Moving City Hall

[cannon_fodder]

Tearing down buildings and hoping they get developed is also a horrible, horrible idea.  This isnt downtown Dallas - where people are lining up to develop property.  We have more vacant lots downtown then I care to see already.

BUT!

Anyone want to quit their job and charge $100,000 to bureaucrats who apparently have no common sense?  "Well Mrs. Mayor, Im not sure if a blind squirrel ever really does find a nut.  But for a small fee the firm of Bull, Sheat, and Payme could perform a study for you."

[Conan71]

It boggles my mind that with revenue shortages, we are sending money out of state which is un-neccesary.  Puh-leaze don't tell me there isn't one decent firm in Tulsa who could put together the cost-analysis on this move.

And don't bet that it will stop at $82mm, next we will "need some more state of the art technology for the building, and oh these furnishings are so old and tacky, and we need some Oklahoma art work to make us feel better about all the money we send out of state."

I guess it just doesn't register to someone who has assets in excess of the annual city budget.

[TheArtist]

While even just being involved with the city by doing a mural for them I have seen some incredible inefficiencies from not having everyone in one place. Meetings would be in one building then another. Would have to get approval or something signed from someone in another building. Seemed like a good chunk of time was spent running from one building to the next and trying to get everyone together for this and that meeting. etc. etc.  Not to mention you could probably get rid of some people, security guards, receptionists, secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance, etc. Deliveries and distributions would be easier and quicker. Wouldn't need as much space and equipment. Many buildings have their own meeting rooms so wouldn't need as many nor the equipment, tables, chairs, projectors, etc. to be in them. You wold absolutely be amazed at the number of meetings that go on for everything. I could think of a hundred other things as well.  Many small, but they add up over the years. Not to mention just the savings in Time itself.

How the numbers add up remains to be seen however.  Will be interesting to see.

[sgrizzle]

The current city hall building is completely ineffective and falling apart. There is no lack of office space. If the city can consolidate a dozen offices into one efficient space, it would be a very welcome change. The glass may have failed once during strong winds, but that is no guarantee of a repeat. The building uses very low energy and uses architectural features to heat/cool the building. Keep in mind the glass is directional, looking up at it, it is clear, but from above, it blocks light.

While I wouldn't want to ever work in an aquarium, I think it makes a perfect public space. Not to mention it is easy to find, and easy to park at. It is also not dependent on trigen which saves money.

[Chicken Little]

[pmcalk]

At the risk of sounding like Artist (sorry, Artist), I believe that the building housing the city government should be a place that invokes a "wow" response.  Think about it--the mayor/city council must host delegates from all over the world--their first impression of Tulsa should not be that we put our government in some outdated, underground parking lot that usually leaks.  We need a place that tells prospective businesses that Tulsa is state of the art, with the latest technology, and a streamlined government.  I am not an engineer, and I know that the Tech center had issues with wind.  However, having been in there, I can certainly say that one leaves with the impression that the building is all that and more.  Relocating all of the city government to the Tech center would: 1) streamline the government into a state of the art building with advanced technology and flexible floor plans, 2) provide the city with the opportunity to raise revenue with the sale of property, and 3) present key locations for optimal redevelopment within downtown (eg, the location on Hartford/Greenwood could ultimately tie together the east end, greenwood, and brady arts district).  Unless somehow this is shown to be a money pit, I cannot imagine why anyone would be against it.  And after the mayor finishes "wowing" potential businesses at the new city hall, she always could take them to Quicktrip for dinner.[]

[inteller]

no and hell no. instead of taking prime office space off the market, they should be working to bring in a high tech company that would actually want to use that space. If they want to consolidate offices into one space there are plenty of buildings with lots of empty floors. Is city hall completely occupied? sounds like to me city gov is pretty fat. My company occupies almost as many floors and we employ 800 people downtown.

they think that hotel operators will be interested in that building.....I seriously doubt it. That building is an intergral part of that entire complex, you can't demo it thats for sure, and no one is going to want that old building.

The only thing they could do is sell the entire city plaza to some indian tribe to turn it into a casino complex.

[Porky]

I think this is great and Mayor Kathy needs to be applauded for this action of finding a new home for city hall.

As far as the old city hall being a location for a new hotel and etc, a certain YMCA needs to be torn down first.

[Double A]

I don't like the idea of a government subsidized manipulation of downtown office vacancy rates to artificially decrease them. It wreaks of fascism pure and simple. Not to mention that from a security standpoint consolidating all city government into a single glass building poses a real threat in a post 9/11 world. You might as well paint a big target on it.

If we need a new city hall, I would rather the city build one like in Austin
(115,300 sq/ft-$56.7 million) for $82 million. BTW, why is it that a city like Austin(the 16th largest city in the U.S) can get by 115,300 sq/ft city hall, but 500,000 sq ft is not big enough for the city of Tulsa's(the 44th largest city in the U.S.) government?

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaSooner

Wouldn't the sale of the multiple outlying city properties that would be consolidated pay a huge chunk or all of the cost of the new building?

Assuming these properties are actually in demand of course.

I'm not sure the city owns all of the property in question.  I thought (I may be wrong) some of the spaces were rented.

I know people who used to work in the One Tech Center.  All told me how horrible it was with an entirely glass structure and how hot it was in the summer.  And wasn't there a problem with the building several months ago where 'windows' were popping out or something?  I remember something about steel interior structure not being up to snuff, or something like that, which caused the windows to pop off.  I remember this was covered by all the news stations.... wasn't that the same building?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I don't like the idea of a government subsidized manipulation of downtown office vacancy rates to artificially decrease them. It wreaks of fascism pure and simple. Not to mention that from a security standpoint consolidating all city government into a single glass building poses a real threat in a post 9/11 world. You might as well paint a big target on it.

If we need a new city hall, I would rather the city build one like in Austin
(115,300 sq/ft-$56.7 million) for $82 million. BTW, why is it that a city like Austin(the 16th largest city in the U.S) can get by 115,300 sq/ft city hall, but 500,000 sq ft is not big enough for the city of Tulsa's(the 44th largest city in the U.S.) government?

you should tell the city council that at the next meeting BRAVO

[pmcalk]

Progress made on building purchase
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070317_1_A1_hThec64430

To answer some of the questions--the city will not be using the entire building; it will lease out some of the space.  The negotiated price is "substantially lower" than the $80 million asking price (I am sure Lucedia is happy to get rid of the property--they have no ties to Tulsa, and purchased Williams as a quick turn around investment).

I don't think that the city would move there to artificially decrease vacancy rates.  Really, its more a matter of the city not maintaining a monopoly on prime land, and permitting it to develop to its highest and best use.  The city does not need to be at key locations on the west bank of the river, across from the convention center, and near the (hopefully) soon developed east end. Why should the city stay put when it could make a profit from selling these properties, and moving to an updated office?

As for complaints about the Tech center, I know lots of people who have worked there and still do.  It does not get too hot in the summer.  The only issue I have heard is that desks near the windows tend to have too much glare.

[Breadburner]

It's a great idea I hope it gets done.....Not to mention it will be a great time to cut some of the fat from the budget....

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk


Progress made on building purchase
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070317_1_A1_hThec64430

To answer some of the questions--the city will not be using the entire building; it will lease out some of the space.  The negotiated price is "substantially lower" than the $80 million asking price (I am sure Lucedia is happy to get rid of the property--they have no ties to Tulsa, and purchased Williams as a quick turn around investment).

I don't think that the city would move there to artificially decrease vacancy rates.  Really, its more a matter of the city not maintaining a monopoly on prime land, and permitting it to develop to its highest and best use.  The city does not need to be at key locations on the west bank of the river, across from the convention center, and near the (hopefully) soon developed east end. Why should the city stay put when it could make a profit from selling these properties, and moving to an updated office?

As for complaints about the Tech center, I know lots of people who have worked there and still do.  It does not get too hot in the summer.  The only issue I have heard is that desks near the windows tend to have too much glare.

Whoa! Kool-Aid alert.

Yeah, let's lease out office space at City Hall so the special interests and lobbyists will only have to take an elevator ride to tell our elected officials how to vote. Great idea!

Here is a poll on this topic.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

no and hell no. instead of taking prime office space off the market, they should be working to bring in a high tech company that would actually want to use that space. If they want to consolidate offices into one space there are plenty of buildings with lots of empty floors. Is city hall completely occupied? sounds like to me city gov is pretty fat. My company occupies almost as many floors and we employ 800 people downtown.

they think that hotel operators will be interested in that building.....I seriously doubt it. That building is an intergral part of that entire complex, you can't demo it thats for sure, and no one is going to want that old building.

The only thing they could do is sell the entire city plaza to some indian tribe to turn it into a casino complex.

I haven't figured out if you're just plain stupid or actually suffering from slight mental retardation.

- That "prime office space" is a white elephant because it can't be subdivided easily. Tenants have to take an entire floor and the HVAC can't even be divided floor by floor. It was designed for a large single entity. That building is dragging down occupancy and lease rates downtown, which hurts property values.

- City Hall is jam packed and a 40-year-old eyesore in need of $12 million of deferred maintenance. Not to mention the value of that land to a hotel developer. Opportunity knocking, folks. Get out from under the money pit.

- How is the city government fat when they've cut jobs the past 10 years? Wake up and do your research.

- Are you really that dense to think somebody would buy City Hall and convert it to a hotel? Um, buddy... they'd scrape it and build new.

- It's such a no-brainer to realize that a convention hotel is highest and best use of that land, even you can understand it.

You guys are really unbelieveable. You small government people b!tch about everything, but then the City comes up with a plan to:

- Consolidate offices to streamline operations, create efficiencies, and save taxpayer money.

- Invest taxpayer money in a newer, better asset rather than pouring money into outdated, antiquated facilities.

- Create the opportunity to realize new revenue in the short term from the sale of the City's old properties, which have a much higher and better use than government offices.

- Purchase an asset valued at $80 million for pennies on the dollar that allows room for future growth and/or revenue from subleasing.

- Open up development opportunities next to our most vital assets -- next to the BOK Center and Convention Center, prime riverfront land at the foot of the 21st Street Bridge, and the Hartford Building which is 2 blocks from the Blue Dome, 2 blocks from 3rd & Kenosha, 2 blocks from the Greenwood business district, and 4 blocks from the East End development area.

- Create the opportunity to realize increased revenue in the long term from new developments. Just from a convention hotel alone, the increased sales tax revenue would be significant.

Let's review: save taxpayer money in ongoing expenses, invest taxpayer money more wisely, buy an asset for an amount far less than the appraised value or the cost of new construction, help occupancy rates downtown and raise property values, open up some of the most prime land in Tulsa for private development, create new revenue streams for the City to fund operations.

Wow, what a horrible plan... only to mental midgets like you.