View Full Version : Tear down First National Tower



Pages : [1] 2

Jack
01-16-2006, 12:31 AM
It's obvious that the owner of this skyscraper has no future plans for the structure. Uses are limited. What would you guys think of simply tearing down the structure and putting a nice 50-60 story Devon HQ in its place?

metro
01-16-2006, 07:46 AM
I think that would be a huge mistake. It would be a repeat of Urban Renewal back in the 70's tearing down all of our historic structure. We only have so many historic buildings left. New buildings are a dime a dozen and can be built elsewhere as there is plenty of land to build a new tower.

poe
01-16-2006, 07:47 AM
nope. i think the contrast between old and new is aesthetically pleasing to the skyline.

Midtowner
01-16-2006, 07:56 AM
Jack, that's crazy talk. You could even talk me out of a bond issue to fix the tower up.

Inside and out, that place is a treasure.

metro
01-16-2006, 08:03 AM
seems like his posts are just to spite us if you follow many of them

Pete
01-16-2006, 08:23 AM
IMO, the FNC is the single most important building downtown -- well, maybe second only to the Skirvin.

But like the Skirvin, it will take the right developer and vision. The Great Banking Hall is breathtaking and the whole complex has fantastic potentional.


As far as a new office tower, there are plenty of properties that would work when demand dictactes. However, any new construction now would merely canabalize the other buildinds while vacancy rates are already high.


We've done enough tearing down for 10 cities. Time to renovate and find adaptive uses for what's in place.

Midtowner
01-16-2006, 08:42 AM
Downtown has almost unlimited expansion possibilities if it wants to expand to the north or to the west. Right now though, it's at a size where it's 'just right'. One can easily walk from one end to the other for lunch, a meeting, or anything of that nature. That's one of the things that I really enjoy about our downtown. I'd love to get a new office tower down there, but with real estate realities as they are, no one is going to want to pay the big $ for the land for the tower and the parking garage for the employees that would be working in the tower. Office parks are really the only cost-effective solution in OKC right now.

Jack
01-16-2006, 10:37 AM
I don't disagree that the Great Banking Hall and other characteristics of the building are historic. But, what's the point of keeping a building around that can't be used for today's uses, and is probably going to sit vacant for the next 100+ years? Let's build a new FNC that's more conducive to today's uses.

Midtowner
01-16-2006, 10:45 AM
As property values increase in the area, it will become more attractive for a developer to redevelop the building. Amazingly, FNC is not on the National Register of Historic Places. Right now, I think current management is just interested in selling FNC to another developer as downtown real-estate becomes more of a 'hot commodity'. I hope for our city council to set forth some tough restrictions on downtown properties (e.g. minimum height limits). I would sure hate to see FNC torn down so that a LegacyWoods at Arts Central type project could be built.

Jack
01-16-2006, 10:48 AM
In regards to the comment made about the Skirvin. I am glad to see the Skirvin being renovated. But ask yourself for a moment. Was this a good way to spend precious resources? Heck, we could've built almost 2 Renaissance Hotels for what it's costing to reopen the Skirvin.

Midtowner
01-16-2006, 10:52 AM
Sometimes historical and aesthetic values enter into the equation. It's hard to quantify them, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in OKC that would have rather the Skirvin be torn down in favor of a parking garage or cookie-cutter hotel. Places like the Skirvin are what set Oklahoma City apart from other cities. Such places are where we get our identity. Look at all of the 'new construction' projects in Bricktown, the Residence Inn, etc. save a few minor architectural modifications, you could find those same buildings in any mid sized town off of any major interstate in the nation.

Try finding a Skirvin-style hotel in Conway, Arkansas.

It's like buying jewelry for your s/o. You know you're an idiot for spending that kind of money on something that is so clearly not worth what you're paying -- but sometimes, money is not the first of your concerns.

BDP
01-16-2006, 11:16 AM
we could've built almost 2 Renaissance Hotels for what it's costing to reopen the Skirvin.

And we'd still be getting ripped off. 1 Skirvin is worth more than 2 dime-a-dozen hotels, for sure. It in itself is an attraction, not just a place to stay. With so much crap, it's strange that you would want to tear down the few things that distinguish OKC as a city.

Jack
01-16-2006, 11:20 AM
I'm not saying I wanted to tear down the Skirvin. I'm simply pointing out the financial investment.

BDP
01-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Amount of investment should be measured by the return.

Jack
01-16-2006, 11:40 AM
And like I said, the financial return from 2 new Renaissance Hotels, would be much greater than 1 renovated Skirvin.

BDP
01-16-2006, 02:24 PM
Probably not. The Skirvin drives its own traffic, hence subsequent returns. You attract another demographic, a more upscale one at that, than the one already served by the Renaissance, Sheraton, and Courtyard, as well as the others coming online. The Skirvin and Colcord add diversity and competitive advantage to the downtown hotel mix as opposed to simply offering more of the same, which does, in fact, offer diminishing ROI. If we didn't have the others you may have been right, but as one need began to get filled and possibly saturated, the opportunity cost of doing the same begins to go up. More Renaissances would have been a waste, only creating vacancy downtown or elsewhere. A skirvin will be an new added dimension bringing more options, and more business, to OKC.

HOT ROD
01-16-2006, 02:50 PM
Can NOT tear down the FNC!

It was OKC first major signature skyscraper (along with City Place next door). Both are essential to OKC's skyline.

Jack
01-16-2006, 03:28 PM
Both are essential to OKC's skyline.

A 50-60 story office tower would be even more essential. Would mean we're shedding our past and moving on into the 21st century.

HOT ROD
01-16-2006, 03:38 PM
But we could build the 50 or 60 storey signature tower in other parts of the CBD or expand the CBD to the South or West and build it there.

I think the dense downtown is an asset OKC has and it would not be dense without FCN. The owners of FCN need to step up to the place and decide the appropriate use for the building.

I dont see why it could not be a business incubator type tower, were individual offices like most floors - filled with lawyers, accountants, and so on!

Other floors could still be leased to companies that dont need a large AAA footplate or govt agencies.

Still, other floors oculd house restaurant(s) or apartments! Something needs to be done with the 32-33 floors where the Beacon Club was! I remember going there as a kid and I was so impressed with the "stuffy" yet classy club!

goodguy
01-16-2006, 06:46 PM
Tearing down First National in my opinion is NOT a option. Without it the Downtown skyline would be very void especially at night. The MAPS projects have guaranteed our future as a great city. But, It would be a crime to destroy what little is left of our past.

downtownguy
01-16-2006, 07:43 PM
Jack, I like the debates you spark. Moderators, don't you dare kick him off of here.
I'm going to assume Jack is using a bit of sophisticated absurdity here, or is truly one who challenges the popular thinking. So let's go with this discussion...
Jack, are you saying the First National corner is the only appropriate spot for a new skyscraper? Are there no other spots currently undeveloped that wouldn't work better?

travis
01-16-2006, 08:32 PM
First National should definitely stay, it's one of the best looking buildings downtown and one of the more prominent. The way it's lighted, I can pick it out from quite a distance when I drive in. And isn't it still somewhat occupied? I also seem to recall a small indoor mall on the ground floor. OKC lost a lot of it's urban fabric a few decades back, all of these buildings left should be kept in place. If someone wants to do a new tower, there are plenty of vacant lots available.

Midtowner
01-16-2006, 08:51 PM
When was two Renaissance Hotels ever in the mix? If you're going to use hypotheticals, at least use something that is within the remote realm of possibility.

The aim of the Skirvin project was not to turn a profit -- although, ultimately, that'll happen. The project's aim was to rejuvenate what was a fine structure standing in the middle of downtown OKC -- turn it into a hub of activity where there was once a lifeless relic.

You can't measure the effect that such a project has in dollars alone.

I'm still wondering when we get a Hyatt Regency...

poe
01-16-2006, 08:54 PM
a while back, i took a vertical picture of first national and used it in a design project. everyone wanted to know where the building was and most were amazed when i told them 'oklahoma city'. it is something to treasure.

Patrick
01-16-2006, 09:59 PM
Jack, I like the debates you spark. Moderators, don't you dare kick him off of here.
I'm going to assume Jack is using a bit of sophisticated absurdity here, or is truly one who challenges the popular thinking. So let's go with this discussion...
Jack, are you saying the First National corner is the only appropriate spot for a new skyscraper? Are there no other spots currently undeveloped that wouldn't work better?

Yeah, I figure he's just being devil's advocate here....at least I hope so! :)

Patrick
01-16-2006, 10:00 PM
First National should definitely stay, it's one of the best looking buildings downtown and one of the more prominent. The way it's lighted, I can pick it out from quite a distance when I drive in. And isn't it still somewhat occupied? I also seem to recall a small indoor mall on the ground floor. OKC lost a lot of it's urban fabric a few decades back, all of these buildings left should be kept in place. If someone wants to do a new tower, there are plenty of vacant lots available.

I believe it has a vacancy rate of somewhere between 60-70%. And yes, it does have a mall on the street level, extending down into the conncourse.

Jack
01-16-2006, 10:13 PM
Jack, I like the debates you spark. Moderators, don't you dare kick him off of here.
I'm going to assume Jack is using a bit of sophisticated absurdity here, or is truly one who challenges the popular thinking. So let's go with this discussion...
Jack, are you saying the First National corner is the only appropriate spot for a new skyscraper? Are there no other spots currently undeveloped that wouldn't work better?

Thanks DTG.

Yes, there are other spots undeveloped where such a building could be built. My intent of this thread was to try to spark a debate over the future of FNC. In a few years, if the owners continue in the current direction, we may be discussing a similar topic, only then it will be real. It's time for preservationists to step up to the plate and come up with a plan to save this building. That may involve buying out the current owners.

zuluwarrior0760
01-17-2006, 12:31 AM
Yeah Jack, let's tear down FNC and while we're at it.....why don't we bulldoze Bricktown
to the ground and fill up that Canal....I mean afterall, investors are spending millions
on renovating those structures down there.....and for all that money, think of all
the single level strip malls they could have put in their place......what we really need down
there are a few gas stations, hair salons, maybe a Karate school.....mix a couple of
cheap chinese takeout establishments all paying fair rents, and VOILA!!! you got yerself
a good return on investment! ALSO: Could we not reallocate the space at Harkins to be a new Best Buy Store? The mid income sales jobs will stimulate the strip mall economy down there........and Toby Keith's we can turn into a Circuit City......just to keep Best Buy honest...
Bass Pro? Too niche!! People hate outdoors anyways.....let's turn that into a Super WalMart and with the space left, maybe a Mini Sam's Club.........If we have any land left over after all the changes......maybe a few more car dealerships....

Yup......It's all a dream.......a bad one at that....

But so is bulldozing a masterpiece in favor of a turd.......if your plan was for "preservationists to step up to the plate", why wasn't that your premise to
begin with???

On a more serious note and one not in jest...but sort of on the topic:

Am I the only one who thinks the Gold Dome didn't really improve that much
through all the renovating????? Looks better than the grease spot it could
have become, but it seems there's something still missing......and I've looked
it over in and out.....

The Old Downtown Guy
01-17-2006, 08:03 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the Gold Dome didn't really improve that much through all the renovating????? Looks better than the grease spot it could have become, but it seems there's something still missing......and I've looked it over in and out.....

The exterior finish of the anodized aluminum panels has deteriorated over the years and there isn't any process to re-anodize them in place. The cost to disassemble the structure and send it back to the factory for a redo was totally prohibitative. So, yes, it doesn't look much different than when Bank One occupied it.

The interior is a different matter. The lay-in ceiling has been removed to expose shining gold panels that form the concave domed ceiling and the hanging cloud lighting has been restored. The terrazzo floor, which was mostly covered with carpet, has been polished back up to a fine luster and the gorgeous wood paneling has been cleaned and buffed.

Overshadowing the fact that the dome's exterior is showing its age, is that it is still there. Other than the Heritage Hills citizen uprising that kicked off the neighborhood preservation movement in OKC, this was the most important HP victory in the history of OKC, and the first historic commercial building saved from the wrecking ball. This was achieved by a coordinated effort that included the presentation of financial data supporting the economic viability of the building, combined with weekly citizen public protests and pressure on corporate BankOne by The National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Of course none of this would have happened if former Planning Director Garner Stoll hadn't been successful in getting the Urban Design Ordinance put in place which provided a public review process and prohibitions against owners being able to tear down important buildings. Further, the building is attracting tenants and looks like it will be a profitable venture for Dr. Irene Lam. go to www.golddomeokc.com to see some interior photos and a list of tenants.

Patrick
01-17-2006, 03:54 PM
Why wouldn't simply painting it gold be an option? They do make gold paint, that would stick to metal.

The Old Downtown Guy
01-17-2006, 04:03 PM
Why wouldn't simply painting it gold be an option? They do make gold paint, that would stick to metal.

Not an option Partick. Paint just doesn't have the same look as the anodized metal. I also imagine that prepping the surface would be a major problem, not to mention the added cost of the project. There may have been other considerations as well. The people that would know are the architect, Mike Kertock and the Contractor, Maccini Construction. I am aquainted with both and will ask the question the next time I run into them (provided I can remember).

Patrick
01-17-2006, 04:06 PM
Seems like painting it would be better than nothing, if that were an option. I'll climb up there with a brush and a can of Rustoleum! LOL!

BDP
01-17-2006, 04:08 PM
I do think something will need to be done. I don't hate it as much as some, becuase the structure is so cool, but I do think that to ensure it's longevity, something will need to be done to touch up the dome's finish eventually. I'm just curious as to why there isn't any affordable solution that's also acceptable.

Patrick
01-17-2006, 04:10 PM
I don't see why the entire roof has to be taken apart in order to improve it's appearance. Seems like they could spray it with something. Rustoleum works great on aluminum.

JOHNINSOKC
01-18-2006, 08:41 PM
Eventually, there has to be new tower construction downtown. All of the older buildings are no longer viable for office use. The FNC should be taken off the office market and converted to another use. I think doing so would give a clearer picture of our occupancy levels. I don't believe that building a new gleaming office tower will have a negative effect on occupancy over the long term because OKC is growing and I think the growth will be more pronounced over the next decade. Instead of adding 15,000 new residents a year, we'll probably be adding 25,000 to 30,000 per year. Since our city is getting more popular, I see unprecedented growth happening sooner rather than later and this will expedite new construction downtown. I predict a new signature tower to be ready for groundbreaking before 2010. Yes, I called it! Who knows, something could be in the works right now. I mean, nobody knew about Dell or the Hornets until the announcement was about to be made. I wish Chesapeake would have built their corporate headquarters downtown. People who travel through OKC have no clue about Chesapeake because it isn't downtown, it's in Nichols Hills for crying out loud!!

BDP
01-19-2006, 08:39 AM
[QUOTE]I wish Chesapeake would have built their corporate headquarters downtown. [/QUOTE

I second that! Their campus is nice, but think how great it would be to have them downtown. They hire a lot of young workers who would be a perfect demographic match for many of the housing projects downtown. Building their own buidlings only adds to our already ample inventory of ofice space space anyway. If anything should happen to them, and we know what can happen to energy companies, Western could have a big hole in it one day. It's unfortunate, too, because they seem to have a pretty big sense of community. It's companies like that which need to think renovation instead of construction.

keving
01-19-2006, 04:37 PM
How can you build another tower downtown when other towers in the city are not even half occupied. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for new development but something needs to be done with existing structures.

I've heard the New York Life building (red brick corners with black glass) on NW Expressway west of May is > 80% vacant.

The company I work for has been looking for approx. 6,000 of Class A Commercial for several months here in the city. However, it's pretty hard to fine that type of space here in the city. The boss looked at that building and found it to be Class B-/C+. Sadly, it seems the only Class A seems to be the new developments around Quail Springs Mall.

keving
01-19-2006, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE] but think how great it would be to have them downtown.

Why not attract another company with similar values to the downtown area instead of moving companies around within the city. Won't that just creat vacanies elsewhere in the city.

Besides, would they be able to have the same beautiful campus downtown?

Luke
01-19-2006, 05:39 PM
Here are some great pictures of the First National Tower and the Great Banking Hall. We absolutely do NOT want to tear down that building.

http://homepage.mac.com/swooshou/PhotoAlbum2.html

Kerry
01-19-2006, 07:51 PM
Keep the main tower but get rid of the two "newer" additions. In-fact, the land used by the two additions could be made into a parking garage and private green-space for FNC Condos. Put a small dome over the park and it could provide year around activity for tenants. Swiming in January would be a great amenity.

Patrick
01-19-2006, 08:01 PM
How can you build another tower downtown when other towers in the city are not even half occupied. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for new development but something needs to be done with existing structures.

I've heard the New York Life building (red brick corners with black glass) on NW Expressway west of May is > 80% vacant.

The company I work for has been looking for approx. 6,000 of Class A Commercial for several months here in the city. However, it's pretty hard to fine that type of space here in the city. The boss looked at that building and found it to be Class B-/C+. Sadly, it seems the only Class A seems to be the new developments around Quail Springs Mall.


Latest market summary for office space in Northwest OKC, end of year, 2005, from Price Edwards, shows Union Plaza (3030 NW Expressway) at a 28% vacancy rate, 68,367 sq feet is available for lease.
BTW, the building is still known as Union Plaza. New York Life simply paid big bucks to get their name put on the east side of the building.

John
01-19-2006, 09:26 PM
...and it doesnt have red brick corners. They just painted the concrete maroon, which doesn't do much for the building, visually.

keving
01-19-2006, 09:27 PM
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Looks like the boss wasn't entirely truthful. Now I know where to check on this information. However, the building is not Class A.

Thanks again Patrick!

Luke
01-20-2006, 03:05 PM
I think a 20-40 story class A tower downtown would fill up quickly. Just my 2 cents.

HOT ROD
01-20-2006, 03:35 PM
why doesnt OKC get cracking with it then?

If there is a demand for class A, AAA, and their aint none, and there is a push for companies to be downtown, then .....

BUILD A SKYSCRAPER DOWNTOWN!!! Its not rocket science.

JOHNINSOKC
01-21-2006, 02:48 PM
AMEN!!!! I don't understand the mentality that office space is soooo vacant around here that we CAN'T ever build again downtown. Sometimes, you have to take risks and I also believe that proper marketing of a new tower would bring in loads of interest from companies around the metro. If you don't build it, they won't come. I would rather have new buildings downtown and create tight vacancies than have office parks being built on prairie on the outskirts of OKC. I would rather see high vacancies in the suburbs as opposed to downtown. Also, the way our freeway system is designed, many outsiders don't see the N.W. Expressway office district or Quail Springs anyway. The only portion that tells people who don't live here that this city is booming is the CBD. Our downtown still looks like we are stagnant from a person who has never been here before. We've had the same skyline for roughly 25 years. Build it and they will come. People's perception of downtown is changing, but until we build new class A space, no company will be interested in relocating to downtown.

fromdust
01-21-2006, 03:18 PM
We've had the same skyline for roughly 25 years.


okay, im nit-picking. i know what you are saying, but to say we have had the same for 25 yrs isnt entirely true. the renissance changed that.

John
01-21-2006, 04:17 PM
the renissance changed that.

Very true. Too bad the site where the Courtyard is couldn't have been used to attract a bigger convention hotel that could have been another unique addition to the skyline.

:doh:

TheImmortal
01-21-2006, 10:56 PM
Don't forget about the new Hampton Inn and Embassy Suites which will be between 8-10 stories each. While I would love to see a nice 60 or 70 story highrise built downtown, I am greatful we are getting these two.

swake
01-22-2006, 02:22 AM
Even taking out the space of the first national tower OKC's downtown office space vacancy rate is over 22% which is not going to support any kind of rental rates for any speculative office space downtown, sorry, it's not going to happen..

swake
01-22-2006, 02:22 AM
Even taking out the space of the first national tower OKC's downtown office space vacancy rate is over 22% which is not going to support any kind of rental rates for any speculative office space downtown, sorry, it's not going to happen..

Luke
01-22-2006, 07:09 AM
What is the vacancy rate for class A space downtown or even all of OKC?

Patrick
01-22-2006, 01:12 PM
What is the vacancy rate for class A space downtown or even all of OKC?

Very good question.

Have to remember.......City Place has a similar vacancy rate as First National. Both are old buildings, not adaptable to today's uses.

JOHNINSOKC
01-22-2006, 03:29 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I heard that Class A downtown was under 20% vacant. What I'm trying to figure out is why all these cities around the country that are similar to OKC and have more square feet of office space, are building skyscrapers and we aren't? I always think of Nashville as an example because most of their buildings were built in the 80's and 90's and now they have a couple of 50 and 60 story towers on the drawing board. I believe they have just as much office space in the suburbs as OKC. Something is wrong with OKC's office statistics. Although I like the 36-story Chase Tower, I hope it loses it's title as the tallest building in OKC before the decade ends. Also, the SouthCentral Bell Company in Nashville built a new signature tower for their employees back in the 90's and it is symbolic of Batman. The headquarters is not in Nashville, but they still built a new office for the company's local employees. I'm not sure about the local AT&T office here, but that is an example of improving a company's office and improving a city's skyline at the same time. As fast as Midfirst Bank is growing, perhaps they could consider building downtown. Now, I wonder if the Chamber is actively pursuing any corporate relocations to downtown. It just seems like the leaders in this city, whether it's the chamber, the city, or developers, are not being aggressive about changing the situation downtown. I define a skyline as what you see 20 miles from downtown. You can't really see the Renaissance Hotel that far out. What you saw in 1984 is what you see today-the same five 30+ story buildings(Chase Tower, Oklahoma Tower, Kerr-McGee Tower, First National Tower and City Place). Oklahoma Tower is 24 years old. Although it still looks nice, it's still old. MAPS has yet to do anything for office space downtown. I think MAPS has been a huge success, but the real success story will be when our CBD starts physically changing in altitude. Things will change when everyone that has influence over the situation starts making it a priority.

Midtowner
01-22-2006, 03:33 PM
Johns, I think one of the attractions of businesses in OKC is cheap land. A corporate campus has much lower overhead than a downtown tower.

I can think of few businesses really where locating downtown could be of much benefit at all.

Patrick
01-22-2006, 08:57 PM
You're right Midtowner. What are the benefits of a corporation building an office tower downtown? Nothing really. Parking sucks, skyscrapers require more maintenance and simply cost more to build, etc. The only benefit to having a skyscraper downtown is recognition.

Luke
01-22-2006, 09:56 PM
What are the benefits of a corporation building an office tower downtown?

Well, with all the towers going up in major (and medium sized) cities all over the nation, there are obviously some benefits we may be overlooking. We'd have to ask those companies that are building the skyscrapers in those cities.

It would be interesting research material.

Pete
01-23-2006, 08:18 AM
Almost all the rapidly expanding businesses use office parks, because it's easier to add space when needed.

It's all you see in the Silicon Valley... Same around L.A. There hasn't been a new office building built in downtown L.A. in about 20 years and you could say the same about a lot of cities.

I'd love to see a 50-60 story building in downtown OKC but I'm not going to hold my breath. And frankly, I'd almost rather see some big vacant and vastly under-utilized areas built-up first.

Patrick
01-23-2006, 06:01 PM
I'd almost wonder if replacing some of our slum inner city areas with beautiful office parks might not be a bad idea. It would sure help beautification. You have to admit...the Chesapeake complex looks much nicer than what used to be there.

JOHNINSOKC
01-23-2006, 07:27 PM
I think that building office parks only encourages urban sprawl. What I don't understand is why was it so different in 1984 to build downtown as opposed to right now?? I still believe that if the class C office space is converted to other uses such as housing and retail, the demand for office space becomes obvious. I don't believe that there is enough class A space downtown, especially when you consider what the future holds regarding a population influx with all the new housing coming downtown and the general perception that downtown is THE place to be. That is why I think we will see new construction in the next 3-5 years. Our CBD can't stay the same forever. I would like to think a developer would come in and build a new convention hotel of at least 35 stories. I think if one developer starts something big, others will follow suit. This isn't the OKC of 1989. We are supposedly a progressive city with nothing but good things ahead.