They are empty because the tenants were forced out....

Can't blame the dog for having an abusive owner.

I agree with all who stated this should not be done as planned. To destroy a part of OKC and these historical buildings for such an underwhelming mid rise just can not happen. How do we make our voices heard? We need to do what Pete advised and have many people voice our concerns.

Can a tower even be built on top of these garages? I really don't know the answer to that. Can they not build this and still preserve 1 or 2 of the others? That needs to happen and maybe someone can do something cool with these buildings. The new tower can go up to about 35-40 stories with a smaller foot print. Come on BOK and Devon, if you all are reading this, do you not want to have a building that can be shown and actually seen from a distance and the TV exposure during the Thunder games? Give us a tower in the 550-600 foot range instead of destroying history and putting up a mid rise. This is totally unacceptable.

I bought a paper and read the articles. I also looked at the pictures. I like it. I think that the 690,000 square feet of leasable space (office and retail) will be a far better use than can be had with the current buildings on that block that will be lost.

Adequate parking in a downtown calls for between 2 and 3 spaces per 1000 sq ft of office space. If downtown has around 6,000,000 sq ft, the CBD needs around 12-18,000 spaces. What does the CBD have now?

Yet the building is 690,000 sq ft replacing a total of 257,000 sq ft (according to the list above). It will add a lot more people to downtown than in the current buildings to support new retail, restaurants, lunchtime activities, and residential demand.

Throw your bodies on the gears!!11!!!1

It sucks that it's only 27 stories.

K I can understand people's feelings about parking garages but parking is still in short supply downtown and it's continuing to grow. Until most of the people who work downtown, live downtown, a place to park cars will be needed. I'd rather have garages than surface lots. As for the block, I'd like to see 1 North Hudson stay and the tallest of the buildings. I'm guessing that's the hotel. Aside from then two I really don't see the appeal in the other buildings. That being said, I too wish the new building would be taller. LacMeyer has a picture of the concept drawing on his Twitter page

I am guessing that the slant is to give more views of MBG but that tends to cause for a huge amount of wasted space in all the offices if they mirror that in the rooms, alternatively some people to get all the wasted space in their offices. I hope they end up doing something different than the same pillars at the base like at Devon, that seems like the weakest aesthetics of the tower and with the 'primarily' occupant being a different company it seems really odd to not have any uniqueness of it's own.

Just saw the rendering on Steve's twitter. I really don't mind it.

I agree I don't mind it. In fact I actually like it. I was downtown this evening picturing it as I was walking through MBG and think it will be a nice touch. It's just sad to see what will be lost. On the flip side it would be better this than the current building stay but remain unused.

The tweet in question (https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/status/543937599426281472).

It looks like the building is L shaped because you can see it extending in the back

The real missed opportunity to create density downtown is the Century Center. A high rise there would add a lot of massing.

It looks like the building is L shaped because you can see it extending in the back

There is a notch in the front. Scroll up thread to see the site plan I posted.

What exactly does that mean? Do you A, doubt Pete's journalism; or B, not feel that he has provided enough info about what is going on right now?

Nobody is criticizing too much glass, not enough, entrance locations, etc etc. The height complaints are a little weird, but aside from that, the criticisms so far speak entirely to what we do know right now which is large-scale historic demolition primarily for parking structures.

Do you feel that OKC needs to lose more historic structures for parking structures? Even if there is a perfectly suitable historic parking structure on-site already?

I am curious what exactly you are arguing against

I wasn't arguing against anything, Spartan. That was merely a comment about how discussions normally progress here.

Okay I see that now. I didn't notice the notch when I first saw the plan

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessite1.jpg

Austin and other cities build hotels and condo's taller than this. Heck even our little brother down the turnpike has several taller than the mid rises we are proposing. Sorry, I would much rather have three 40 story towers than the five proposed 20-27 story buildings we are getting. Yes, it will help some with density, but we will still be the city known as the "one sky scraper" downtown that people jokingly say far too often. I wish we could get that small/midsize city mentality that we can't go bigger than a mid rise our of our system. Sorry, some may disagree but I am not impressed in the least with these developments. Nothing any mid size city couldn't do, so I guess we are still in the mid size city category. I want OKC to be major league, when people pass through they see some impressive buildings and they talk about it to other people. I want the press and articles showing pictures of our new impressive high rises- OKC rising! Not these mid rise 20 plus story stuff.

Has anyone stopped and looked how many parking garages are in just that image? ^^^

Has anyone stopped and looked how many parking garages are in just that image? ^^^

Not enough

Has anyone stopped and looked how many parking garages are in just that image? ^^^

By the time it's done, including the parking structure at OG&E Center, it'll be six?! Craziness.

Not enough

Wow really? The only things that aren't a parking garage are the City offices (and only just barely), and Devon's actual tower footprint, but it too has a parking garage.

The urban renewal hubris displayed by people who consider themselves insiders is perhaps most disturbing

Where would you suggest the employees of new business to park? Or the residents of new apts?

It is amazing to me that some people live in a dream world where the car is not a major factor in Okc development. And will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This is not nyc or philly Suburbs growth still outpaces urban. But we should continue to build the core with business and residential. But those workers will have to park some where and that is not changing any time soon

It is amazing to me that some people live in a dream world where the car is not a major factor in Okc development. And will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This is not nyc or philly Suburbs growth still outpaces urban. But we should continue to build the core with business and residential. But those workers will have to park some where and that is not changing any time soon

You're not addressing the issue of the historic demolitions. Nobody is saying that Preftakes/Devon/BOK/Clayco can't have X number of parking spaces. There is some distance between outright opposing new development (which isn't anyone's position here) and demanding that developers and corporations be given absolute unquestioned free reign. Clearly they are the design, planning, and engineering professionals best suited to act on behalf of the city (why do we even have a city government if corporations are so smart?).

I am also really glad that when I.M. Pei came to OKC, nobody had the guts to question his hubris and that of the urban renewal machine. We have a great track record with these things, we got this.

I can understand the gripe about the height, but have some if you even stopped and realized that we will have 5 400'footers under construction at basicaly the same time? This is just the tip of the iceberg for OKC! If you think this city is done, you are sadly mistaken! Wait and see what return we get off of the streetcar!

So we aren't really desperate for new towers... I'd hate to see what we'd tear down if that were the case. FNC, Skirvin, City Hall, State Capital... no historic landmark safe

You're not addressing the issue of the historic demolitions. Nobody is saying that Preftakes/Devon/BOK/Clayco can't have X number of parking spaces. There is some distance between outright opposing new development (which isn't anyone's position here) and demanding that developers and corporations be given absolute unquestioned free reign. Clearly they are the design, planning, and engineering professionals best suited to act on behalf of the city (why do we even have a city government if corporations are so smart?).

I am also really glad that when I.M. Pei came to OKC, nobody had the guts to question his hubris and that of the urban renewal machine. We have a great track record with these things, we got this.

So don't address the questions and change the argument.

As far as preservation There are 3 camps. 1. Those that don't care. 2. Those that oppose historic demo no matter what and 3. Those that think higher use means demo is fine for all but exceptional buildings.


Now how about answering the other questions

http://m.newsok.com/new-oklahoma-city-skyscraper-means-demolition-of-historic-downtown-buildings/article/5375863

He was late to his "Behind the Headlines" event on Thursday because of a "breaking story" which he couldn't tell us about. Since he is wearing the same shirt and tie in the video that he was on Thursday, I'm thinking that was his breaking story.'

The video has very interesting interviews with Thomas D'Arcy with Hines and Jon Pickard. It certainly won't appease anyone who was advocating for keeping the historical buildings but Jon emphasized how they were interested in keeping urban interaction with a lot of street level retail including making the parking garages much more appealing in that way.

A further update by Steve.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5375862

Photos are up on newsok.com now. The building is angled from the streets and there appears to be a plaza in front and a retail area in the notch area.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l16/wsucougz/cajunmanmeme.png

Noticed they rendered a Crate and Barrel sign... Are they going to locate in this building?

For the people upset with the demolition and height(I'm not too thrilled), isn't there a silver lining that there will be, what, 5-6 towers under construction at the same time? The work that those towers will have for employment will have a huge impact on OKC's economy. From talking to my relative who is very high up in a big corporation, this oil downturn isn't going to be doom and gloom like some are suggesting. Oil here in the US is profitable at $42 a barrel and 2.75 per cubic feet in natural gas. It would have to severely tank for the economy to go into a recession here, or anywhere in US. That said, I'm going to choose to look at the bright side of this. Six towers under construction, at once, is going to be a crazy site for those passing by on the highway. Make them wonder what the heck is going on in OKC. It's a good thing.

uggh

now shakes head. Couldn't this have been built elsewhere in downtown?

Couldn't there been a nod to maximizing floorspace creating a taller massing?

I'm honestly a little worried about the comment, "close to 690,000 gross square feet" in that he's developing the whole block, so is the whole block 690K sq feet or is just the tower? Seems impossible that this building will be 25,000 sq ft floor plates.

Trying real hard not to be a negative Nancy (or Bob) but this is completely underwhelming and not worthy of tearing down ONH or the Motor Hotel. Why couldn't it fit along Main/Hudson - adding floors to 35, save those two buildings at Sheridan/Hudson, and build the parking along Sheridan? Seems like a nice compromise and totally paying respect to OKC's architecture and history vs. what was presented. ... No?

now shakes head. Couldn't this have been built elsewhere in downtown?

If it was built elsewhere, they wouldn't be able to attach a sky bridge to the Devon Tower! Duh!

From the renderings, it looks like the OGE building is slightly taller than this building

So don't address the questions and change the argument.

As far as preservation There are 3 camps. 1. Those that don't care. 2. Those that oppose historic demo no matter what and 3. Those that think higher use means demo is fine for all but exceptional buildings.


Now how about answering the other questions

I'm confused as to how you actually answered the question, besides actually stating what camps people fall in. I don't disagree with the argument that we need more parking downtown, which we do. However it's very nuanced, we shouldn't (and probably won't) accept exactly what is proposed without slight improvements, and the extreme concentration of parking garages already in the "Arts District" requires more attention be paid to design.

There is always some design review back-and-forth, but the question is if the public will get any meaningful changes that could actually make this a decent project. All for higher and best use reuse or demo, as well. To argue for historic preservation isn't to insist that history remain unchanged on the site. They can make use of the Auto Hotel for one.

From the renderings. This is equalalent to a 30 story building.

Should be close to 450 ft tall. Can't wait for them to break ground

Noticed they rendered a Crate and Barrel sign... Are they going to locate in this building?

Pretty sure that what you'll see along the street -- and what appears to be depicted in the renderings -- are the fake window boxes like you currently see along Hudson on the ground floor of the Devon parking garage.

I believe that is the plan unless/until they sign tenants.

BTW, there won't be much commercial space on the ground floor; just the areas shown in yellow below:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessite2.jpg

Overall, looks like a neat project, expected a little bit more though from Pickard Chilton re the design, its nothing special, just a glass rectangle. However, it will bring much needed life to that corner, and if they use the same floor heights as they did for Devon, we are looking at about 460FT, which is decent. Excited to see five 400FT+ going up around the same time, nice!

They did say there would be a restaurant on the second level similar to Nebu and I believe it will have a patio along Sheridan. This is what you see with the umbrellas on the 2nd level in the renderings.

Also said the glass would be the same as Devon.

I am not too caught up on the height, if you look at other office projects across the county, the trend is most new office towers are being built between 25-35 stories, unless if you are in Chicago or NYC. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the floor count gets bumped up before they break ground, if the tenant interest heats up.

The height of the tower is 443, according to Steve.

I am not too caught up on the height, if you look at other office projects across the county, the trend is most new office towers are being built between 25-35 stories, unless if you are in Chicago or NYC. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the floor count gets bumped up before they break ground, if the tenant interest heats up.

I kind of agree with the floor count here. Also, in one of the renderings, it looks as if it could be the second tallest. It's obvious the intent was to compliment Devon as it's the centerpiece tower downtown. I can remember Cathy O'Conner during an interview about the Clayco announcement that all of the new buildings would progressively 'step up' towards Devon. I think she was talking about the Preftakes project also.

^^^^^^^^^
Pickard directly acknowledges this approach in the quotes in the article.

Here is the updated list of OKC's tallest buildings.

I know the Clayco office towers will be 405 feet because that was in the submission package, but I'm guessing on the residential towers. They would be 26 floors vs. 25 for the office, but residential/hotel floors are almost always less tall and the all the Clayco renderings show them as slightly shorter.


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

Also, we're working on a new 3D model we can drop into Google Earth and show the skyline from various angles.

The height of the tower is 443, according to Steve.

So at that it is just edging out City Place Tower for the 4th tallest in the city & 8th tallest in the state

Ironically, this is Gateway Plaza in Richmond; a Clayco development they featured in their presentation to OCURA:

http://www.styleweekly.com/imager/work-has-started-on-the-110-million-dolla/b/original/1957396/15f5/arts_gateway_plaza_exterior.jpg

I don't even know where to start with this. I am quite unhappy right now so I will wait to cool down a bit before I throw out my full commentary.

I am quite pleased.

Empty unused building do not = urban fabric

And by all means stop caring

Unfortunately for your argument these buildings were occupied until the tenants were forced out in favor of demolition.

They could match the "499" address with that height. Right I know, pipedream.

I'm generally unimpressed.

I'm in the camp of tearing down the older buildings if need be but why do new buildings need to compliment each other these days? Thats the beauty of cities like NYC. Each new skyscraper has its own identity. This new everything in OKC needs to compliment each other sucks in so many ways. It might look nice but it lacks the wow factor.

The height of the tower is 443, according to Steve.

The equivalent height of City Place Tower:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608022517437434206&pid=15.1&P=0
City Place Tower, height: 440 ft. - 499 W Sheridan Tower, height: 443 ft.
This will be a nice notable addition to the Oklahoma City skyline.

itd a fact that we can't stop the demolitions. OKC does not work that way -- the people building this are likely very close to the people approving this. The OCURA meeting will be a formality approval. They most likely have already received the nod from the people who make up the boards.

So, we should focus our energy on making sure this is done correctly. The main thing I hate about the design is that the building is angled at the corner. It needs to sit square on the corner and define that intersection.

We won't be able to do anything about the parking garages, and we won't be able to do anything about the Skybridge.

OKC champions "small government", but you can't have a small government if it is ran by the power brokers of large corporations. As it is now.

This will likely be approved as shown, but we need to focus our energy on making positive, realistic changes to the design. Arguing against demolition will fall on deaf ears unfortunately. The demolition has already been spoken for in closed doors.

I'm extremely frustrated with OKC. The recent announced towers (Clayco and this one) have revealed how entrenched the good ole boy network of dealings is.