Our last remnants of Main Street

Do you believe that great, quality old buildings and shiny new buildings together compliment each other and build a great urban environment? If so, you just may appreciate these photos from Will Hider:



If you DON'T think these buildings contribute to each other, especially if the old buildings were renovated and filled with tenants, then you're in luck. They are likely to be demolished very soon.

Stage Center complexities

I just wanted to tease what I have coming up on the Stage Center, but perhaps it is time for redevelopment of the Stage Center site. You guys know how staunchly I believe that the Stage Center is a great piece of OKC. I truly do hope to see it preserved, but even I can sometimes see the writing on the wall.

Do I want to box-in developers, by adamantly demanding that this block be preserved at the expense of more traditionally urban blocks (such as directly north) having to be demolished instead? That's not my goal in any way. I will just say that I am beginning to see a somewhat tit-for-tat situation in which one of these blocks is probably going to be redeveloped from the ground up. When given a choice between the Stage Center or the Preftakes block, I suppose ultimately I will come down on the side of 7-8 historic buildings rather than just one landmark.

A reality that I am beginning to understand is that OKC is indeed in store for potentially 2-5 new skyscrapers in the next 5-10 years, but all at least announced in the next 5. These are all actively being thrown out there. We know that SandRidge will build if they can sustain their growth, we know that there will be a voter-subsidized convention hotel (albeit these are not normally high-rises), we know that Continental will need to expand beyond the Mid-America Tower at some point, and we know that in 5 years, Devon will be back to square one. Throw in some rumors that I'm beginning to hear not just on OKC Talk, or documented by Lackmeyer, but from other sources as well, and we could be in store for some residential towers as well.

Also, certain players are definitely working in conjunction with other players. No doubt in my mind about that, and more on that later. But essentially, what we need to do is go back to ground one and re-plan out all of downtown, in a process similar to the first Core2Shore process. We need to figure out the best sites for these new skyscrapers, not just in terms of building up density strategically, but also skyline placing, building shading, and other issues that come into play here.

These are issues that are further eroding the credibility of the convention center site selection process, which is about to go down as the ultimate travesty in all of this if it turns out that they can actually afford the site (which is questionable at this point).

Look at all of the tags below this post and think of how these things could possibly be interrelated. Stay tuned...

How good developments go bad

This will be a post dedicated specifically to how developments get proposed, or rumors about, and then the developments halt and get to the point where they're dead on arrival. Since it's just a blog post, I'll make it short, and just focus on the primary reasons I've seen since I've been giving up my life to track OKC developments (kidding--well, mostly). The main reasons are unaccounted economic changes, incompetent development teams, what I like to call "strict 2009 adherence to 2007 ideas," and another big one is the limbo caused by big-ticket public projects, many of which are still up in the air.

I will also try and relate this back today, with the implications of post-MAPS3 passage Oklahoma City. Remember: We were supposed to see all of this amazing amount of spin-off development.

This is the Flatiron project, on Harrison Avenue, just north of Deep Deuce--proposed by Grant Humphreys who has been a successful, innovative urban developer. So what could have gone wrong (because this project is definitely been dead for a while, in spite of past efforts to revive it)? Humphreys was somewhat over-extending himself, especially at a time when he was still heavily leveraged in the Block 42 project which he finished a few years ago and has recently still been selling off the last units in that project. Block 42 was an innovative project for OKC because it combined townhomes and flats in a building with a striking urban design, so price points were high. It was also competing with several other projects within the immediate 3-block vicinity. The Flatiron project also called for a lot of mixed-use space, and I imagine it was difficult to find high-end commercial tenants to sign-up for an outpost location at a time when even Bricktown was losing retailers. It's a shame because it would have been an awesome project, but Humphreys will be back downtown, and is currently working on Carlton Landing at Lake Eufala.

The Cotton Exchange is an especially interesting project because it's up there with the old "Factory" proposal as the projects I most wish could have happened. I won't get into the details of how much I love this project, but it would have been a great one. It offered prime commercial space right on the canal as well as with frontage on Mickey Mantle, and it also offered a good amount of residential which Bricktown badly needs. The Centennial was a huge success, so it begs the question why OKC can't support this kind of quality mixed-use development, even though we surely haven't seen much of it. The developer, Gary Cotton, was in trouble though. He didn't have the resources to pull the project off--he had a little bit of equity from the sale of the Bricktown "Mercantile" building. He needed other investors but didn't want to listen to other ideas, from what I've heard. It's still a shame that this didn't go forward because he was using the brokerage team that The Centennial used (which sold out, and still had many interested clients), and because other experienced Bricktown businessmen were offering lots of advice. He also benefited from not just lots of Oklahoman and blogosphere coverage, but even got TV news coverage, which downtown development rarely gets.

Many people got very excited when Tom McDaniel announced that OCU wanted to move its law school to the gargantuan Fred Jones auto factory, which is an awesome historic building. The deal died when Tom McDaniel stepped down as president of OCU and a new guy came in, who didn't like the idea so much. But it's hard not to note the sequence of events: Chamber officials promise there will spin-off MAPS development, Tom McDaniel announces OCU will develop law school downtown if MAPS passes, MAPS passes, Tom McDaniel becomes chair of MAPS Citizens Oversight Board, downtown law school plans are nixed. I would chalk this one up to political problems, if the new leader of OCU doesn't like the idea, then I don't see how anyone is going to "force" him to follow through.

For years, the Union Bus Station was a magnet for vagrants, which caused problems for the developers on both sides of the facility who wanted it gone. First, Dick Tanenbaum, redeveloper of The Montgomery on Walker, wanted to buy the bus station and close it down, and put a jazz club inside of it. It would have been a win-win, downtown didn't need the Greyhound station anymore, it was a blight, it attracted vagrants, he could have renovated it and turned it into a historic gem and just put a jazz club inside of it, which would have turned a problem for the neighborhood into an asset for the neighborhood. That's what you call making lemonade out of lemons. Obviously Tanenbaum, a veteran Central Oklahoma developer, had the resources to make it happen. One problem: The owner was pesky and had no intentions of moving, and was difficult to deal with. So Tanenbaum gave up and turned his files over to Nick Preftakes who was on his way to acquiring the whole block anyway. Preftakes also found the owner to be pesky, but by using his properties positioned all around the station, he was able to make it difficult for the bus station to remain there, and forced its closure that way. One problem now: The owner still doesn't want to sell to Preftakes, and harbors a grudge, seemingly. Well let's be honest, when Preftakes put up a property fence just to make it difficult for buses to make wide turns, that wasn't very nice. So I'm not sure Preftakes is going to get to include this parcel in his block in the end, anyway. I just hope the building gets restored somehow, and not leveled.

How could I not bring this one up? haha.. The Braniff Lofts proposal, from 2006 and 2007, would have been a really vital piece toward preventing a controversy (and a tragedy) that would soon follow. A group of investors local of investors ("Corporate Redevelopment LLC"), many with significant Downtown OKC experience and have been mentioned often on this blog, were negotiating with Kerr McGee to acquire these abandoned buildings surrounding their headquarters for redevelopment purposes. The plan was to, at the very least, use the Braniff building AND the KerMac building and convert the two into lofts--the developers at the time were convinced they had a winner, and many onlookers are still convinced the proposal could have been a winner. The deal fell apart because KMG was acquired by Anadarko Energy who refused to honor the deal between the investors and KMG. SandRidge acquired the block and demolished the buildings to make way for a corporate plaza. These buildings, except for the Braniff Building which was lucky enough to already be on the historic register, are goners and lofts or mixed-use of any kind on this block will never have an opportunity to happen. I would chalk this one up to corruption at many junctions.

It appeared to be one of the turning points of downtown development when the Downtown Ford announced it was closing and was demolished. The land owners, Fred Hall and Bob Howard announced potentially ambitious plans to redevelop the large site into a huge mixed-use development. The Jones-Hall family has been involved in other deals, and was involved in the OCU deal that fell through, and Howard has been engaged in redevelopment of of Mid-town lately, so there is no doubt that the development wherewithal and resources were in place. The site could have possibly been the largest mixed-use downtown development to date. "It's no surprise, and it fits our long-term plans to develop that site into commercial retail and housing," remarked Hall, at the time. It was lauded as a success of MAPS spin-off. Why did the deal fell through? Because it got gobbled up by a MAPS subcommittee that insisted the convention center needed to go on THE most promising piece of real estate in all of OKC.

I'll make this my last one, and I think it's a big one. No matter how you slice it, The Triangle masterplan died. At a time when the possibilities for bubble-style downtown development appeared endless, the plan seemed fail-safe. A group of investors including Bert Belanger, Ron Bradshaw, among others, would team up to do a ton of development in a small area. However each one encountered difficulties selling units of their first project and then 2008 hit, and it became apparent that downtown development could not go forward purely driven by speculation on condo units. The group broke up, although they are still individually engaged in development in the "triangle" area, although hardly according to the original plan. And some new investors have popped up and added projects such as LEVEL and Aloft.

So, here you see a multitude of reasons. In every one of these cases, it is a shame that the development died, although this is not always the case--sometimes developments are bad and projects dying would be good. However, there HAS to be a way to meet over these kinds of things and compromise. Bad developments need input for improvement before they actually apply for the permit. Good developments need input to ensure their success. This goes both ways, the process shouldn't JUST be about putting pressure on bad projects. Furthermore, a lot of these reasons are preventable. Switching to a more sustainable economic model for real estate would have prevented a lot of the post-2008 development lethargy we were seeing until recently--the economy never stops, sometimes it contracts, and even that presents an opportunity (for more modest real estate deals). For instance, people still need housing when they can't afford a mortgage, which is why for-rent housing has thrived in the post-2008 economic climate. Capitalizing on that could have prevented a lot of these projects from collapsing. Also, a LOT of stuff is in limbo when we have these big-ticket items in limbo. Do you think somebody wants to build a mixed-use or housing investment when they aren't yet 100% certain where the streetcar route will go? Do you think somebody wants to invest in a huge hotel project without knowing where the new convention center and likewise, streetcar lines, will go? Of course not!

One thing that has been an absolute failure thus far is MAPS accounting for the spin-off development. It was one of the most persuasive reasons why we passed MAPS3. We wanted to buy into a vision for building a city, not just for building a single park or an isolated convention center. These things aren't being coordinated AT ALL. There is no single planning document that has more than one big-ticket public investment component in it. There are however millions of planning documents, district masterplans, streetcar route ideas, convention center proposals, and so on and so forth. Nobody is proposing that this stuff come together. Furthermore, a lot of the interests behind certain projects need to step down and realize that their project isn't the center of the universe. The end goal is spin-off development, not having a city built around a convention center. When you eat your most promising site for mixed-use development to put the convention center on it, you miss the mark. You can have your cake and eat it too. The convention center subcommittee needs to address the goals of downtown as a whole just as every other subcommittee needs to be concerned about it. Ignoring the big picture is setting us up for failure at a time that immense resources have opened up such an enormous opportunity.

Every MAPS3 subcommittee needs to be tasked with the exact goal, and it needs to be an overarching goal of what we as a city hope to create with this opportunity. Each subcommittee needs to be opening its meetings discussing this goal, whether it be attracting investment, or improving quality of life. There needs to be a singular vision shared by all. Right now what we have is a convention center subcommittee that has run amock with the process, stepping on other projects to make sure that at the very least the convention center gets done, and running completely contrary to the goal of MAPS.

These guys need to sit down and analyze universal MAPS goals. They need to ponder what they as a convention center subcommittee can do to improve quality of life and attract mixed-use development to downtown. I'll tell you one thing: You can do a LOT more to accomplish this than by eating the best real estate in the entire city for your convention center, which is going to happen anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The next big development

The announcement of the Union Bus Station's closing this week prompts a discussion about this block, and more specifically, the plans of a particular developer who has slowly been acquiring all of this block. So far, with the exception of 1 city-owned office building, and this bus station that is now closing, developer Nick Preftakes has been consolidating ownership of the block--a move which began right before the announcement of Devon Tower. Such timing has many in the community questioning to what extent Preftakes and Devon are privy to each other's plans.

The most-prime piece of downtown real estate
It seems obvious that a large development is going to occur soon. I have been wondering intently for the last 2 years what exactly is Preftakes' plan for this block. There are many reasons why this is now becoming the most prime piece of real estate in downtown. They are as follows:

1. The incredible remaining historic fabric of this block, which includes three historic mid-rise buildings, and many other smaller historic buildings that form a cohesive streetwall along both Main and Hudson.
2. The nearby $750 million investment of Devon across Hudson, including the Hudson Ave frontage which will include storefronts in the new Devon garage, the Devon auditorium, and a landscaped pocket park. Thousands of new employees.
3. The improvement of Sheridan Ave further west in Film Row, which used to be known as "Skid Row"
4. The rising prominence of the Arts District and the opportunity gap for more development in that district.
5. The overhaul of the Myriad Gardens to the immediate SE as a true, active space, and more than just botanical gardens. It will now contribute to the vibrancy and activity of downtown.
6. The new downtown elementary school proposed for the site immediately to the SW, this will serve as one of the primary anchors of the downtown residential community, particularly those more family-oriented future residents.
7. The Stage Center across the street, and the countless other arts amenities within a 2-3 minute walk.

It is clear that the redevelopment of the block needs to occur with someone who embraces all of these reasons for the block's importance, and more. You can't redevelop this block and oppose Devon Tower or the Myriad Gardens, just as you can't redevelop this block and not recognize its historic importance. Granted, no buildings on this block formerly served as a state capital, but it is significant in the sheer volume of historic fabric that remains mostly in-tact on this block. Anyone who doubts this, please find a block that has more in-tact historic fabric. These buildings are unique and have a huge amount of character, they provide an opportunity for a unique development.

By embracing the urban and gritty character, a developer could connect this block to the history of the city and to the people who make up downtown--a move which would ensure the success of a future development. Compare it to the local attachment of Bricktown. People like historic buildings, especially when it is "made" historically relevant. Bricktown, before it was "Bricktown," was just an old warehouse district, obviously nowhere near as historically relevant as everything else we've lost. But in having so little remaining built environment from the original city, we're willing to wholeheartedly embrace a looser definition of historic relevance, and that is why we now have the Bricktown historic district.

We should push for more "Bricktown" opportunities, and this could be one. The block's mid-rises, red-brick buildings of enormous quality, could make brilliant loft redevelopments. It would cost money, it would create revenue. Yes, it would involve a development deal, and making it work. The smaller buildings should be preserved, at the very least, the ones fronting Main and Hudson--these buildings fill gaps, provide invaluable character, and contribute to a cohesive streetwall--one of the things that make that stretch of Hudson and Main so attractive. The lower-rise buildings actually make perfect retail spaces--here you have a group of buildings that seems to be strategically positioned for retail, with consolidated ownership so that several retailers could come in and build necessary retail synergy,and lots of urban grit and style--the space in the former Carpenter Square Building (pictured) just screams "Urban Outfitters," whereas I could see the GAP locating in one of the Main Street storefronts. With plenty more room for other retailers, and the ability to add rooftops (housing) above, this is a great place to build mixed-use critical mass that is severely lacking downtown.

The point though is that this would be a different kind of historic district from Bricktown, which is what makes it a cool idea--this block has a decidedly more Art-Deco flair, and much denser, taller buildings. Not so much industrial, but more cosmopolitan, potentially. We don't have this kind of historically-preserved cluster in OKC--I would compare it to Washington Avenue in Downtown St. Louis, the Old Bank District in LA, or the Mercantile Bldg in Dallas. This can bring a new dimension to OKC. This could give us historic clusters of many unique flavors, with the gritty industrial vibe of Bricktown, the hey-day auto showcase vibe of Automobile Alley, and the Art-Deco cosmopolitan vibe that this block could showcase. Here, a developer could actually brand his development with its own district identity, although it should probably have an arts-based theme. This could be a huge boon to branding.

It is important that the Union Bus Station also be preserved. This is a building that could possibly make an awesome diner space. The awning next to the bus-loading area would make an awesome outdoor seating area overlooking the Myriad Gardens. The building, with its historic signage and its folksy Art-Deco architectural elements make it an awesome place to commemorate downtown nostalgia. This, if anywhere, would be a great place to open up a cool diner. It seems to be just the right size for that, too.

The question is, would Preftakes be more interested in historic preservation, or in new development? Well in the past, he's done both. Preftakes got started in the 90s, as one of downtown's very-first housing developers, with a loft project right off North Broadway. But should Preftakes be looking for brand-new revenue streams in this block, I would say there is room for new things, but in very confined spaces. The lower-rise storefronts could be added-onto, with new housing on top with staggered facades. It just depends exactly how much space is needed to make the project large enough for significant variations. In a smaller building you can't provide different price points, in a larger development that is more feasible. In the 3 mid-rise "towers" on the block, one could easily get 100 residential units, probably many more if they are smaller apartments. In the lower-rise storefronts there is room, depending whether the floors above will be connected and included in retail spaces (i.e., for larger retailers), you could presumably squeeze 100,000 to 200,000 sf of new retail space. That seems enough to get a retail critical mass going. As already discussed, the bus station is the perfect size and configuration for a new restaurant. In the middle there is currently a parking lot--the middle lot seems to be a good fit for structured parking that would even have about 100 feet of frontage on Walker--for ingress and egress. Along Sheridan, one building has already been demolished in the last year. The Lunch Box is presumably next. If new development space is necessary, here along Reno (between the bus station and the Hightower Bldg) is a very large lot that could make way for new development, across from the Stage Center. Here, a developer such as Preftakes could build whatever he wants, whether it be office, or an even larger concentration of residential--a use that would seem strategic given the nearby Devon Tower.

Please, no SandRidge!
But one thing is clear, the historic context of this block must be preserved. I would be okay with letting the Lunch Box go to consolidate some empty lots fronting Sheridan for new development. Actually, I would rather that one building have not been demolished, and I would rather see the Lunch Box either stay there or a cool new use for the building, but this is the extent of demolition that I'd be willing to see. I can see where it might make more sense from a development-financing standpoint to consolidate those lots. But one thing is clear, this block is primed to become one of the largest mixed-use developments that downtown has ever seen. The rumored involvement of a particular energy corporation across the street also brings intriguing possibilities. For one, I am excited that players with so much available capital are interested in doing things downtown. I look forward to seeing what comes next.

But, please, no SandRidge! We still have huge respect for Devon! We're talking about a name that could presumably have its way (as opposed to a particular wanna-be "energy giant" under the leadership of a strongly disliked personality), but here is hoping that "Devon's way" continues to be the best way for downtown.