with certain exceptions. Too bad Bass Pro couldnt have gone multi-level. I will bring it up to Dave Lopez next time I talk to him.

Hmmn... most cities have height LIMITATIONS. San Fran... LA used to have one, same as Denver, I think DC has one, etc, etc.

Yes, those neighborhoods I didn't think needed height minimums (I would like to see some more height in Bricktown, though -- and we probably will naturally). And I admit some shorter buildings do not look as if they belong (notably the law office next to the Hightower Building). It is an idea worth considering if demand really picks up.

Hmmn... most cities have height LIMITATIONS. San Fran... LA used to have one, same as Denver, I think DC has one, etc, etc.

Yeah, it must be luxury to be able to do that. Sometimes it's for city character and visual ID. Austin and DC imposed them because as capital cities, planners wanted official buildings (later the Washington Monument) to be the highest point in the city. Austin backed down years ago, but has managed to keep their skyscrapers somewhat away from the capitol on Town Lake. All the skyscrapers that would have been in DC are on the other side of the Potomac in Virginia. Similarly, Philly had a restriction in deference to William Penn atop City Hall, but demand finally changed that years ago.

OKC is also a capital city.

OKC is also a capital city.

In Austin, it's in relation to the tip of the capitol dome. We all know when our capitol was topped off...:)

We are just waiting for it to be reposessed as well.

I think it'll stick around, and I hope it does. The dome is a beautiful addition to Lincoln, especially when lit at night.

BTW, sometimes height limits are established to create density. Instead of buildings going up, more structures (without much setback or open space) fill in the block space between and around existing buildings. Ideally that's what happens when building construction is frequent.

I think much of what we are concerned about is empty airspace -- the space above the shorter buildings that makes a street look gaptoothed. Not a pretty sight. Also, the convention center (and other horizontally-oriented establishments that require lots of floor space) takes up lots of valuable square footage that aren't usually built upon.

That brings up a good point. Buildings like the ballpark, convention center, and a few other entertainment venues would be exempt from height minimums. My concern was mainly that I don't want a lot of suburban-style hotels and office parks in the CBD.

In Bricktown we could consider height minimums in the future, although height minimums in Bricktown would be much less than in the CBD. I'd probably require a 4 story minimum in Bricktown to start. Of course, this would only apply to retail/restaurant buildings and possibly Bricktown office buildings. I still say we require a 10 story minimum for hotels in Bricktown.
For right now, we probably don't want to discourage Bricktown development too much. I'm sure later as land becomes more scarce, the demand for taller buildings in Bricktown will increase. Bricktown still hasn'tmatured completely.

Patrick, I was just saying that having buildings with such large footprints gives the impression of a sprawling downtown. Height minimums certainly don't apply to these buildings.

Someone mentioned height requirements in Austin. That is the reason Dell builds three and four story buildings. They want them to be uniform to a degree. So, that is why ours will be three or four three or four story buildings instead of one office tower.

Patrick, I was just saying that having buildings with such large footprints gives the impression of a sprawling downtown. Height minimums certainly don't apply to these buildings.

Yeah, I understood what you meant, I was just clarifying my position on the issue.

Something to consider. The reason companies choose to build office parks instead of office towers is simple. Office towers are more expensive to build, more expensive to heat and cool (a chilling tower is needed instead of your traditional AC units, which is more expensive in the beginning but may in fat be cheaper over the long run), more expensive to maintain, and parking is always more of an issue.

What does a company get out of building an office tower instead of an office park? Recognition! Everyone knows KerrMcGee by it's office tower downtown.

Something to consider. The reason companies choose to build office parks instead of office towers is simple. Office towers are more expensive to build, more expensive to heat and cool (a chilling tower is needed instead of your traditional AC units, which is more expensive in the beginning but may in fat be cheaper over the long run), more expensive to maintain, and parking is always more of an issue.

What does a company get out of building an office tower instead of an office park? Recognition! Everyone knows KerrMcGee by it's office tower downtown.

Let us not forget parking. When locating downtown, you not only have to have a site t build your office. You also have to have a site (hopefully close) where you can build a parking garage.

To prove your point Patrick, I'll bet 100% of the people on this board know where Devon's corporate office is.

How many here know where Chesapeake (a company of equal or greater size headquartered in OKC) is located. Did you even know they were here? Building downtown is a great way for a company to instantly become very 'connected' to the community. If Chesapeake moved out, we'd notice a lot of jobs gone, and we'd miss the tax money. If Devon moved out, there'd be a much larger void to fill.

Speaking of office space occupancy downtown, here's a report you guys might find interesting. From the Brookings Institution:

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/officesprawl/report.htm

Let us not forget parking. When locating downtown, you not only have to have a site t build your office. You also have to have a site (hopefully close) where you can build a parking garage.


I guess not all of the buildings downtown have their own parking. My fiancee will be working at ONG downtown, and she'll be having to pay to park at a nearby pay lot. I had to do the same when I worked for Devon back in the summer of 1998. They also had no garage...instead I had to pay to park at the Santa Fe Parking Garage. Some employers help out with parking, others do not. When my fiancee starts at ONG she'll be footing the bill for her parking.

I guess not all of the buildings downtown have their own parking. My fiancee will be working at ONG downtown, and she'll be having to pay to park at a nearby pay lot. I had to do the same when I worked for Devon back in the summer of 1998. They also had no garage...instead I had to pay to park at the Santa Fe Parking Garage. Some employers help out with parking, others do not. When my fiancee starts at ONG she'll be footing the bill for her parking.

You bring up the Santa Fe garage.. That makes me think of COTPA -- the organization that's responsible for most of our parking garages. They are the very picture of incompetance. Check this out:

A friend of mine is in a position where he sees a lot of the bond data for state and local governments. That means that he gets to see P&L reports of various organizations. He once owned a business in the Santa Fe Parking Garage. He came across the COTPA data for the garage and was surprised to find out that since the garage was built, it has never once been in the black. How does one lose money with a parking garage!?

COTPA needs to be reigned in. Parking is absolutely critical to our downtown development, and they are dropping the ball in a bad way.

You bring up the Santa Fe garage.. That makes me think of COTPA -- the organization that's responsible for most of our parking garages. They are the very picture of incompetance. Check this out:

A friend of mine is in a position where he sees a lot of the bond data for state and local governments. That means that he gets to see P&L reports of various organizations. He once owned a business in the Santa Fe Parking Garage. He came across the COTPA data for the garage and was surprised to find out that since the garage was built, it has never once been in the black. How does one lose money with a parking garage!?

COTPA needs to be reigned in. Parking is absolutely critical to our downtown development, and they are dropping the ball in a bad way.

Midtowner, I've also read that somewhere. I was stunned when I heard it. It seems like at $8 a car per day, with very little maintenance required on the building itself, the garage would be making tons of profits. I'm left feeling clueless. Where on earth is the money going? I won't say for sure, because I don't know the inside worknigs of COTPA, but something doesn't seem right.

That brings up a good point. Buildings like the ballpark, convention center, and a few other entertainment venues would be exempt from height minimums. My concern was mainly that I don't want a lot of suburban-style hotels and office parks in the CBD.



Oh you don't? Well that's downtown Austin gone in a second.



What does a company get out of building an office tower instead of an office park? Recognition! Everyone knows KerrMcGee by it's office tower downtown.

And how do they light that thing?

Well, I know where Chesapeake is. It is right off of Western Avenue, just north of Grand Boulevard. Now I don't care much for corporate office parks, but Chesapeake has built a very elegant complex with tons of landscaping. It definitely adds to the scenery along Oklahoma City's upscale avenue.

Midtowner, I've also read that somewhere. I was stunned when I heard it. It seems like at $8 a car per day, with very little maintenance required on the building itself, the garage would be making tons of profits. I'm left feeling clueless. Where on earth is the money going? I won't say for sure, because I don't know the inside worknigs of COTPA, but something doesn't seem right.

COTPA is not responsible with their funds in any way, shape, or form. I've heard a lot regarding their uses of funds from my friend. Let's just say that payroll is out of control. There are many, many, many unnecessary employees that get paid too well. Also, upper management gets plenty of "fringe benefits" if you know what I mean.

I just can't even begin to imagine how one could lose money on a parking garage that is consistantly full -- especially being able to consistantly do that over the last 30 or so years that at least the Santa Fe Garage (and I'm sure others) have been open.

If we started managing our government like a business, it's very likely that these parking garages could be used as "cash cows" to subsidize other areas of the city's public transportation mission that don't make money like the rubber tire trolley system.

There needs to be a serious inquiry into COTPA's mismanagement of the public's assetts. They operate like most county/city organizations did back in the 70's. You know that nice new parking garage being built on Hudson and McGhee? The land for it was "donated" by OG&E. In return for their land "donation", OG&E is being allotted the free use of about 60-70% of that parking garage. So, essentially what has happened is we've built a parking garage for OG&E completely at the taxpayer's expense. If COTPA can't make a parking garage profitable with 100% of the spots filled and being charged for, how the heck can we expect them to be able to do that with 30-40% of the spots in a garage?

I guess they figure they can get away with this nearly criminal behavior forever. I guess parking garage financial scandals don't really have much success in piquing the public's interest....