The argument in favor of this development will focus heavily on how the lack of parking in the CBD core is choking off development and activity.

And that it's going to get much worse with the convention center, Clayco, Parkside, Dowell Center, Century Center and FNC all happening very soon.

I wonder if there are any other good sites for parking

You're more ignorant than I thought if you view historic structures as obsolete. I don't think that word means what you think...

Stage Center was obsolete as a theater. It could have been repurposed as something else, but no one had the money or power to do that.
FNC is obsolete as a commercial office building, but hopefully its well on its way to be repurposed as residential or a hotel.

We can complain about parking all we want, but until a real solution gets pet into place(other than the streetcar) people will still need to drive downtown and park. I don't really think the streetcar will change much, as I see it being used mostly for people to get around after they've already parked somewhere downtown. This regional transit authority might be the answer, but it seems its slowing going with that. Everything I've heard or read says 5 years at least, and we need a solution yesterday. So bring on more parking garages.

So bring on more parking garages.

Well you are in luck because you are about to get three covering three entire city blocks right in a row. Should make for an attractive Hudson Ave street wall.

Well you are in luck because you are about to get three covering three entire city blocks right in a row. Should make for an attractive Hudson Ave street wall.

Honestly though. What is your solution? Like Pete said, convention center, Clayco, Parkside, Century Center and FNC all happening plus this. What's the alternative for now? Not some ideal situation. Something that will have real impacts now.

Honestly though. What is your solution? Like Pete said, convention center, Clayco, Parkside, Century Center and FNC all happening plus this. What's the alternative for now? Not some ideal situation. Something that will have real impacts now.

I wouldn't build any new parking and I wouldn't provide any TIF funding for non-residential uses. It might mean that the growth of downtown slows a bit in the short-term but that is fine because it will give the City time to build the mass-transit and pedestrian oriented infrastructure needed for sustainable growth in the future. Retail and employers follow people so if we wanted a carrot and stick approach to re-urbanizing downtown we should have focused on people. You can't plan for a walkable downtown while making it easier to drive a car because the two compete for the same resources and operate of different scales. If you don't want an elevated downtown boulevard - then don't put 3,000 parking space at the end of it. Just look at the new transit station plans - thousand of people a day will pass through it and single largest land use is car parking for 26 people (the parking lot is bigger than the entire foot print of the train station). Why do 26 people get more dedicated space than the thousands of transit riders? If they don't know what to do with the space then put up a residential building with no parking. People all over the world live on top or adjacent to train stations (and in many places those are the prime residential areas).

feel free to fast-forward to the 16:16 mark.
W03qBlwtRJI

JTF, that's pretty extremist and a tough if not nearly impossible sell in OKC, but honestly can't argue with the logic. Great line: "If you don't want an elevated downtown boulevard - then don't put 3,000 parking space at the end of it."

JTF, that's pretty extremist and a tough if not nearly impossible sell in OKC, but honestly can't argue with the logic. Great line: "If you don't want an elevated downtown boulevard - then don't put 3,000 parking space at the end of it."

That's what I'm saying. I'm sure there are a lot of people on this board who feel that way(including me), how could you ever sell that in OKC. Very unlikely.

I just really wish we were pushing harder and faster for commuter rail to be established.

That's what I'm saying. I'm sure there are a lot of people on this board who feel that way(including me), how could you ever sell that in OKC. Very unlikely.

I just really wish we were pushing harder and faster for commuter rail to be established.

Yeah, also kind of hard to pay for a mass transit system when were pushing businesses away by not giving their employees and customers parking.

Yeah, also kind of hard to pay for a mass transit system when were pushing businesses away by not giving their employees and customers parking.

Giving people an option is NOT pushing them away. 20,000 people already drive downtown every day. We aren't planning to remove parking garages, just moving the growth in downtown commuters to a more sustainable system, but we can't start doing that if we don't start doing that. Every dollar that is spent on adding road capacity and parking is one less dollar not spent on a better solution. All of these garages are 3 to 4 years from being open - if we really wanted to commuter rail could be up and running by then.

Anyhow - back to the Preftakes block. Sorry for the derailment.

I would love to give people an option. I would love the option for myself. It just isn't there yet, and OKC is in no real hurry to get it into place.

Every dollar that is spent on adding road capacity and parking is one less dollar not spent on a better solution.


One more dollar not spent. :)

We need to get a mass transit rail system established in this city, and we need to do it right. I still think we're 5 to 10 years from real progress on that front, and we have to have a plan that is politically feasible in OKC. In the meantime, downtown is continuing to grow and we need to accomodate that. That means parking. Fortunately, downtown should continue to grow and once we have passenger rail in place, in then parking won't be an issue. It probably won't be a real option until about 2025, but we need to make sure it is a real option by then.

I would love to give people an option. I would love the option for myself. It just isn't there yet, and OKC is in no real hurry to get it into place.

Of course they aren't because the public keeps supporting block-size parking garages. A city is just a means to a way of life. OKC leaders promised a walkable downtown but they aren't delivering on that promise. They tell people they want downtown sidewalk cafes and retail, but then pack the streets with even more cars and give prime residential land to convention centers and office buildings. Either hold then accountable to do what they said or ask them to be honest about what kind of city the really want. If they claim they want both then they aren't qualified for the position they hold because they can't accomplish both. Hell, they can't even accomplish one.

Anyone else feel like the density of downtown is being sacrificed a bit here? Looking at the image above, even though it's just a conception, still shows the physical location of these structures. We had a pretty good run at density, but now all of a sudden we're going to have a disconnected chunk of buildings that spreads out downtown. It seems like if we're a city that's trying to make rail a reality one day, that density would be the better choice to push development to. I mean I guess you can't force a developer to build on a lot just to keep the density going, but it really kills it.

The residents of OKC are also more educated on development than the used to be and now have standards we want to see. It's not as though we aren't happy to see this coming, but we also don't want to just let someone go willy-nilly without some sort of check to it.

Century Center would have actually made an AMAZING location for a tower, and you could even throw in a few floors of retail much as it is now. Oh well...

No business chat today, so no questions related to this topic to give us any hints.

Does anyone feel that there will be a big announcement of something as significant as the GE development, tall as the Oklahoma Tower where construction starts before mid 2015?

Does anyone feel that there will be a big announcement of something as significant as the GE development, tall as the Oklahoma Tower where construction starts before mid 2015?

Sure, I think we will here about 400 block between Sheridan and Main St. soon. Just how much are they going to knock down to do it.

Anyone else feel like the density of downtown is being sacrificed a bit here?

No just Yes, but Hell Yes.

No just Yes, but Hell Yes.

The flood gates are about to open.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608045443971680553&pid=15.1&P=0
Oklahoma City, get ready!

I'm ready to see some kind of proposal next Thursday. I'd guess it'll be somewhat amazing, and hopefully One North Hudson will become the next Colcord.

No just Yes, but Hell Yes.

I disagree. Even if downtown will be losing even more historic charm, I wouldn't say that this is a step backwards for density. Most of this block is surface parking and single-story or two-story buildings that few will miss. In their place is a decent-sized tower that the city will be proud of and will become a dominant fixture on the skyline. A best-case scenario is some kind of compromise where at least One North Hudson is saved. Hopefully something like that can be worked out.

I disagree. Even if downtown will be losing even more historic charm, I wouldn't say that this is a step backwards for density. Most of this block is surface parking and single-story or two-story buildings that few will miss. In their place is a decent-sized tower that the city will be proud of and will become a dominant fixture on the skyline. A best-case scenario is some kind of compromise where at least One North Hudson is saved. Hopefully something like that can be worked out.

If Devon is behind this as much as it seems, there is no way One North Hudson will be saved. They place too much value on being fronted by the Myriad Gardens, & obliviously being directly next to their current tower.

These plans have been in the works for a while as you can clearly see a space that will be used for the connection for the sky bridge to their current location on the garden wing. I don't have the picture of it available, but there is a obvious space.

That's what I'm saying. I'm sure there are a lot of people on this board who feel that way(including me), how could you ever sell that in OKC. Very unlikely.

I just really wish we were pushing harder and faster for commuter rail to be established.

I am not nearly as rabid a "walkable" downtown proponent as many of the people on here, but after living in Dallas and Denver where they have great light rail systems, I would be all for planning routes and protecting rights-of-way for a future system. From start of planning to openning of the first leg may be 20 years, so why not plan ahead for eventual construction? High gas prices are becoming less of the main driver for rail use.

I disagree. Even if downtown will be losing even more historic charm, I wouldn't say that this is a step backwards for density. Most of this block is surface parking and single-story or two-story buildings that few will miss. In their place is a decent-sized tower that the city will be proud of and will become a dominant fixture on the skyline. A best-case scenario is some kind of compromise where at least One North Hudson is saved. Hopefully something like that can be worked out.

One North Hudson nor anything else but the City building at 420 N. Main and possibly the three buildings to the west will be saved.

At least, that is what will be proposed and the Downtown Design Review Committee has never denied demolition applications that I can recall. And especially not with the people who are behind this.

Coney Island and Pizza Town coming down too?

Sorry, I mis-typed above and have now corrected my post.

The only things that will stay are the City building and the three buildings to the west (Coney Island, Pizza Town and the one on the corner).

The corner building is owned by Preftakes so I'm sure something will happen to it, just not sure what. It's very small.

With the economy possibly on shaky ground next year its even more important to tie these demolitions to a building permit. I am not opposed to demolitions for better and higher use, but the city needs to make sure that they don't demolish the structures and then have the tower not built.

One North Hudson nor anything else but the City building at 420 N. Main and possibly the three buildings to the west will be saved.

At least, that is what will be proposed and the Downtown Design Review Committee has never denied demolition applications that I can recall. And especially not with the people who are behind this.

This is true. No wants to build a million dollar home next to a $100.000 one..............or build a 300 million dollar building next to a 3 million dollar one.

With the economy possibly on shaky ground next year its even more important to tie these demolitions to a building permit. I am not opposed to demolitions for better and higher use, but the city needs to make sure that they don't demolish the structures and then have the tower not built.

Irrelevant to this project.

A whole new ordinance would have to be written and passed and that isn't even being discussed right now as far as I'm aware.


Let's please leave the conceptual Urbanism discussion to the thread below. It gets really old to drag those issues up in every single development thread. It's the same points over and over again.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-real-estate-topics/24698-general-urban-development.html

With the economy possibly on shaky ground next year its even more important to tie these demolitions to a building permit. I am not opposed to demolitions for better and higher use, but the city needs to make sure that they don't demolish the structures and then have the tower not built.

If this was an oil company related project I would agree but all indications are this is a bank, and if it was one thing we have learned over the last 6 years - banks will be bailed out.

Irrelevant to this project.

A whole new ordinance would have to be written and passed and that isn't even being discussed right now as far as I'm aware.


Let's please leave the conceptual Urbanism discussion to the thread below. It gets really old to drag those issues up in every single development thread. It's the same points over and over again.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-real-estate-topics/24698-general-urban-development.htmlyou know, it would be really nice to just have threads for updates on the development or perhaps a way to separate or filter posts from someone's opinion and actual updates pertaining to the development

you know, it would be really nice to just have threads for updates on the development or perhaps a way to separate or filter posts from someone's opinion and actual updates pertaining to the development

That's why we have the articles at the top of the page and the News section.

That's why we have the articles at the top of the page and the News section.

So every little update goes to the article section? I see a lot of updates and post by others who don't add to the article but provide valuable information towards the project. I don't have a problem with people's opinions, but when it gets toto be page after page of the same crap in almost every thread, it gets old. I'm not perfect in that regard and I try to watch that, but this thread is a prime example.

Bank of Oklahoma didn't need to be bailed out and refused the money.

... the public keeps supporting block-size parking garages.

Do you think there are any public outcries (not quite the right word, but ...) for more parking? or for block-size parking garages?
It seems that people are OK with a parking garage being distant from the airport (with a reliable shuttle, etc.), but not with relying on a dependable mass transit option that they might not even have to park somewhere to use. Why do we have that expectation (of nearby and cheap parking in situations where we probably don't have to carry anything, but are OK with distant parking and a shuttle when we are carrying a couple of pieces of luggage? or am I way off base?

Do you think there are any public outcries (not quite the right word, but ...) for more parking? or for block-size parking garages?
It seems that people are OK with a parking garage being distant from the airport (with a reliable shuttle, etc.), but not with relying on a dependable mass transit option that they might not even have to park somewhere to use. Why do we have that expectation (of nearby and cheap parking in situations where we probably don't have to carry anything, but are OK with distant parking and a shuttle when we are carrying a couple of pieces of luggage? or am I way off base?

No one at the airport is "ok" with it. They just don't have a choice.

If these historical buildings get demolished, this new tower better be at least 35 stories and hoping for close to 40. That would be a 600-680 foot tower. That would look great and I would think that Devon would need the extra space so they won't be having to go through the process of looking for more space in the near future. Pete, what is your prediction on how tall this thing will be and when it will be built?

If these historical buildings get demolished, this new tower better be at least 35 stories and hoping for close to 40. That would be a 600-680 foot tower. That would look great and I would think that Devon would need the extra space so they won't be having to go through the process of looking for more space in the near future. Pete, what is your prediction on how tall this thing will be and when it will be built?

Please don't turn this thread into another gripe fest about height...

It will be 20-25 stories and they will be starting as soon as they get all the approvals.

Will happen faster than the Clayco stuff.

How long to move-in, 18 months? 24?

Please don't turn this thread into another gripe fest about height...

Dang it ! I was wanting at least 33 stories............................j/k

How long to move-in, 18 months? 24?

2 years would be pushing it but I know they want to get everything done ASAP.

Do you think the design will mirror the Devon closely, or do you think they will do something that complements yet distinguishes itself from the Devon?

Pretty much all of Pickard Chilton's designs are glass curtain wall like Devon with clean, geometric shapes.

I would expect it to use similar materials to the Devon Energy Center but have it's own unique identity in terms of shape.

When it goes to city planning, would the architects use something like the Golden Ratio to put the height of this tower in proportion to Devon, or is that totally not considered and you build what the investor says to?

If you use the Golden Ratio, the height for a 20-25 story building across from the Devon tower would be around 325ft. I'm curious what an architect/designer would consider when creating a design.

Please don't turn this thread into another gripe fest about height...

The height gripe is interesting because I think most of the people are grappling with an idea that they aren't expressing accurately, which is that if you're going to use any public subsidy to tear down our best single city block of urban history, the design had better be phenomenal and involve public input.

We will see how this turns out, but if people aren't exactly overjoyed there might be a few good reasons for that, maybe even worth discussing in a thread about said project.

I know that I'm beating a dead horse by saying this but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

It's pretty disappointing that this will more than likely be in the 20-25 story range. If there is only one new building on this block, having it be around 35 floors would be better for the city and to downtown.

To do all of that demo and investment for just 20-25 floors?!

Also, is this enough space for Devon AND Bank of Oklahoma?

I know that I'm beating a dead horse by saying this but I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

It's pretty disappointing that this will more than likely be in the 20-25 story range. If there is only one new building on this block, having it be around 35 floors would be better for the city and to downtown.

To do all of that demo and investment for just 20-25 floors?!

Also, is this enough space for Devon AND Bank of Oklahoma?

No offense, but this is a joke if it's only 20-25 floors. To demolish some historic stuff on this block for another mid rise is ridiculous. Why can't we have a least a few buildings that can at least be as tall or taller than the Cotter Ranch Tower? Heck, even Tulsa has pulled this off several times over. I really dislike this small time mentality when it comes to these projects. We really need to be able to erect something to get us out of the "one tower' downtown that everyone calls us. I would rather this block stay the same as it is then build another mid rise that won't even be visible when they go to commericals for Thunder games. Don't you think these owners would enjoy the free publicity?

Good grief. Your incessant blather on this height topic is mind-numbing.

Pretty much all of Pickard Chilton's designs are glass curtain wall like Devon with clean, geometric shapes.

I would expect it to use similar materials to the Devon Energy Center but have it's own unique identity in terms of shape.

If it's like Peachtree in Atlanta, then I'll be happy.

It will be 20-25 stories and they will be starting as soon as they get all the approvals.

Will happen faster than the Clayco stuff.

Do you know for sure on the height, Pete? I know it has quite a few people worked up. As recently as a month ago, we were still under the strong persuasion this would be north of 30 stories.

Good grief. Your incessant blather on this height topic is mind-numbing.

I could say the same for you if that really bothers you. Come on and grow a pair pal, we have had a page or two talking about freaking parking garages but I didn't feel the need to complain because I didn't like what people were posting. Just scroll on to the next post if you just can't bear it, I haven't posted anything like that in a while. This project absolutely deserves something taller if they plan on demolishing some historical buildings for a mid rise. So you can cry me a river, but I think others will agree that this really does warrant some discussion or frustration when they plan on doing something without replacing it with something we can be proud of.

To do all of that demo and investment for just 20-25 floors?!


All that demo is for the parking garage. The tower itself will fit on a fraction of the block. If you want to be disappointed about something be disappointed about that.

What Kerry said.

We need to frame this issue with the necessity of only subsidizing the most important developments. As it is now we are establishing the precedent of offering public subsidy for almost all significant developments, and without requiring improved design standards. If this trend continues not only will public subsidy lose its effectiveness, but we will also lose any control the public has over public development financing.

Yup, this is OKC Talk. Everyone is criticizing a project before we even know for sure what it's going to be. LOL

Shocking they want a place for their workers to park. The wonder! This will be great for down town no matter the height. There is nothing magical about (in the grand scheme) not very old buildings.

Honestly, couldn't care less about height as long as it fits in with it's surroundings. Imagine this, (Work of Pickard Chilton). It's 630ft. The Devon has glass strips going vertical, this one has the same design, only horizontal.
9757
97589759

To those concerned about height & those that hate talking about height,

First of all lets get something straight. Height is important. Now, maybe not important in terms of urban design & functionality, but it is in terms of skyline visual appeal & momentum. Concern for height is usually tossed aside as annoying dribble, but I think it is legitimate. It doesn't help that most of the people babbling about height are doing just that, babbling.

Second of all, I think what Pete is hearing as far as 20-25 stories has got to be true. I'm still holding out hope that the storie count is just in regards to office space. More than likely this building will be built on top of 5-10 floors of parking & retail. So we could be looking at a total of 35 floors. Parking floors usually aren't as tall as office though, so it won't have the same impact on height.

It still sucks we will be losing one of our better urban blocks for a massing of parking, but hopefully they at least do the ground floors right. I bet this will be a quality project, and I'm sure it will make a difference in our skyline. The history we will be losing does suck, but once the buildings are torn down it will make the idea of what we are getting more exciting. I hated that we lost the Stage Center, but now that is is gone my only worry is something actually gets built there.

Pete. In the updated article you posted it says that we were initially expecting 20-25 stories, but we are hearing it may be taller?

Is it just that the information your hearing now puts it firmly back in the 20-25 range, instead of taller?

Those numbers are incorrect. The floor total is in tomorrow's Oklahoman (early edition out today).