New Hotel Proposed Across from Arena

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Questions:
Why would the city allow more convention space.?

Does Tulsa need more convention space downtown or anywhere in town with more than a 100 to 200 occupancy rate?

Consider it "event" space.  

People like to have very nice, new small-to-medium size meeting and banquet rooms.  For instance, let's say I'm getting married at a church downtown (Trinity or First Baptist or Boston Ave) and my wedding is going to be big--like 300 people.  I need a large ballroom with kitchen capacity and waitstaff for the reception.  This would be the kind of hotel where I can tell my guests to stay, get a suite for the wedding night, and have an afterparty at the rooftop bar, all while showing out of towners how fun downtown Tulsa can be.

Or you could host a class reunion there.

Or a meeting of vacuum salesmen.

Demand is growing for meeting space downtown, which is why developers are starting to look at parcels down there for conference/meeting space.  It's not really a direct competition to any of City of Tulsa's convention space.  Rather, it's complementary.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Questions:
Why would the city allow more convention space.?

Does Tulsa need more convention space downtown or anywhere in town with more than a 100 to 200 occupancy rate?

Speaking as a hotel sales guy, that arena is a huge a juicy tomato for the hospitality industry.  Events that go into that arena are almost all like small solar systems:  the arena event is the sun, and in its orbit are often several smaller events that need better tailored space and catering.  My hotel hosted some sales meetings that were affiliated with Zig Ziglar's motivational seminar . . . but not booked or paid for by the seminar people.  About a hundred and fifty sufficiently motived people showed up and they sold a lot of books. And we made out pretty well, too.

Point being, that arena alone is worth lots an lots of money from an event booking standpoint.  And that doesn't account for other DT business, like the huge corporate and association market.

[cannon_fodder]

Inteller seems to be on his game in this thread.

Art Deco will be different with glass technology allowing more "open space" on the facade of  building.  The TDA will be under pressure to let this go through, but if push comes to shove and a TDA principals interest was involved - I too think they would hold it up.  And we do need more publicly available medium sized space.

Per the "Old City Hall."  From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan.  It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down.  And why bother?  There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.

PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.

Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it?  I say 9 years.  We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Inteller seems to be on his game in this thread.

Art Deco will be different with glass technology allowing more "open space" on the facade of  building.  The TDA will be under pressure to let this go through, but if push comes to shove and a TDA principals interest was involved - I too think they would hold it up.  And we do need more publicly available medium sized space.

Per the "Old City Hall."  From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan.  It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down.  And why bother?  There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.

PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.

Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it?  I say 9 years.  We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."

I think it will move faster than that.  There is too much opportunity there, and if our project is the spark, there is a lot of fire just waiting to spread.

Developers in the area have gotten out of residential for the moment and are looking for this type of project.  If they see that the city and its proxies are working in a cooperative manner with private developers those relationships will flourish again.  

I think when it comes to downtown, many developers are leery and tightlipped about their plans.  Unfortunately this makes it difficult for the city to get a pulse on the market.  

Our doors are flapping with developers looking for projects, and what they are looking for now differs significantly from what they were looking for a year ago or two years ago.  The shift is towards commercial/multi-use and urban projects, and there are a limited amount of sites.  

I think, when it comes to the remaining parcels downtown, they are just waiting for the starting gun.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Per the "Old City Hall."  From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan.  It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down.  And why bother?  There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.

PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.

Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it?  I say 9 years.  We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."

There's very likely a 'plan' we've not yet been told about. Other shoe.

Since the County is not only staying, but has plans to expanding onsite, there's reason to believe this figures into things. The courthouse activity will remain heavy. My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.

I really like the idea of turning the building into legal-services office space. Not just for lawyers, but maybe also a school that teaches skills for the criminal justice system (paralegal, court filing, etc).

I don't really think that I would want to stay in a hotel that is just seconds from the courthouse.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Per the "Old City Hall."  From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan.  It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down.  And why bother?  There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.

PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.

Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it?  I say 9 years.  We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."

There's very likely a 'plan' we've not yet been told about. Other shoe.

Since the County is not only staying, but has plans to expanding onsite, there's reason to believe this figures into things. The courthouse activity will remain heavy. My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.

Lawyers are about flashy cars and flashy offices. You might get legal aid to move in there but that is about it. I be in a year the city "condemns it" and demolishes old city hall, tenant or no.

[swake]

I think part of the $80 million for the new city hall was actually money for the demolition of the old city hall. My understanding is that building is coming down.

[cannon_fodder]

Sq, not all lawyers are about flash.  It depends on your clients and the principals.   As it the building would be sub par (not good enough for city government...) for many purposes.

In addition to attorneys the U of Tulsa law could use some space in the area for something, bail bond companies, court reporters, process servers, copy shop/office supply.  Maybe a library extension or archives?  

Bah.  My hopes are not high for that building.  That's my point.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Sq, not all lawyers are about flash.  It depends on your clients and the principals.   As it the building would be sub par (not good enough for city government...) for many purposes.

In addition to attorneys the U of Tulsa law could use some space in the area for something, bail bond companies, court reporters, process servers, copy shop/office supply.  Maybe a library extension or archives?  

Bah.  My hopes are not high for that building.  That's my point.

I know, there are the ones who drive pathfinders and weigh 80 pounds if they're carrying luggage.

[Wrinkle]

There's nothing wrong with that building, most of the complaints were marketing for the new place. At worst, it can be stripped down to the structure and made into whatever one wishes.

Expansion of it's structure is also possible. It could become quite a law center, complete with an auditorium/classrom (former Council Chambers).

Between the County Courthouse and the Federal Building across the street, demand for legal space in the immediate area would be large.

It wouldn't even need to be primary space. That is, ancillary offices of/for every attorney in town when working on live cases. Make the thing into a large number of suites for multiple tenants.

It's not like the city isn't a landlord already.
And filling actual demand wouldn't be too large a stretch.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

I think part of the $80 million for the new city hall was actually money for the demolition of the old city hall. My understanding is that building is coming down.

Nice thought.... However; the 80 mil was just for purchase of One Tech Center.

The following excerpt from the Tulsa Business Journal..

Details of the agreement state the city has 90 days to search for alternative office space with a clause that permits the city to either purchase the building or walk away if the terms are not favorable.

A Bargain at Any Price

The building, completed in early 2002 for an estimated $200 million, is listed on the market for $80 million, said Angela West, vice president of CB Richard/Ellis Oklahoma. The 15-story building is priced at $75 million. The parking garage, furniture fixtures and equipment add another $5 million.

[swake]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r



The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r



The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.

Point taken Swake............

However; help me to understand the following from the same Tulsa World reporter..


"Although the building was purchased for $76 million to be the new consolidated City Hall, it will keep its original name, officials said."


source:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080921_11_A13_Contra912516




Or the following from a Dallas publication.





"DALLAS -- Tulsa, Okla., will issue up to $76 million of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of a 15-story downtown building that will be the new city hall under a plan approved by the City Council on Thursday.

The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority will issue a promissory note of no more than $53.5 million to purchase the One Technology Center building. The authority was also authorized to sell up to $76 million of bonds to refinance the note, pay for some remodeling, and finance the move...


source:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32298393_ITM

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by swake

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r



The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.

Point taken Swake............

However; help me to understand the following from the same Tulsa World reporter..


"Although the building was purchased for $76 million to be the new consolidated City Hall, it will keep its original name, officials said."


source:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080921_11_A13_Contra912516




Or the following from a Dallas publication.





"DALLAS -- Tulsa, Okla., will issue up to $76 million of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of a 15-story downtown building that will be the new city hall under a plan approved by the City Council on Thursday.

The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority will issue a promissory note of no more than $53.5 million to purchase the One Technology Center building. The authority was also authorized to sell up to $76 million of bonds to refinance the note, pay for some remodeling, and finance the move...


source:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32298393_ITM

I'm sure of nothing. It was in the news that BOK wanted the name to stay the same as part of the master lease agreement. As for the demolition of the old city hall. I'm all for it. I would like someone official to say that bringing that hulk down is still part of the plan.