New Hotel Proposed Across from Arena

[TheArtist]

If it turns out that this second development goes through instead of the first one, I would hope that the TDA retains control of the area designated as parking. The hotel can use it as parking until the TDA gets some other development on it. They can use valet parking afterwards and or do structured parking on the lot to the north if they do a hotel on that one. But they shouldnt sell that parking lot area, they should try to get something else on it like some restaurants or other businesses.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

No matter what project goes in this space, a surface parking lot should not be part of the concept.  (Downtown Tulsa is 40% surface parking already!)

Let's say that it costs $10,000 per parking space to build a parking garage.  If there are 100 events each year that you could fill those spaces and charge $10 to park (and with this location directly across from the arena, it shouldn't be hard).... It would only take 10 years to pay for the parking garage.  After that, you'd be making money on parking!  (I know that this is simplified math, that doesn't include interest payments, management, maintenance, etc, but I just want to make the point.)

Now, if you include (as it should) retail space on the street level of the parking garage... you've got more development, more income, more action and activity on the street, which would increase the value of your hotel.

I can't understand why any developer wouldn't understand this, and want to include it as part of the plan.  

Until Tulsans understand how costly surface parking lots are to the health and welfare of Tulsa, we are going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot... and wondering why downtown development keeps falling short of its potential.

+1, emphatically.  I saw this and couldn't believe my eyes.  Maybe the Raskin development required outside financing, but the siteplan is far superior.  We NEED the kind of development Raskin proposed. We need street-level retail, structured parking, all of the things that would come from Raskin.  This Hampton "development" is nothing that the area needs.  It's absolutely ridiculous.  And also the email response received by TURoby may sound nice, blaming their wanting to accept this purely because "who knows when the economy will improve?" is a cop-out.

"We're not going to rush this".  One week later: "We've changed our minds about rushing.  We've already approved an alternative, weaker development. It's all about the economy."

[sgrizzle]

+20 for Raskin. If ya gotta build a hampton downtown, put it by the Home Depot.

[cannon_fodder]

It was an intelligent response, but clearly influenced, IMHO, but Hamptons proposal.  Essentially a more upscale development can't make it in this site anyway, so we will rush this one through to reduce our inventory.

Another neat idea, stop expanding your inventory.  I think 120 Lofts would be happy with that.  

And if the details are misunderstood it is because the public is un or under-informed by the Dear Leader(s).

/sorry if I reacting gutturally, but I'm frustrated.

[SXSW]

Well let's look at the positive.  Let's say this is built and it's 8 stories, all brick, and comes right up to the corner of 3rd and Denver with retail/restaurant space.  TDA, during design review, makes them put all parking in a garage north of the site along Denver.  3rd and Cheyenne is preserved for future retail/office development.  

Then we finally get the feds to build us a new federal building/post office, possibly at 2nd and Denver (the BOK drive-thru) or 5th & Denver across from the library, OR they simply re-use old city hall (if possible).  That paves the way for that important site next to the arena to then be redeveloped into a Westin/Hyatt with actual access to the convention center next door.  Then you have two new hotels, a midrange Hampton Inn and a more upscale Westin/Hyatt right by the main entrance to BOK at 3rd and Denver.

[Gaspar]

We presented a wide range of higher end hotel components of varying price ranges, all higher quality than a Hampton or Holiday Inn style offering.

The more important factor here is that our design incorporates up to 50,000 sq ft of retail/restaurant space directly across from the BOK.

There also may be a "celebrity" restaurant/bar offering on the SE corner of the development.  Mr. Raskin is in discussion with a number of different exciting entities expressing an interest in that space for something truly unique.

Or it could just be a parking lot . . .

[sgrizzle]

Someone at TDA needs to wake up and negotiate with Raskin. If the other person isn't willing to pay list price (which isn't that high) give it to raskin. It's a MUCH better development.

[Renaissance]

I'm sure it will go to the Hampton Inn group.  First of all, Hampton Inns can be very nice.  There is a 10 story, 200 room one nearing completion in OKC that is very tastefully done and complementary to the surrounding area (BUT it's still no Hyatt/Westin, let alone Ritz/Four Seasons).  Pictures courtesy of oktalk.net and Doug Loudenbeck:





I'm really dismayed that I was right about the pressure from the Mayor's office against this development (if I can spot from a distance, why can't the daily paper do it?).  In Kathy Taylor's SimCity version of downtown, she arranges the pieces and manipulates TDA to her political benefit.  Unfortunately for us, in the real life version, it may be that City Hall sits vacant while a poorly designed mid-range hotel goes in where an outstanding upscale one should have.

Hopefully this isn't how it turns out . . .

[sgrizzle]

I see some bait and switch on the Kc one pictured. The glass tower has been removed and the parking garage is no longer screened.

Za-zing!

[Michael71]

Any artists design a T-Shirt with a "F.U.T.D.A." or "Who Owns TDA" logo?

Seriously, how do we get rid of them?

[TheLofts@120]

Just to keep everyone up to date with TDA and Jones Lang LaSalle...

The City is the one that insisted that a contract be signed with JLL to support research and marketing of this property along with 4 other parcels.  This effort was spearheaded by the Economic Development department of the City.  TDA was simply "told" to enter into contract and pay the fee...$375,000 I think.  This is evidenced in the TDA minutes from general meetings.  For the longest time, TDA members had no idea what JLL was doing, what their focus was and how they were implenting their strategies.  TDA board had to actually ask Mike Bunney of the City to inform them.  It was disturbing to see that the contracting entity was completely left in the dark and that its contractual obligation were being directed by the City.  Kinda takes out the TDA being a "separate legal entity where the City has no authority" as stated in the City's legal memorandum in response to our ethics complaints.

JLL contacted us to see if we had any interest in proposing for the site as they were not getting any proposals at the time.  We declined, thinking that Tulsa deserved a much better scope of development for mixed use than we were capable of providing in comparison to the Brady site.  Something so close to the arena and within a prime location deserves something on a grander scale with many attractive amenities for lodging, restaurant, retail and entertainment space in my opinion.  

Such a design should take into account the advice of PLANitulsa's John Fregonese where he states dense uprban infill is the best approach for sustainable growth and development.  

I agree with most on this topic...surface parking is a waste.  I would like to see more emphasis given to a development that will offer more diverse choices for establishments and will help attract the "destination spot" visitor to downtown.

But thats just my opinion

[cannon_fodder]

Floyd:

I am not against a Hampton Inn.  If they make it a more urban design and make it fit in I could be persuaded.  Why not mandate parking and a more urban design.  Make it a zero lot line and allow someone else to develop those lots right up to that building.  Mandate structured parking and an art deco (or other interesting) facade.  

It is the suburban nature coupled with the apparent inside track that irks me.

[Gaspar]

I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses.  I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.


Raskin Downtown Image Post

All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses.  I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.


Raskin Downtown Image Post

All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.

I think most would agree that this development is superior. The problem is apparently not with the renderings, design, or what could be added to it.... Its the funding. Get the funding and you get the go. As much as we would all want this one, and sorry to sound harsh, until there is funding, its nothing but pretty drawings and hot air. That doesnt make a judgment on the other project and whether it should be stopped, changed, whatever, just stating facts on this one.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses.  I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.


Raskin Downtown Image Post

All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.

I think most would agree that this development is superior. The problem is apparently not with the renderings, design, or what could be added to it.... Its the funding. Get the funding and you get the go. As much as we would all want this one, and sorry to sound harsh, until there is funding, its nothing but pretty drawings and hot air. That doesnt make a judgment on the other project and whether it should be stopped, changed, whatever, just stating facts on this one.

Not worried about funding.

Mr. Raskin will announce proof of funding on the project soon.