OCURA: How important is experience?

This is the funny thing, is that somehow OCURA or the committee advising them has warped the term experience, according to reports on Steve's blog into a positive for the Henderson proposal. The Henderson proposal includes an enormous suburban setback from Walker Ave and zero retail or anything else listed as desirable in the report.

But the experience is a particularly interesting point. If one were using actual logic diagrams to pin who has experience as a developer before, I think the report would have looked so much more different. I'm not even talking about the grids that are usually routinely used in these kinds of site decisions. I'm just talking about making a decision using logic. Neither of which were clearly done here, hell, apparently the developers weren't even allowed to make a 10-minute pitch for their project.

But, the point here is experience, and who's got it.

Mike Henderson:
Successful developer, overwhelmingly suburban
Familiar with OCURA processes
Had problems meeting deadlines in past
Had financial problems in past
Integrity issue, completely changed Legacy
Questions about delivering exactly what is proposed
Requesting HUD financing for development

Dick Tanenbaum:
Successful urban and suburban developer
Successful with apartment projects
Successful with mixed-use projects
Successful with historic projects
Not requesting HUD financing for development
Builds exactly what he proposes (in this case, a suburban complex)

Chuck Wiggin:
Successful urban developer
Successful with many DT Tulsa projects
Successful with historic projects
Successful with apartment projects
Successful with mixed-use projects
Familiar with OCURA processes
Had problems in past with deadlines
Mixed history in OKC, after Overholser Green
Requesting HUD financing
Did propose changes to OG after approval

Marva Ellard:
Successful urban developer
Especially committed to historic preservation
Successful with many DT OKC projects
Successful with apartment projects
Successful with historic projects
Familiar with OCURA processes
Got out of The Hill before it went negative
Ended up being proved right by OG
Builds exactly what she proposes

So it's funny, because if you're looking at people's PAST experience, it seems like OCURA is heavily lauding Mike Henderson. A more accurate tally would look more like, scored from 1-10:

Ellard: 10
Tanenbaum: 10
Wiggin: 8
Henderson: 6

Now obviously a lot more goes into this, because I'm not going to recommend Tanenbaum's development this time. I honestly have to wonder if he thought anyone else would submit a proposal, judging by what little attention he put into his project compared to other applicants. But if you're going by experience alone, obviously Henderson actually does not have a clear lead there. Anything but, in fact.

(I like the Wiggin and Ellard proposals.)

Oh OCURA..

I originally came out as a huge proponent of Overholser Green. I argued that it was more appropriate for the location, given that the original proposal had a historic motif that fit in well with other nearby large upscale apartment buildings on the far north edge of Mid-town, such as the Seiber and the Aberdeen, among others. I thought it was urban enough that it was also appropriate for what we're trying to create in Mid-town. I also liked that it appealed to this imaginary pool of hundreds of people out there looking for million-dollar condos downtown.

I thought such a pool of people existed..why? Because that's what OCURA said, that's what DT OKC Inc. said, that's what the Chamber said, and that's what tons of other people who knew their stuff were all saying. It made sense: In order to maximize demand at every single price point we would have to work our way down, first focus on the most upscale stuff and keep out anything under $1,500/mo because that may turn away some of this prospective demand. In hindsight it sounded so great and I was so convinced by this line of thinking that I am shocked I was not advocating for downtown to be surrounded by gated entrances and ramp up efforts to keep creative types out. After all, they bring undesirable elements, and we were truly pursuing downtown development while at the same time using an economic model not at all unsimilar to Edmond real estate. Marva Ellard was obviously right all along, well before the establishment realized it, and that's to her credit..unfortunately we'll just have to wait a while till we see her next project, hopefully.

I have obviously since changed my mind. In fact I wouldn't have if I hadn't seen the mistake of all these condos selling for almost a million dollars. I wouldn't have fallen for it in the first place had I understood basic economics, but luckily, some modicum of economic understanding does come hand in hand with learning about urban planning, architecture, and sustainability--the things I CAN talk about. You start from the ground up, always, everyone knows that, and downtown was a NEW and untested residential market for the most part.

How do we apply this knowledge to public policy? Simple, bid selection. When it comes to the big downtown projects I really believe that OCURA has never engaged in a corrupt deal. They've engaged in TONS of bad, knuckle-headed deals though. Their incompetence, perhaps unfamiliarity with their own rules, and general lackluster due diligence sure screwed Anthony McDermid as well as the people of OKC who drive past a mud field backing up to I-235 every day. It's simple though, they have always preferred $$$ condos in selecting bids, because that's what we thought we needed. And to this day, they are still operating like that due to how slow they are to catch on. Even DT OKC Inc. under its new leadership has caught on and is about to release a new housing survey that will give us some more realistic advice on how best to grow downtown. I hate surveys and I think they're a waste of time, but if it truly shows what we already know, hopefully that will be the evidence that OCURA needs to slowly reshift its strategy over the next few years. Evidently they are still grasping on to the faulty economics preached in the earlier half of this decade.

Bringing it back to Overholser Green, Chuck Wiggin is still trying to get this project off, despite that Overholser Green isn't even close to resembling what was originally approved. Even without any new news on the matter, the fact that the project is already up for its second (or third, I forget) timeline extension tells you that the project is dead and it is time to move on. There is nothing going to happen here. Give Wiggin another extension and he still can't guarantee that anything will happen, and his only response/excuse is to explain why we're in a recession--this despite that his units in the Mayo 420 project in Downtown Tulsa are selling just fine. What this is about is pride and giving too many chances to Wiggin just because he has already invested $200,000 personally into this project. I understand that, and it is important to take care of important development figures because we very much want Wiggin to continue to be involved in downtown development and he's done several great projects in the past. Sour grapes over this benefits nobody, but it could even be to Wiggin's benefit that his contract be yanked by OCURA and he be forced to move on as well, before he plunks down even more change into a project that is still doomed.

Sometimes there's nothing wrong with a site, just after reformatting a project over and over, it's just time to throw the towel in and take a step back and remove yourself from the situation. The old Mercy Hospital site is a great site, but it needs a fresh set of eyes to look it over. Enter Dick Tanenbaum, stage right. Tanenbaum, who has pulled off a ton of incredibly successful downtown apartment buildings (and learned his lesson with the unsuccessful condo conversion of the Montgomery), wants to build 250 apartment units, moderately priced, with mixed-use retail on site. And he says he can get it off the ground by early next year, in fact, he already has conceptual drawings that he can show interested parties. Ladies and gents, we have a winner.

When Wiggin claims that he should be granted an extension that he still may not be able to make any progress by even if he once again completely revamps the project to some unknown format that would be more economically feasible, which could be anything and OCURA would likely not insist on due diligence with that, and on the other hand Dick Tanenbaum can show you exactly what he wants to build and says he can get it off early next year--how can you not move on from Overholser Green? I think that nobody wins by looking at this as a Wiggin v. Tanenbaum issue. Nobody wins by looking at this as an Overholser Green v. Whatever, or even Overholser Green v. Mercy Park, issue.

The two most important points that win the argument at the end of the day in my opinion, and have been sorely overlooked are:

1. This site is holding up progress elsewhere along Walker Avenue, and it is time to get a move on and finally get something going on here. The businesses along Walker Ave, such as Midtown Deli, Irma's, etc are surviving just on the lunch crowd and have only been staying open in hopes that the residential population around there will grow and be able to support dinner hours in the future. Banta would have developed the Osler and 1212 long ago had the Mercy Hospital site been redeveloped sooner, and now that those properties are in the hands of Bob Howard and Mickey Clagg, I see no reason for them to move on those properties until redevelopment commences on that site as well. I do however see every reason for them to prioritize those projects next ASAP once someone, anyone, breaks ground on the site further up Walker. That is the project that is holding a lot of the Walker Ave projects behind.

2. Even if Wiggin does revamp his project and get it off the ground, we have no say in that if he's given a contract extension, and that's not right. Developers should be awarded bids based on the project that they will build, and it is not right for developers to present a concept just to get the competitive bid and then completely reformat the project, even if they have a good excuse. The reason Wiggin got the bid was because OCURA liked his project the best, and that should be an obligation to build THAT project. OCURA should yank his bid just for deviating from the original plan, alone. OCURA should definitely not renew his contract just so that he can deviate even further from the original plan and not even present anything new to give us an idea of WHAT he's going to build, other than promise that he is working on it. OCURA should also grow some gonads, because this is how they've always operated from the start of time.

(This post is under review and will change from time to time, and I will add pictures later, so check back.)

OCURA: What a stellar track record

Gotta love gub'ment interference in downtown development, Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority (OCURA) especially, the folks who brought you Lower Bricktown, Bass Pro, The Hill at Bricktown, Overholser Green, and countless other downtown success stories. Pat yourself on the back, OCURA, because if not for you and your contributions toward expediting quality private development, OKC would still be a vibrant downtown. Wait, I meant a dead downtown.

So in this post we'll examine OCURA's stellar track record in advancing "quality" urban development in OKC.

I think we can all appreciate the corrupt bidding process in which we ended up with Bass Pro, over other potentially more urban projects that had been pitched. The good news is that Bass Pro is virtually the extent of retail in Bricktown, and the rest of downtown. It also added something Bricktown was in desperate need of: surface parking. So all in all, a win-win. Plus the adjacent Lower Bricktown development was absolutely fool-proof. Even though The Centennial is the only remotely urban component of Lower Bricktown, even it is loosing retail tenants. (LiT went out of business.) LB's other clothing retailer, Firefly Clothing, also closed recently. So one bright spot for Lower Bricktown, the fact that it did at least have leasing, is now just one of many sore spots for the much-maligned project. Add to the fact that LB has never been finished, and likely won't ever be finished until the Crosstown comes tumbling down and replaced by an at-grade boulevard behind Lower Bricktown. As it happens, developers Stonegate Hogan were given a TIMELINE on the project, and the TIMELINE has since lapsed. Will OCURA ever close on the remaining canal-front land and take it back, and try and get some other developers to bid on it? Nah, never. This is not about good development, the City of OKC, protecting a public investment like the canal, or ANYTHING like that. This is about the good ol' boy system and pushing the interests of the developer, Stonegate Hogan.

One of the few bright spots, if you're one of them out-of-touch urban advocates, is the Deep Deuce Apartments--but even Deep Deuce has one glaring downfall: it was NEVER completed, and won't EVER be completed as planned. So it's another example of where a developer proposes one thing, gets the bid, then does the ole switcharoo or doesn't even come close to finishing the development that they said they would do. Never mind the fact that the reason they were given the bid was to do the development they proposed, and nothing else. Integrity is not an important factor here, because OCURA doesn't actually care about "urban renewal."

Funny thing about the Overholser Green project is that I actually defended OCURA here. I supported the Overholser Green project because it was a good project, and at the time, I didn't realize how it was financially unfeasible. The high-end nature of the project, especially the condominium aspect. In contract to Marva Ellard's competing proposal, a mixed-use project with rental residential and financing in place. Well it's obvious that OCURA couldn't have picked that project, because it actually had a relatively good chance of success. That would just completely throw OCURA's track record all out of whack. Now where we are is (3/4 years or so after the bid was awarded) Chuck Wiggin has stalled on the project. In fact he scaled it way down so that it was a much less significant project, and he still couldn't get it off. So basically after he was awarded the contract, he pulled the old switcharoo as so many of them do, and instead of pulling the contract AS OCURA SHOULD HAVE DONE, OCURA approved it again because they already awarded the contract. At that point and thereafter Wiggin could have done whatever the hell he wants, or doesn't want; he could have put a 7/11 on that land for all OCURA cared. The story more or less has been marked by what he doesn't want to do, and that is develop the land which has absolutely sat there and won't be developed any time soon. Thanks to everyone's favorite gub'ment agency.

No downtown project exemplifies "FAILURE" like The Hill does, and that's bragging rights nobody can even come close to. This is the kind of project that OCURA really hangs its hat on, the bread and butter of what OCURA is all about as a corrupt government agency. I guess first you gotta begin with the corrupt bidding process, against two other more financially feasible projects, including a great mixed-use proposal from Anthony McDermid. Within the last 12 hours before the bid was awarded, Bill Canfield and Marva Ellard (developers of The Hill) notify OCURA that they're dropping their request for a TIF district as a part of the development. OCURA was legally required to notify McDermid and others of the change in the competing proposal, but failed to do so because it was late at night. McDermid later said that had he been notified, he also would have dropped his request for the TIF--but never got such a notice. Now that The Hill is what we're stuck with, as it's already under construction, it's become even more of a quagmire. The suburban design of the over-priced units have scared away any potential buyers, so the project has sold only 2 or 3 units, total. Without selling ANY units, Canfield couldn't pay contractors, so they stopped construction and probably hold liens on the project. The project can't even be closed on and reclaimed by OCURA at this point, because the few dozen townhomes that were built (out of 160 or so proposed) use up ALL of the street frontage that this project has. The only way thing that could be put on that site now is a big box retailer that needs highway visibility more than frontage (like BASS PRO, hint hint), or a commuter parking lot. That's it.

We got LUCKY with this project. Here's another one where a developer (Mike Henderson) gets awarded a bid, based on a great proposal with snazzy architectural elevations..then he pulls the old switcharoo and we get Plainville. This project in no way resembles the high-design development that was anticipated during the bidding process. But the bright side is this: the project actually is URBAN, it's not necessarily UGLY, and it works. It also has 300 or so upscale rental units, and that's GREAT for downtown. OCURA accidentally stumbled upon a success here..but they should have held Henderson to his original design proposal, especially considering he got TIF funding for this. That's a public investment that OCURA should have been looking out for.

I could go on. The funny thing, as you read through the annals of downtown history and come across a chapter on Sycamore Square, is how we have literally repeated the Sycamore Square fiasco over and over and over and over in the last 5 years. Yes, it's true that downtown development has been booming, very successfully, in the last 5 years. There is a HUGE exception to that however, and that is any time OCURA is involved. OCURA stands for Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, but I would seriously question, based on their track record, what the hell their problem is. I think here is a great example of where a government agency with a long acronym no longer comes even close to representing what its acronym stands for. So next time someone asks, "What does OCURA stand for?" The answer of course must be, "OCURA stands for O-C-U-R-A," not anything relating to urban or downtown or the community or anything like that.

Sadly, I think I could raise some very critical questions of Downtown Design Review these days, as well.