View Full Version : New Mixed-Use Tower



Pages : [1] 2

JOHNINSOKC
09-02-2006, 03:50 PM
I frequently read the Texas and South Central Section of Skyscraperpage.com as well as the Southeast portion and it's getting a bit discouraging to see that numerous cities are building towers in their downtowns, whether it be residential,office,hotel,or even a mixed-use development that combines them all. The cities of Nashville, Austin, San Antonio and even Fort Worth are leaving OKC WAY behind in this area. I used to live in Nashville and the city is barely larger than OKC, however, they are going to build a 55 story tower that will be the largest until an even larger tower that will be finished in 2009 takes over that spot. Hear this: The new signature tower wil be the tallest in the U.S. outside of New York and Chicago that will combine condos, a hotel and office space. I do not understand how OKC continues to sit around and do nothing of this magnitude. Nashville's new projects will totally transform that city into the next level. Frankly, we as a city need to think MUCH bigger than we are right now. Despite all that is going on around here, it pales in comparison to our peer cities.

Patrick
09-02-2006, 07:28 PM
We have a lot of empty space right now with First National and KMG empty. KMG will be for sale soon.

BDP
09-03-2006, 11:10 AM
Despite all that is going on around here, it pales in comparison to our peer cities.

It kind of brings you back to earth, doesn't it?

I agree, OKC is improving, but it is still years behind in terms of offering the kind of living many are seeking these days. We'll see how the new developments do downtown. If they can muster some sense of real urban living with all of its conveniences, then I think we'll be better off. You don't necessarily have to build up to achieve urban living, but it does help the density and therefore the motivation for services.

Mixed use high rises is definitely the trend in developments these days. If the market continues to support them and OKC does not offer it, then we will once again find ourselves behind the 8 ball in terms of competing with other cities for lifestyle choices. It would be just another point inserted into the often heard “Oklahoma City? Why would I live there? It doesn’t even have (fill in the blank)?”

ksearls
09-03-2006, 11:20 AM
You don't necessarily have to build up to achieve urban living

BDP, I agree. We are so lucky to not have to build up; we have plenty of space to utilize. I think this "tower" obsession is some sort of phallic male thing!:fighting4

The Old Downtown Guy
09-03-2006, 12:31 PM
I think this "tower" obsession is some sort of phallic male thing!:fighting4

Actually it's all about the cost of land. The towers being built in other cities mentioned sit on land costing $100.00, $300.00, $500.00 or more per square foot. The net land cost to the developers of the Triangle, The Hill and Legacy was about $3.00 per square foot. No need to build tall when land is bargin basement priced.

And, it will likely be several years before there is much of a market for these taller, mixed use buildings in OKC. The Oklahoma River corridor or somewhere on all of the vacant space being created between the realigned I-40 and downtown may be where a twenty or thirty-plus story mixed use building is errected around 2025. Could be sooner than that if the downtown core population surges dramatically in the next few years, but I can't see anything tall other than conversions of existing office buildings before that count goes over 10,000 people.

okcpulse
09-03-2006, 12:47 PM
BDP, I agree. We are so lucky to not have to build up; we have plenty of space to utilize. I think this "tower" obsession is some sort of phallic male thing!

No matter how much I love Oklahoma City, and even though our skyline is nice and compact, the common question I get asked is "why is Oklahoma City's skyline so small for a city that size?"

So lucky to not have to build up? Come on, cities are defined by highrises. It's why people love cities. It's why they take pictures of cities. It's why they take video footage of cities. What's so lucky about not building up? I take it you like flat atmospheres. That isn't Oklahoma City's destiny. Sorry.

As far as this being an obsession and a male thing, maybe you were kidding. Maybe not. But I don't find it funny. We need to stick with aggressive goals for Oklahoma City. I want to be able to drive up I-35 from Texas and say "wow" when downtown Oklahoma City comes into view. When people see towers, male OR female, they are always in awe.

writerranger
09-03-2006, 12:55 PM
I agree with you OKCPulse. 100%. People buy postcards of cities with what on them? Skylines. I think it's a visionary thing for Nashville and others to bring the amenities of Manhattan-like living to cities their size. Kudos to them!

I have said many times I think OKC is resting on its laurels in the wake of Bricktown/MAPS success - that was all on the drawing boards years ago. What's our big-league visionary goals on the drawing boards now? Gulp.

BTW, anybody here know the latest on the First National project? Sounds like we could see some of that mixed-use with residential there.

------------------

Midtowner
09-03-2006, 02:27 PM
BDP, I agree. We are so lucky to not have to build up; we have plenty of space to utilize. I think this "tower" obsession is some sort of phallic male thing!:fighting4

Sometimes size does matter.

Saberman
09-03-2006, 03:10 PM
I have to agree with ODG, with the cost of land here much lower then in other cities. It just isn'tworth the cost to build large towers.

Also that is the appeal that OKC has , that it's not like other cities. I have lived in some "Big Cities", LA,DC, and haven't missed them since I came back. Try sitting in a traffic jam on the Beltway in DC for 2 hours without moving. I always joked rush hour in OKC is 55 miles an hour. Fly in to OKC at night, and if that site does't stir you nothing will, the lights seem to go on for miles.

OKC needs to set itself apart from other cities, for the most part we have good schools, low crime, and frendly people, that sounds like a great place to live to me. That not to say we don't need to improve.

Where Downtown will go, I think, will depend on what happens once I-40 moves.

JOHNINSOKC
09-03-2006, 07:44 PM
I remember when the above mentioned cities were much smaller than OKC in the 1980's. Since then, we've been passed in metro population by Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, and Memphis. In addition, cities such as OMAHA and DES MOINES, which are much smaller have reinvented their skylines with new construction. In fact, I think Omaha just recently built a 60-story tower. That in itself makes our theory of not building up sound ridiculous. Vacancies ARE going down substantially metrowide according to the 2nd QTR office survey and despite the fact that KMG will leave an empty tower, Class A and Class B space are showing fast absorption and Class C is being bought up rapidly for housing. I hope the plans for First National come to fruition so it will bring overall vacancy down to a level conducive for NEW construction. I find it hard to believe that a mixed-use tower couldn't work. This city is going up and has grown consistently for the past 15 years, at least. There should be no excuse for not building something.

ETL
09-03-2006, 10:46 PM
Both, johninsokc and old town guy are right. The land in OKC is cheap, and that meant that there is no reason to build up. I think if the city can come up with new incentives for company headquarters, then OKC has a shot. OKC should implement some sort of an incentive that entices company headquarters to locate here and build a high-rise within a certain distance of the business district.

Cheep land is on our side, but what would be enticing to a national HQ?

okcpulse
09-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Both, johninsokc and old town guy are right. The land in OKC is cheap, and that meant that there is no reason to build up.

Cheap land is not a reason to not build up. That, IMO, would be just a little extra incentive TO build up. Although you both are correct... cheap land is part of the reason developers are into office parks. Still, there needs to be a developer that will take that risk and plan an ambitious project for OKC. Will people have their doubts with the proposal of a 70-story mixed use tower? Probably. Even though real estate experts believe such a project would cannibalize the downtown market, it might just have the opposite effect, attracting more tennants to an attractive signature downtown.

We're not asking to become Dallas, Houston or LA, we're just asking for someone to step up to the plate with a project the entire city can get really excited about, and change the scenery of our skyline, which has been the same for twenty years.

JOHNINSOKC
09-04-2006, 07:07 PM
AMEN to that, OKCPULSE!! I totally agree with you on the fact that if a developer would just take a risk on building something that would combine everything we need downtown into one huge complex, then it would create new enthusiasm that may be lacking in the office sector. I think the post oil bust mentality is causing an unnecessary caution out there that is going to hold this city back unless we take the ambitious mentality and take this city in a new direction. I think there are more developers that would take a risk than ones that wouldn't. After reading about the proposals in Nashville, it really sickened me to think how behind our downtown really is despite all the new projects. Another thing we need downtown is a true convention center hotel. Nashville built a 33-story Stoeffer Hotel(now a Renaissance Hotel) back in the mid-1980's and it was the tallest building in Nashville before they built the BellSouth tower that looks like Batman which changed the city's skyline again in the early 1990's. Now, that tower will be the THIRD tallest in just a few short years. What is this city waiting for?? It's time for a new signature tower for this city to be proud of. I think the city needs to pull out all the stops and go out and lure a developer just like they did to get Dell and the NBA Hornets to come here. We have a downtown where the newest tower is 22 years old. Absolutely unacceptable for a growing city that has dreams of being bigtime in the national conscience.

BDP
09-04-2006, 10:06 PM
While OKC does have cheap land, that does not mean that it has to be relegated to cheap developments. It should be noted that many residential high rise buildings are being built in many markets not due to land restrictions, but becuase that is what people are looking are demanding.

At the end of the day, if we are not offering what the market is demanding, we will be overlooked, no matter what the cost of our land is.

BDP
09-04-2006, 10:10 PM
While OKC does have cheap land, that does not mean that it has to be relegated to cheap developments. It should be noted that many residential high rise buildings are being built in many markets not due to land restrictions, but becuase that is what people are looking are demanding.

At the end of the day, if we are not offering what the market is demanding, we will be overlooked and continually surpassed, no matter what the cost of land is. While many people in OKC simply say, "hey, if we don't have what you want, then leave", other long term thinking cities are making efforts to offer options that leave people of all tastes and needs little reason to leave.

dcsooner
09-05-2006, 08:01 AM
I just returned from a weekend visit to OKC and as a native Oklahoman(Lawton) which really sucks, I must say although progress has been made, Oklahoma City is still woefully lagging in basic amentities one expects from a major city. Downtown is not vibrant after hours, no shoppping etc. I do not want to believe that Oklahnoma will forever be relegated to 2nd or 3rd tier status among states, but these are some of my observations. Oklahomans are fat (billy and betty bob are alive and well in Oklahoma), Oklahomans smoke alot, haven't you gotten the message (why all these Indian smoke shops?) wonder why health care costs are so high in Oklahoma (duh). Oklahomans LOOK poor and uneducated. Sorry but not shoes and shirts standard attire. When development does occur it's done second rate. You rave about your airport expansion but I have been through airports in cities much smaller than OKC and they are equal to or better. I do not know what it will take for Oklahoma to progress beyond where it is today, but I do believe without a fresh influx (population projections suggest this will not happen) of people who haven't been stiffled by low expectations, my home State (that I really do love) will always remain at the bottom of most areas related to quality of life. JUST MY OPINION

Easy180
09-05-2006, 10:44 AM
So...You didn't enjoy your weekend then?...Can't really tell from your glowing review of OKC :fighting2

I stopped at your Oklahomans' look poor and uneducated comment

BDP
09-05-2006, 10:44 AM
You rave about your airport expansion but I have been through airports in cities much smaller than OKC and they are equal to or better.

True, but then again, I have been through many much larger airports in much larger cities that are toilets compared to OKC's. Most days when I travel, OKC is the nicest looking of the airports I visit. It is not large, but it is one of the more "surprising" things to new visitors. Now, the drive from the airport to their destination is another story...

dcsooner
09-05-2006, 11:20 AM
Easy180,
I enjoy my visits to the extent that I get to revisit OU (I am a graduate) and see my Mom in Lawton, but I seem to come away disappointed in the "progress" talked about in the newspaper which I read everyday on line. I really want to see Oklahoma "GROW and PROSPER" so that I can consider returning, but each visit makes it even more unlikely as change seems to be brutally slow. Interesting that no one has disputed my observations. For those who live in OKC and want to see the City truly grow, START some kind of grass roots movement to get city leaders moving, maybe even tax yourselves again, but don't stay silent, get people into leadership who believe in Oklahoma like David Boren and the Governor who want to WORK to bring business and commerce to the City and State in a big way. Their is no reason Oklahoma has to continue to lag behing other states and Cities. It will take citizen action to demand better. Gosh even NW
ARKANSAS is growing faster than OKC.

okcpulse
09-05-2006, 11:39 AM
Oklahomans are fat (billy and betty bob are alive and well in Oklahoma), Oklahomans smoke alot, haven't you gotten the message (why all these Indian smoke shops?) wonder why health care costs are so high in Oklahoma (duh). Oklahomans LOOK poor and uneducated. Sorry but not shoes and shirts standard attire.

You just described three-fourths the state of Texas, and they are considered to be a first-tier state. I conside Houston the smoking capital of the nation.

Despite your brief visit, Oklahoma is progressing in a lot more areas than meets the eye. Some qualities of life just aren't so obvious. And please, please consider, we are a work in progress. We have to start from the bottom and work our way up.

dcsooner
09-05-2006, 11:41 AM
okcpulse,
Your comments encourage me because it shows that my fellow Oklahomans BELIEVE in our city and state. I am not ready to throw in the towel and give up, my comments reflect frustration in wanting to see faster progress

Easy180
09-05-2006, 11:43 AM
I think we all know the ONLY reason NW Arkansas is growing is the evil discount empire is HQ'd there

OKC and it's suburbs are progressing rather nicely, but I'm sure coming in with a DC view it wouldn't appear to you to be

You have some good points...Just not necessary to comment on how poor, fat and uneducated the city appears to be

dcsooner
09-05-2006, 11:50 AM
Easy 180,
Apoligies are due, just another reason to fight like heck for good schools and better paying jobs in the
State. Yes comparing where I live, one of the most afflunent areas of the country to Oklahoma is unfair, I plan to retire someplace else in 5 years, I would like for it to be Oklahoma if I could get SOME of the quality of life ammenties available in bigger cities. The NBA would be a start, but I am not holding my breath

traxx
09-05-2006, 12:37 PM
I think dcsooner makes several good points. We need a wakeup call instead of patting ourselves on the back for what we've already done. Instead of seeing our shortcomings and just pointing to texas or other states and municipalities and saying "look they're doing it too and they seem to be successful" we need to leave them behind and lead the change, not follow. It's good to see an outsider's view who has a love of Oklahoma. If some Joe from Oregon had stopped by Oklahoma and said those things, I probably wouldn't have been so quick to agree, but with dc, he's not trying to put us down but help out.

Luke
09-05-2006, 04:42 PM
A different mindset is what it takes.

Walt Disney "imagineered" a swamp into arguably the top entertainment destination in the world (Orlando). The city of Dubai (pop. 300,000) in the United Arab Emirates has 44 miles of shoreline, yet they are building the world's most ambitious vacation spot on the planet by literally raising hundreds of miles of shoreline out of the ocean in the shape of palm trees and even an outline of the world so that you can buy your own "country." Entertainment, hotels, restaurants, shopping... the works.

See Palm Jumeirah: http://www.thepalm.ae/

Also see The World: http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/dubai/world_islands.php (Click on video for amazing demonstration).

Dubai is doing something equally amazing by building the world's largest indoor snow park. They're in the middle of the desert and they're going to build a black diamond run. Crazy. But someone was inspired.

See: http://www.skidxb.com/facts_eng.htm?mid=1&sid=2

And who would have thought that Las Vegas, a then small desert town, against all odds, would become one of the world's top tourist destinations. Talk about a distinct skyline, Las Vegas' is amazing. Entertainment, architecture, food... An amazing sight to see.

Who thinks of these crazy ideas? The innovators. The creatives. Those who don't care "what is cheaper" or "what makes sense." These are the ones we look back at and say, "that is amazing." Where are those people? Are they here?

Why NOT build a ski resort in Oklahoma? Why NOT have the Summer Olympics in OKC? Heck, why not have the WINTER Olympics at the Ski Resort in Oklahoma!? Anything can be done. Anything.

A boardwalk on the river that actually convinces you that you are on the beach? It can happen. A waterfront housing development that makes you swear you're in Fort Lauderdale? Absolutely! A condo/hotel/office tower amidst the Chase and Devon towers that fell straight outta New York City? Let's do it!

If all we focus on are the reasons why not, then there will never be a reason why. And if those of us who desire those things head for California or New York, it will never happen here.

Creatives will always be outnumbered by the "it's-cheaper-to-do-this..." and "that-doesn't-make-sense..." crowd. That's why our city looks the way it does. However, we creatives are gaining in number and things are changing here in OKC. We can't stop here though. We must keep the momentum and continue to put forth crazy and creative ideas.

dcsooner
09-05-2006, 05:47 PM
Luke,
YES! that what I am talking about. A change in mindset from what if, if only, to Why not Oklahoma? the one thing I do like about Texas is their belief they are the best,not settling for second best. Been to Las Vegas? I was there over the 4th of July, Nevada for the most part is UGLY, really UGLY, no trees to speak of and arid ground but people found a niche and SOLD it to others. OK, now I knowOKC has people who have a bigger vision for the City, I just hope those in postions of power and authority are listening or reading forums like this.

Kerry
09-05-2006, 08:31 PM
Last weekend I went back to Tampa to see the old homestead and downtown Tampa is full of nw highrises under construction. In fact - you simply can not count the construction cranes downtown. There must be 20 new highrises nder construction just in the downtown core.

Orlando is the same way. Downtown Orlando has atleast 10 new high-rise under construction. Even here in Jacskonville (the forgotten part of the state) we have 5 new high-rise under construction. In fact, our next 4 buildings will be the tallest in the city - all over 600 feet.

However there is one thing all of these new high-rise have in common. With the exception of one office tower in Tampa, they are all residential. If OKC is to get a new tower it would most likely be residential. However, all of the projects proposed for downtown OKC are either reuse or large apartment-like complex. Nothing going skyward!

I have a simple plan to fix this and it won't cost the city or any tax payer 1 cent. Here it is - allow developers who build up to lock in their current property tax. Starting with 10 floors they can lock in for 5 years. For every 5 floors after that they get 3 more years. A 40 story building could lock in their current property tax for 28 years. That would save the developer a lot of money. It would also bring in more money for the city because surrounding property would increase in value that will off-set the property tax that "might" have been collected if the 28 year lock wasn't in effect.

The only was a developer or land owner could 'protect' themselves from higher taxes is to build up. Even if the lot remaind vacant the taxes would still increase, so most would build a highrise or sell to someone that would.

Luke
09-05-2006, 08:33 PM
Makes me wonder how many of us there are. It wouldn't be much to throw some of these crazy ideas together and present them to some of the crazy people in charge around here. It can happen.

Kerry
09-05-2006, 09:20 PM
I was just looking at property taxes on downtown property and I am stunned. The Chase building pays about $335,000 a year in property taxes. The 101 Park Ave building pays $35,000 in taxes. Let just say that someone bought and tore down the 101 Park Ave buliding and replaced it with a 40 story tower. They could lock in the $35,000 price for 28 years. At $300,000 (chase building minus 101 Park Building) per year they would save $8.4 million in property taxes over the 28 years. This would be a great incentive to do just that.

Leadership square pays $538,000 in property taxes. At $500,000 per year for 28 years a new building at 101 Park Ave would save $14,000,000. I think that would tempt a lot of developers to build up and not out. We could even get rid of some of smaller less attractive buildings in the process.

animeGhost
09-05-2006, 10:55 PM
i agree with u guys... something needs to be done in this city. Its been over 20 yrs since the last tower was built in okc (im only 19 so ive never even seen one go up) and all anyone can talk about is "oh maybe in 20 more yrs or so we can build a new on" what kind of pathetic thinking is that... i went to kansas city last weekend to visit my sis and it seemed like every time i looked up there was a giant crane towering above me... then i get back home and i see okc and thers one maybe two half way decent sized cranes workin dt and it makes me sick... i read all these things talkin bout places like austin getting new 60+ story developments and i may not be very old but i remember a time when okc was larger than austin... and about northwestern arkansas. If one company can pull the growth and development of that area past that of okc's than thats gotta say something of how slowly this city is developing... and okc's corporate base is pretty damn sad as well... okc has what maybe 8 publicly traded companies. this city needs to do something and quick otherwise were just gonna be "some town in oklahoma? where ever that is."
[end rant]

Midtowner
09-06-2006, 12:15 AM
I was just looking at property taxes on downtown property and I am stunned. The Chase building pays about $335,000 a year in property taxes. The 101 Park Ave building pays $35,000 in taxes. Let just say that someone bought and tore down the 101 Park Ave buliding and replaced it with a 40 story tower. They could lock in the $35,000 price for 28 years. At $300,000 (chase building minus 101 Park Building) per year they would save $8.4 million in property taxes over the 28 years. This would be a great incentive to do just that.

Leadership square pays $538,000 in property taxes. At $500,000 per year for 28 years a new building at 101 Park Ave would save $14,000,000. I think that would tempt a lot of developers to build up and not out. We could even get rid of some of smaller less attractive buildings in the process.

I hate the idea of anything that takes money from property taxes. It's simply not okay if it involves taking money away from our schools.

Especially the cash-strapped OKC school district. If the money could be replaced by another source, fine. If not, then I don't like your idea.

Omaha Cowboy
09-06-2006, 04:01 AM
. In addition, cities such as OMAHA and DES MOINES, which are much smaller have reinvented their skylines with new construction. In fact, I think Omaha just recently built a 60-story tower. There should be no excuse for not building something.

Lumping Des Moines and Omaha together is a bit misleading as the size difference between the 2 cities (Omaha's metro being 300,000 larger than Des Moines) is the same size difference between OKC and Omaha..Historically, there was a significant time period in our cities' histories where Omaha was larger or of similar size as OKC..So they are more similar that you may like to rationalize (or admit :wink: )..

For the record, downtown Omaha has seen impressive highrise construction this decade..Including: The 634FT, 40 story First National Center, the 19 story, 319 FT Union Pacific HQ's, and will start construction on the 32 story, 375 FT Wallstreet Tower (282 condo units and 5 stories of retail). Pretty impressive for a metro of 850,000..

And to your final quoted comment as it relates to OKC, you can't just build a highrise for the sake of building one because you're falling behind the 'smaller Omaha's of the world' (God forbid)..There must be a needed, rational reason for contructing any bulding of substance..

Just my .02 cents..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

jdweaver
09-06-2006, 09:25 AM
"I hate the idea of anything that takes money from property taxes. It's simply not okay if it involves taking money away from our schools."

He made the claim to lock in the amount not reduce it. If they are still paying the same amount, how is that taking anything away from the school?

BDP
09-06-2006, 09:53 AM
If they are still paying the same amount, how is that taking anything away from the school?

Inflation. Think if all of the downtown high-rises were currently paying 1976 property taxes. That would be a big decrease in revenue compared to what they are paying now. If property taxes are paying for education, there has to be some way for those taxes to adjust to the increaseing cost per capita in education.

I like the creative thinking, though. IMO, it's working through ideas like Kerry's that makes things work. If it can be shown that the proposed increase in revenue from other sources due to such developments offsets the decrease in taxes in real dollars over the years, then I'd say it could still have merit.


you can't just build a highrise for the sake of building one because you're falling behind the 'smaller Omaha's of the world' (God forbid)..There must be a needed, rational reason for contructing any bulding of substance..

In terms of competition, that is a rational need. If it's building a taller building just to make a nice postcard or just to have a taller building, then, yes that is irresponsible. However, it seems the demand for this type of living is real and pervasive. More and more, people want to live in full service high rise mixed use complexes. Trying to stay competitive by meeting demand is not irrational. In my mind, it makes sense for Oklahoma City to diversify its living options, at the very least to retain residents who seek a different lifestyle than Oklahoma currently offers. The beauty of it is that it would in no way be at the cost of its current living options. It would only be an additional choice.

I think the Omaha comparisons are valid in that it shows there is a demand, even amongst land rich traditionally non-urban communities. I don't think it is meant as a slight at Omaha at all.


Why NOT build a ski resort in Oklahoma? Why NOT have the Summer Olympics in OKC? Heck, why not have the WINTER Olympics at the Ski Resort in Oklahoma!? Anything can be done. Anything.

Good points. I think Chicago is great example as well. Even though it has a great trade position on Lake Michigan, people forget that the land there was very unfavorable for building and that the river initially caused more problems than benefits. It also took the construction of railroads and canals before it could become the world class player it grew into. But early investors had vision and the will to persevere. And before it got the World's Fair, no one thought it could pull it off. In fact, it was incessant lobbying for the event by their politicians that earned it the nick name the "windy city".

Maybe it's time some Oklahoma City leaders became a bit windy in promoting the city and in their demands to developers...

brianinok
09-06-2006, 05:14 PM
Most everyone here seems to be missing one important point: Cities in the US do not build towers; developers build towers. They must make economic sense for them to be built. Until it makes economic sense (vacancy rates, land prices, downtown population, etc.), there won't be a tower built. Period.

In virtually every example, a tower is the effect, not the cause. The cause of the tower is the vacancy rate, land prices, downtown population, etc. that I have mentioned. What we need to focus on are the causes, and then the effect (tower) will come.

Easy180
09-06-2006, 05:21 PM
Our best chance for a new tower would be if Devon continues to grow at their current pace...They already occupy their current bldg and some of the Chase tower

Or maybe if the MG's become as popular as Toyota's :tweeted:

BDP
09-06-2006, 05:37 PM
Until it makes economic sense (vacancy rates, land prices, downtown population, etc.), there won't be a tower built. Period.

You forgot demand. There are many examples of towers being built in cities that do not have low vacancy rates, high land prices, or large downtown populations. In fact, many are being built in "overbuilt" markets. It is simply a lifestyle that is currently in demand and many developers are cashing in on it. Right now many get a good ROI because of the premium these places get. They are being built mainly because people want them, not because of geographical limitations.

dcsooner
09-06-2006, 06:08 PM
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY A NEGATIVE MINDSET THAT PERVADES OKLAHOMA AND IMPEDES GROWTH. LEADERS WANT TO MAKE A BOLD MOVE TO MOVE TULSA FORWARD AND NAYSAYERS WHO WANT TO REMAIN IN 1950 STIFFLE THE EFFORT. DON'T TULSAS KNOW HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST THE LAST FEW YEARS IN TERMS OF JOBS AND POPULATION?

TBJ Article


Islands in the River Unveiled





Ray Tuttle
9/6/2006

Work could begin in two years on a $788 million project to create three man-made islands in the Arkansas River between the 11th Street and 21st Street bridges.
The Tulsa Stakeholders Inc. unveiled their ambitious vision to develop 40-acres with high-rise buildings, parks, shopping and plenty of space to "get in touch with the river," to about 525 people at the Tulsa Downtown DoubleTree Hotel on Wednesday.

Tulsa Stakeholders estimated that the project, called "The Channels," would require $600 million in public financing. Tulsa Stakeholders committed to raising $100 million as a gift from the private sector to the development. Through the sale of energy created by the project’s hydroelectric wind and solar power, an additional $88 million could be financed. The Channels would receive operating funds from the profits generated by the renewable energy sources and revenues from ground leases and sales. Additional revenues will come from common area maintenance fees paid by developers.

The development of the Arkansas River would begin with an 18-foot dam north of the 21st Street bridge, which would create a 12-mile lake back to Sand Springs.

Tulsa Stakeholders wanted a design that would "propel Tulsa past its competitors. The non-profit group commissioned urban planner/architect and waterfront expert Bing Thom to develop the plan.

"It time Tulsa got it's swagger back," said John-Kelly Warren, chairman of the William K. Warren Foundation. Warren and his wife, Margie, Tom Cooper, CEO of Warren Professional Building Corp., Christine and Scott Lambert, owners of Travertine Elevator Interiors and local business attorney Rusty Patton, decided to take action to create "a river we can be proud of."

At $788 million, the bill for The Channels would be four times greater than the cost of the BOK Center. The iconic arena is estimated to cost $183 million.

Opposition to the project was already present as "No River Tax," signs began appearing along the river. Dan Hicks, a project opponent, does not want public money used.
Tulsa "can become a truly great city by all of you joining in this effort to make it work," said William K. "Bill" Warren, Jr. He stood at the end of the question-and-answer period following two negative statements on the project. One statement was that Tulsa did not need the development. A second opponent said the project would harm the river.

"Don't be people who say 'No,' " Warren said. "Our forefathers succeeded by saying, 'We're gonna make it work.' "
Cooper estimated that construction could start as soon as 2008 and would take two years, being completion by 2010.

Tulsa Stakeholders came forward at this time in order to protect homeowners and property owners from profiteering, Cooper said.

"We wanted to make sure they were protected, so we got the news out," he said.

The 40-acre island, between the 11th and 21st Street, will be connected by two bridges to the east bank. The land mass rises from the water will feature low- and high-rise residences to the north and south, separated by navigable canals.

The focal point of the community will be a stone-paved plaza that will be the largest open space on the development. Facing the east river bank and a floating stage for performing arts, the plaza will be lined with trees. Plans call for restaurants and pubs to “spill out into the space.” Parking will be underground.

What will make the project distinctive will be a several-story high canopy that will shade the plaza, Cooper said. Covered in solar panels, the canopy will be designed to collect sunlight for power conversion. Also, the canopy will cool the open market and public spaces underneath up to 13 degrees.

Opposite of the plaza on the east bank will be a large park, called “Tulsa Green.” Stairs to the water’s edge will run the full width of the bank. Renderings depict a beach and large pool to the south.


Print This Story Email To A Friend

Kerry
09-06-2006, 06:53 PM
As pointed out - I am not talking about decreasing the amount paid - only locking in the current amount. As for the comment about what if every building downtown was paying 1976 prices - I have news for you - many are.

Most of the property I looked at only increased about $2000 per year. Even over the 28 year period the city would only be out a grand total of $56,000. In the 29th year the city would collect upwards of $500,000. Not a bad return. Plus surrounding land would actualy increase at faster rate because land values would climb faster which would increase thier taxes.

In many cases this would be used on land that is currently vacant and has been vacant for 30 years in many cases. This is land that otherwise would not be developed.

jbrown84
09-06-2006, 07:28 PM
That's an impressively ambitious project for Tulsa, and like you say, it's a shame that people say things like "Tulsa doesn't need it". I'm so tired of hearing that kind of attitude.

We can't look at downtown population to determine the demand for a residential tower. If there's nowhere to live yet, then people can't be living there!! Build it and they will come, if it's impressive enough. Hogan's Centennial on the Canal is a prime example of the lack of ambition, creativity, or willingness to spend a little extra to make something nice. It is absolutely unexcusable that with as much money as he's charging people to live there that he can't do it all brick with some classic stone work as well.

Highrise residential. NOW.

animeGhost
09-06-2006, 08:49 PM
and im gettin sick and tired of the wealthy ppl in ok not even investing in their own stat... a prime example is the gaylord family... they have a chain of resorts in several cities across the country (las vegas and dallas are the only locations i am for sure exist) and not even as much as a proposal for one in ok

ETL
09-06-2006, 11:19 PM
That is why they are rich and stupid at the same time. lol

Midtowner
09-07-2006, 12:40 AM
and im gettin sick and tired of the wealthy ppl in ok not even investing in their own stat... a prime example is the gaylord family... they have a chain of resorts in several cities across the country (las vegas and dallas are the only locations i am for sure exist) and not even as much as a proposal for one in ok

Nearly every major University in Oklahoma has a building named after a Gaylord or an Everest. What do you mean they're not investing in this state?

They'll build their hotels and resorts where those hotels and resorts will make money. Last I checked, our premiere entertainment district was happy with Residence Inn. Why would Gaylord Hotels & Resorts build a facility here? If OKC is going to be satisfied with mediocrity, why would an outstanding organization think this was the place for them to build??

mburlison
09-07-2006, 05:51 AM
Ha, Billy and Betty Bob are everywhere. If DCSooner really in DC, I would not be bragging about that cesspool either. One block away from the Mall and what is that town? Nothing but a rat hole. (Do not include the suburbs, just D.C.)

As for Office Buildings, Towers, some good points have been made in regards to the original question, my gosh, it's not as if cities build towers for the hell of it. There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. Doesn't help when we have the KMG's moving out etc. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

DCSooner, get a life, OKC is a great place, sounds like you have some issues that I would not want to trade you for.

BDP
09-07-2006, 10:12 AM
Most of the property I looked at only increased about $2000 per year. Even over the 28 year period the city would only be out a grand total of $56,000. In the 29th year the city would collect upwards of $500,000. Not a bad return.

Actually forgoing an increase of 2k a year is much more than 56k total. It’d be 2k the first year, 4k the next year, 6k the next and so on… That’d be $812,000 over the 28 years.

And you'd have to multiply that by all of the properties that qualify. If all downtown properties were paying 56k less than what they are paying now, wouldn't that add up quickly? If it were only 10, that would be $560,000 per year. There is also a real cost with forgoing revenue for 30 years. Not collecting revenue for 30 years amounts to forgoing more than just the the actual principle lost for that period.


Plus surrounding land would actualy increase at faster rate because land values would climb faster which would increase thier taxes

Which is the whole key to the plan and what I think gives it some merit. But it's not without risk and that's all I'm pointing out: the risk and the real cost of forgoing revenue. I'm not knocking the idea on its face value, I'm just saying it goes deeper than that.

Also, the effect in the sunset year could be disastrous for some property owners and lessors who have to suddenly absorb a large increase in costs. In an ideal world it would be offset by the fact their financing could be paid off by then. But that would only work if the developer was prudent in amortizing the expected increase in cost over the previous 30 years.

I think the idea has merit, I'm just trying to point out the real costs. Can the real cost of forgoing revenues be shown to offset the opportunity cost of not having new high rise developments downtown? To answer that one has to look at property value increases, and therefore tax increases, without towers and compare that to value projections with towers and their tax breaks.

jbrown84
09-07-2006, 11:31 AM
There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

I assure you inexpensive land exists in smaller peer cites like Omaha, Des Moines, Charlotte, Austin, Birmingham, and others that have booming highrise construction. It has nothing to do with "companies". If you look at these cities, almost all of the highrises going up are RESIDENTIAL or HOTELS. Both of which we need and can support according to official studies.

The problem is we can't seem to get any developers in here with any vision.

traxx
09-07-2006, 11:35 AM
Ha, Billy and Betty Bob are everywhere. If DCSooner really in DC, I would not be bragging about that cesspool either. One block away from the Mall and what is that town? Nothing but a rat hole. (Do not include the suburbs, just D.C.)

As for Office Buildings, Towers, some good points have been made in regards to the original question, my gosh, it's not as if cities build towers for the hell of it. There is simply too many inexpensive alternatives and no demand for a highrise...YET. Doesn't help when we have the KMG's moving out etc. I doubt we'll ever have much more of a skyline until (as has been mentioned above) some companies, substantial companies, move to OKC.

DCSooner, get a life, OKC is a great place, sounds like you have some issues that I would not want to trade you for.
Burlison, take it easy. If you'll read more in depth you'll see DC is from Oklahoma. Don't come on here and start bashing other posters, especially when they haven't made any inflamatory remarks. If you want to get into a mine's bigger than yours pissing match go to the OU football boards. This isn't the place.

As far as the Tulsa proposal goes, I say bully for them. I know it's popular for OKC residents to bash Tulsa, but I say what's good for Tulsa is good for the state. If Tulsa succeeds in making something that awesome, maybe our city leaders will feel they have to one-up them and we'll be left with a couple of great, vibrant, forward thinking, no-holds-barred, grandiose downtowns in this state.

animeGhost
09-07-2006, 06:53 PM
ur exactly right traxx... the projects in tulse have the possibility to create some great competition between okc and tulsa which would do nothing but benefit the state and each respective city (and dont get me wrong i hate seeing tulsa doing better than okc)

Kerry
09-07-2006, 08:58 PM
You make a good point BDP. Don't know where my math skills went on that one. However, it can easily be solved by locking the appraied value and only let it increase by an average of property in the surrounding area. City would still collect everything they otherwise would have. I am sure there many things I haven't thought of but i am sure someone with access to better data than I have could make it work.

mburlison
09-07-2006, 09:21 PM
I'll make any comments I choose to make Traxx.

OU football boards...not hardly.

It's obvious a moniker like 'dcsooner' has/had sooner ties, ya think? but I'm not the one w/ DC in my name either. If the fact I assumed that this person now lives in DC and that is wrong, for that I will apologize (my opinion of DC not withstanding), but I stand by every single syllable of the rest of it, precisely because I consider the remarks to have been inflamatory.

mburlison
09-07-2006, 09:33 PM
Jbrown, I take your point, but just how many more rooms can we support in our downtown. The Skirvin is opening within the next year, ditto the Colcord and the new (Hampton?) over there by Bass Pro. Once those come online, just how many more beds can downtown keep full on a regular basis? Now if we do end up scoring a NBA team and keep events churning through the Cox Arena and Ford Arena all the time...yes, but I'm not sure it's a 'lack of vision' keeping the investors out. Investors usually do have quite a bit of vision, when they can see the ROI. I guess I was referring to Office highrises earlier, I agree a high-rise hotel would be in order someday, but how many beds downtown would be empty 50 percent of the time? Stillwater, for example, has a microcosm of the same deal, there are a few events that can't happen there presently (NCAA regionals etc...) because they don't have enough hotel beds. On the other hand, for most of the year they'd sit 40 percent empty or worse until you build the constant demand up.

I disagree that "companies" do not have anything to do with it, we sure need some more anchor companies. We've lost Fleming, GM, KMG, did gain Riatta, some teleco centers, and the Dell facility, but there needs to be more companies and high-paying, professional jobs come in with them. Another thing would be to attract some of the financial world to relocate here, we've got a hell of a nice environment to sell, I don't care what anyone else says. Sure, there are many beautiful spots in our country, but OKC is an excellent place to live compared to many of them. We do have some stereotypes to live down, but so do a lot of other people.

Kerry
09-07-2006, 09:51 PM
This is a little ff the subject but I don't know why some group from OKC isn't working to raid every city within 600 miles of OKC. A group should constantly be working companies in Wichita, Little Rock, Des Moins, Omaha, Albaquerque, Amarillo, and Shreveport to relocate to OKC.

JOHNINSOKC
09-07-2006, 10:02 PM
AMEN!! I would also add Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, St. Louis, Denver, Memphis, New Orleans, Houston and Kansas City to that list. In fact, how about any major city from coast to coast. This city CAN become a corporate magnet. We should approach things no differently than any other popular metro area that is well-known. OKC really CAN become the next Dallas, only better in the long run.

jbrown84
09-07-2006, 10:07 PM
I agree Kerry. mburlison, you are right about gaining high profile companies as well as jobs that lure young professionals, you just made it seem that the only way to get a tower was if there was a large corporation that needed an entire 70-story building. As far as hotel rooms, I think we are in pretty good shape as far as continuous events that keep our hotel rooms full most of the time downtown. It's just a matter of whether we want to have the build it and they will come attitude. It worked with the Ford Center. Now we need to do it with hotel rooms so we can draw larger events year-round.

BDP
09-08-2006, 10:27 AM
I agree, the Tulsa proposal is good for all. OKC is in a good position, historically, and anything that puts pressure on OKC developers to be creative is a good thing. I think the Tulsa proposal is very ambitious and has a ton of logistical hurdles. I think they can be overcome with the right economy and committed developers.

I want a new tower as much as anyone else, but again next year will be impressive. The Skivin, The Colcord, the Brownstones, the Hill, and the Centennial all amount to a nice improvement in one year. Mid-town is gearing up as well. While maybe not as visible on a postcard as a tower, collectively these projects amount to a large increase in downtown's quality for living and working, more so than any one or two towers would do. If everything coming online in 2007 is even modestly successful, I think we'll see even more ambitious work.

Overall, I like the improvements to our current assets the most. And with all the empty office space downtown, I still think residential/mixed use is the best chance for a tower. That is the one segment in which there is a demand regionally for which we have no supply. Personally, I’d like to see a major overall of the First National building before we build anymore high rise office space. That may be coming soon as well…

Kerry, I think you’re idea can have some merit with some tweaking. But, if 2007 yields good returns for these developers, we may be able to get some tower interest without tax breaks, too. I think we should keep talking about it and maybe by 2008, if needed, talk with Downtown OKC and the council about some high rise tax incentives…

traxx
09-08-2006, 11:41 AM
I'll make any comments I choose to make Traxx.

OU football boards...not hardly.

It's obvious a moniker like 'dcsooner' has/had sooner ties, ya think? but I'm not the one w/ DC in my name either. If the fact I assumed that this person now lives in DC and that is wrong, for that I will apologize (my opinion of DC not withstanding), but I stand by every single syllable of the rest of it, precisely because I consider the remarks to have been inflamatory.
Well you're not gonna make many friends here with an attitude like that. You may consider DC's comments inflamatory, but you'd be wrong. You're just a little too sensitive, he was merely trying to point out things we need to look at improving and wasn't saying that DC was better. I consider Oklahoma a great place to live too, but we need to improve. People should feel free to express their ideas on this board without having someone like you come on here and bash them. We're all adults here, let's act like it.

jdsplaypin
09-08-2006, 02:35 PM
all adults... i wouldn't be suprised

dcsooner
09-08-2006, 07:17 PM
I want to offer apologies to anyone who took offense to comments I made earlier in this string. I am a native Oklahoman, born in Lawton, attended and graduated from Lawton Schools and graduated from OU. I return to the State every year no less than twice often 3 times. I have alot of family in Oklahoma. My comments were only intended to express my intense desire to see MY State improve. I live and work in DC but DC is not my home, Oklahoma is and I will always consider it so.

mburlison
09-09-2006, 11:19 AM
Traxx; I will continue express my opinions in the manner I choose. I do not consider your approval necessary and absolutely am not seeking it.

DCSooner; No apology was needed, I was just expressing my opinion and I'm cool with everyone here. We all feel strongly about Oklahoma and only want the best for it. If I misinterpreted your comments by taking them too literally, than likewise I extend apologies.

writerranger
09-09-2006, 12:41 PM
Some of this thread has become rather heated and I'm not sure why. In certain instances there truly is a "right" and a "wrong" way to go about things, but this isn't one of them. There are just different ways of going about some of these things.

--------