New Office & Residential Towers Proposed (OKC)

[Townsend]

If something like this were proposed for our downtown I would hope the footprint would be smaller. The buildings in the rendering are beautiful, but something this large would not easily fit into any of our available plots inside the IDL without ripping out some existing building stock. It really feels like a suburban office complex/campuus more than something that will mesh with a dense walkable downtown.

Outside of the IDL there is room of course  (in Uptown or next to OSU Tulsa or east of Crosbie Heights).

The rendering of Spook Central OKC is more attractive than the latest addition to Tulsa's skyline imo.

[sgrizzle]

Well if getting ahead means having something as butt-ugly as the Devon tower, then we should just stay behind....

The Devon Tower is really just the landing bay from Battlestar Galactica stood on end.

[cynical]

If something like this were proposed for our downtown I would hope the footprint would be smaller. The buildings in the rendering are beautiful, but something this large would not easily fit into any of our available plots inside the IDL without ripping out some existing building stock. It really feels like a suburban office complex/campuus more than something that will mesh with a dense walkable downtown.

Outside of the IDL there is room of course  (in Uptown or next to OSU Tulsa or east of Crosbie Heights).

If you're not limiting "downtown" to the two entertainment districts, there's actually a huge amount of open space available for large-scale development. We do, after all, have the largest parking crater in the country, and it's likely to grow.

There is simply no demand for development on that scale. As has been mentioned, Tulsa is late to the game. It took decades for the Brady District to achieve critical mass, but it finally did. The giant parking lot in the Blue Dome District and the parking crater south of 7th Street are ready whenever the demand arises.

Tulsa's political culture doesn't go in for much pump priming, and state law makes it difficult to use eminent domain to develop property over the objections of landowners.

It is interesting that the Mayor and a bunch of movers and shakers are visiting Portland at this moment to try to figure out how it achieved its "vibe."  Don't hold your breath for the time they actually figure it out. It will come, but it will be driven by private initiative, not public policy.

[carltonplace]

If you're not limiting "downtown" to the two entertainment districts, there's actually a huge amount of open space available for large-scale development. We do, after all, have the largest parking crater in the country, and it's likely to grow.

I'm not making any limitation and I agree that we have plenty of surface parking. I'm just saying that this rendering appears to cover at least a 5 block radius and that size of foot print is more Richardson TX than Downtown Dallas, More Oakbrook, IL than CBD Chicago. Do we need to insert that size of campus into our downtown? I'd rather see the smaller organic kind of infill that we are seeing now than a giant office park. [

The rendering of Spook Central OKC is more attractive than the latest addition to Tulsa's skyline imo.

Yes these buldings are attractive; I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't find the scope of the footprint to be density friendly.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It is interesting that the Mayor and a bunch of movers and shakers are visiting Portland at this moment to try to figure out how it achieved its "vibe."  Don't hold your breath for the time they actually figure it out. It will come, but it will be driven by private initiative, not public policy.

The answer to how Portland did it is so obvious and simple as to be laughable that they would even ask the question....but the answer is, stop electing people like our Mayor and get a new set of movers and shakers....  You can't be the reddest of the red and achieve progressive goals like Portland - they are mutually exclusive!


Can you imagine the uproar at someone trying to get zoning and city approvals of any part of it - for something like Voodoo Donuts?  Remember the trouble Artist had getting his nice little shop set up and running??  And even if you could get past the religious stigma, how are you gonna get an address as cool as "located where Sandy, Davis, and 15th street meet...."  It would violate our sense of order and propriety way to much to be allowed to exist!!

And Bacon Maple Ale...!!!  Served with donuts..    Heads would explode!!

[heyerdahl]

I'm not making any limitation and I agree that we have plenty of surface parking. I'm just saying that this rendering appears to cover at least a 5 block radius and that size of foot print is more Richardson TX than Downtown Dallas, More Oakbrook, IL than CBD Chicago. Do we need to insert that size of campus into our downtown? I'd rather see the smaller organic kind of infill that we are seeing now than a giant office park. [


Yes these buldings are attractive; I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't find the scope of the footprint to be density friendly.

The site is actually two square blocks (700' x 400'). Theoretically, something similar could fit in a lot of places in the IDL where there are whole blocks of surface parking.

Here is a size comparison: http://mapfrappe.com/?show=23405

[Conan71]

The site is actually two square blocks (700' x 400'). Theoretically, something similar could fit in a lot of places in the IDL where there are whole blocks of surface parking.

Here is a size comparison: http://mapfrappe.com/?show=23405

I think there's about three blocks worth of dead parking space south from TCC to BAUMC between Cincinnati and Boston. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

We have plenty of room.  Just missing a company that needs a big building complex....

[TheArtist]

The buildings do look "suburban" in nature.  A little of that is the isolated setting.  They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street.  Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street.  But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.  


I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.

1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.

   This would....

  A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
  B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
   
   This would...

a.  Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.  
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")


All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.

If only I were to win that lottery lol.  Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.

What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The buildings do look "suburban" in nature.  A little of that is the isolated setting.  They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street.  Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street.  But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.  


I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.

1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.

   This would....

  A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
  B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
   
   This would...

a.  Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.  
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")


All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.

If only I were to win that lottery lol.  Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.

What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.

I have the near outer edge of the city version of that lottery "what if"....Start with a couple square miles of bare land and build a community a lot like what you are talking about.  Without the skyscrapers....


Maybe a lottery "what if" topic is needed here....

[Conan71]

The buildings do look "suburban" in nature.  A little of that is the isolated setting.  They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street.  Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street.  But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.  


I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.

1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.

   This would....

  A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
  B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
   
   This would...

a.  Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.  
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")


All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.

If only I were to win that lottery lol.  Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.

What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.

I love the concept and never thought when I lived at Center Plaza from late '87 to mid '89 it was anything special that I usually walked or rode my bike where I needed to go in downtown.  Hell, there wasn't much to do there then other than walk to Homeland or across the street to the Cellar Dweller or to an event at the Civic Center or one of the two major festivals at that time: Mayfest or Glendi.   I worked in Sapulpa at the time though, so that required a car. 

Without rail or other mass transit to places which make sense, I'm afraid your building would sit vacant.  Even though I'm an avid cyclist, I can probably count on both hands (or less) the people I personally know of in Tulsa who can survive without a car in the urban core. 

I love your idealism, I just wish it checked with the mentality of today's society.

[Breadburner]

OKC deal .....Aint gonna happen.....

[rdj]

Did anyone else take the time to read the story or look at the images?

The proposed residential towers (yes two 25 story towers) and commercial tower (26 stories) proposed by Clayco share a block with the new HQ for OG&E which is also being developed by Clayco.  The project also will have a 450 spot garage and possibly a hotel on top of the garage.  Milhaus' proposal is much smaller and is only on the city owned portion. 

The block is catty-corner to the new Devon Tower site and is across the street from the Myriad Gardens.  It also happens to be very close to the location of their new convention center.  It is two blocks to the downtown library and art museum.  Three blocks to the Civic Center Music Hall and a walk thru the Myriad Gardens to the Chesapeake Arena.  Film Row (similar to Blue Dome) is growing and is just a block away.  This is not a suburban development, far from it.

As was previously posted this a large site, but is roughly the same square footage as the OneOk Field area and not that much smaller than the Williams Tower + City Hall site.  It would also fit on two of the parking lots that sit in the Cathedral Square/TCC parking crater in south downtown.

I am very jealous of this development.  250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space.  I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.

[TheArtist]

Did anyone else take the time to read the story or look at the images?

The proposed residential towers (yes two 25 story towers) and commercial tower (26 stories) proposed by Clayco share a block with the new HQ for OG&E which is also being developed by Clayco.  The project also will have a 450 spot garage and possibly a hotel on top of the garage.  Milhaus' proposal is much smaller and is only on the city owned portion. 

The block is catty-corner to the new Devon Tower site and is across the street from the Myriad Gardens.  It also happens to be very close to the location of their new convention center.  It is two blocks to the downtown library and art museum.  Three blocks to the Civic Center Music Hall and a walk thru the Myriad Gardens to the Chesapeake Arena.  Film Row (similar to Blue Dome) is growing and is just a block away.  This is not a suburban development, far from it.

As was previously posted this a large site, but is roughly the same square footage as the OneOk Field area and not that much smaller than the Williams Tower + City Hall site.  It would also fit on two of the parking lots that sit in the Cathedral Square/TCC parking crater in south downtown.

I am very jealous of this development.  250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space.  I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.

Suburban as in auto oriented versus urban=pedestrian/transit friendly.  Doesn't matter how tall it is or where it's located, if the design caters to the automobile and not the pedestrian, then it's suburban. The Philtower and Mayo Hotel lofts in Tulsa are urban.  Up to the sidewalks, the buildings are part of the urban, pedestrian friendly fabric of downtown and positively contribute to that fabric.  The Central Park condos in downtown Tulsa are suburban in nature.  They are not part of an urban, pedestrian friendly streetscape and actually harm that from forming. 

I wouldn't call it good urban living if it were an area full of high-rise buildings but nobody ever out walking around.  I would rather live in an area with smaller buildings but busy, lively, sidewalks full of interesting things to see and do. Good urban design promotes that, suburban design does not.  Suburban design encourages you to get in your car and drive somewhere, good urban design entices you to walk down the sidewalks.  Good urban/pedestrian friendly design also requires large uninterrupted streetscapes of other pedestrian friendly buildings.  The more "gaps" in that fabric, the less pedestrian friendly it is and the less people you will see out walking, no matter how many people live in the area.

[DTowner]

I am very jealous of this development.  250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space.  I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.

I agree.  Although with oil prices now in the low $80s and dropping and gas still relatively flat, the threat to OKC's recent boom may already be on the horizon.