Good Bye Civic Center

[Wrinkle]

I'm with Hometown on this one.

All the 'problems' with the existing facility can be managed, repaired or modified to be perfectly acceptable.

The plaza is just space. And, the City currently treats it as such. There's been virtually no effort to make anything of it at all. In fact, it's been intentionally left to deteriorate to promote this move.

We know what any space can become if laid into the hands of talented designers. Even I could do better than what is there now.

It's where we place the emphasis. And, Kitty has her paws on a shinny new trinkette. Whatever the driving force is behind all this, it's wrong. It's being approached wrong, pushed wrong and concieved wrong. And, the building itself is virutally unsuitable for a City Hall function.

How many 'public formations' at the doors to One Tech do you suppose the non-governmental entities who lease the remainder of the space will tolerate (along with their clients) before deciding a 'normal' location would be much better for them?

[pfox]

Fyi...it is not uncommon for cities to either purchase or lease office space from the private sector...

I noticed a picture of Seattle's new city hall.  A very nice facility indeed, but it only houses the mayor, the council, staff, city council room.  Maybe 200-300 employees. The balance of the "office" city employees are housed in the former Key Tower, now called the Seattle Municipal Tower.  It was not designed to be a municipal building, but it is now, and it works just fine.  The city purchased the building in the late 90's or early 2000's.  About 5000 people work in the 62 story building, some city employees, some in the private sector.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A lot of people voted for Mayor Taylor because they wanted a "CEO" to run the city.

She operates it just like a corporate CEO, very opaque what is happening at the top, and now she wants a shiny new HQ building.

Personally, with the savings involved and if it gets rid of our embarrasing City Hall, I'm all for it.

I did hear something on the radio this morning that there may be consideration to "lease" the new city hall or maybe I heard wrong.

Explain all those savings to me again.  The building, remodel, moving fees, .....  will cost $67,200,000.  Estimated savings is $15,000,000 over ten years.  That sure looks like a loss of over $50,000,000 to me.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A lot of people voted for Mayor Taylor because they wanted a "CEO" to run the city.

She operates it just like a corporate CEO, very opaque what is happening at the top, and now she wants a shiny new HQ building.

Personally, with the savings involved and if it gets rid of our embarrasing City Hall, I'm all for it.

I did hear something on the radio this morning that there may be consideration to "lease" the new city hall or maybe I heard wrong.

Explain all those savings to me again.  The building, remodel, moving fees, .....  will cost $67,200,000.  Estimated savings is $15,000,000 over ten years.  That sure looks like a loss of over $50,000,000 to me.

You also (supposedly) add $24,000 in deferred repairs and like 24,000 in something else. Net on their paperwork was a savings of like $1,000 in budget totals. Basically they made it seem like a wash for the first ten years, then a lot better after that.

[Hometown]

I don’t take to the way Taylor and the Tulsa World want to skip discussion and cut straight to the arm twisting phase of their campaign to privatize Civic Center.  It makes me think there is a story behind the story that no one is telling us about.

And you may not like the concrete seats in front of City Hall but how would you like Hotel Security rousting you and telling you to move on because the plaza is for Hotel Guests only.  Tell me how the diverse patchwork of people that do business at the County Court house are going to mesh with upscale hotel patrons.  The answer is they won’t and I can tell you who would get the short end of the stick.

Like there is only one spot available for development downtown.  Give me a break.  Their arguments don’t hold water.

I would like to read the Tulsa World editorials that encouraged us to tear down our beautiful old movie palaces.  I can imagine them now.  “Progress, progress, progress.”  

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m pro growth just not pro stupid.

[RecycleMichael]

quote: I’m pro growth just not pro stupid.

I am just amateur stupid...how do you get paid for being stupid?

I could be all-pro...

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Fyi...it is not uncommon for cities to either purchase or lease office space from the private sector...

I noticed a picture of Seattle's new city hall.  A very nice facility indeed, but it only houses the mayor, the council, staff, city council room.  Maybe 200-300 employees. The balance of the "office" city employees are housed in the former Key Tower, now called the Seattle Municipal Tower.  It was not designed to be a municipal building, but it is now, and it works just fine.  The city purchased the building in the late 90's or early 2000's.  About 5000 people work in the 62 story building, some city employees, some in the private sector.

What Seattle did was create an 'Executive' office space for the topmost layer of City officials (200-300), not what Mayor Taylor is promoting. Their less sanitary functions remain remote. She's trying to justify consolidation of many departments into this building (and, still using only a small part of it), including some traditionally more 'shop' oriented functions of Public Works, at least to economically justify things. Even then, if fails to come close.

As it is, the City of Tulsa DOES currently lease space (The Hartford Bldg) which it does not own. The reason she's trying to buy this thing is because our ByLaws state it as a requirement that the City own it's main facility. This is a very big reach to that end.

And, it actually solves fewer problems than it creates.

The Plaza should be updated and preserve the 'Civic Center' as the main public interface.

One Tech does nothing similar to that.
And, the economics don't work either.

Bad deal all around.

[Wilbur]

Reading between the lines of this Tulsa World article, I'm sensing city government is about to be in the hotel business.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070626_1_A13_hTuls64430

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A lot of people voted for Mayor Taylor because they wanted a "CEO" to run the city.

She operates it just like a corporate CEO, very opaque what is happening at the top, and now she wants a shiny new HQ building.

Personally, with the savings involved and if it gets rid of our embarrasing City Hall, I'm all for it.

I did hear something on the radio this morning that there may be consideration to "lease" the new city hall or maybe I heard wrong.

Explain all those savings to me again.  The building, remodel, moving fees, .....  will cost $67,200,000.  Estimated savings is $15,000,000 over ten years.  That sure looks like a loss of over $50,000,000 to me.

It's not a loss.  Just as corporations do, they use capital funds to purchase an asset.  Maintenance, moving, etc. is another budget item.  How much would it cost to thoroughly over-haul the existing city hall and consolidate all city offices with some expansion there?

[Hometown]

Downtown is crawling with spaces that would accommodate a hotel.  I’m reminded of my visitor from Chicago who found some nice things to say about downtown but didn’t like all the empty spaces (surface parking lots) between the towers.  She didn’t think our downtown had enough density to look right.

So we could build hotels right and left.  Because of all the demolition, downtown really is a developer’s dream.

Here’s an idea for a boutique hotel close to the new Arena.  You know that classic 60s Motel/Hotel on 4th with the Coney Island on the ground floor.  Modern architecture from the 60s has become very trendy.  With a modest investment the Motel/Hotel could be restored.  There are a lot of reissues of ‘60s furniture out there now.  So refurbish with period furniture and hang Pop Art posters throughout the hotel.  Develop the Coney Island restaurant as a club called “Pop.”  We stayed at something similar with a Tiki Hut Theme in Palm Springs a couple of years ago.

It would tie in with our restored Modern Civic Center.

Ma and Pa Kettle will probably want to stay at the Double Tree but …

[just_like_new]

I am totally new to this whole Tulsa Now forum, but I was reading your idea about the closed down hotel where Coney Island is, and I love it.  I have always thought that underneath all the rust and broken windows that building has a great retro style to it.  

I have to say though, the current city hall is just plain ugly and should go.  I have lived here all my life, and while there are some great buildings of that era that should be restored, city hall is not exactly a stunning example.  Everytime I have gone to city hall I have hurried through the dark parking garage clutching my mace in my purse for fear of mugging, not exactly the feeling we should be sending out about our city.  

Couldn't the big open plaza stay as is and benefit from a little grass and a few trees (possibly "Up With Trees" trees?)

[T-Town Now]

I think our current City Hall is one of the most unimpressive buildings in the city. And that is what it says to others who are considering investing in Tulsa: "unimpressive."

I don't necessarily think it should be torn down, but why not renovate City Hall into a boutique hotel? In San Diego, they have the Westgate, which is very 60's looking on the outside (built in 1970), almost bland. But inside, it's the Ritz. Lush is the word. And it's a great place to stay while in San Diego.

http://www.westgatehotel.com/

I think Tulsa needs something that better represents where we want to go, and the new building could certainly do that.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by just_like_new


Couldn't the big open plaza stay as is and benefit from a little grass and a few trees (possibly "Up With Trees" trees?)

It could stay but no-one likes the garage underneath. just drop it down to grade and make a real plaza.

[Wilbur]

Everyone does realize, when they say city offices will be consolidated into one facility, they are putting less then 25% of city employees into One Tech, which won't fill 50% of the building.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Everyone does realize, when they say city offices will be consolidated into one facility, they are putting less then 25% of city employees into One Tech, which won't fill 50% of the building.

That's because they are keeping the existing tenants and adding a few. That makes the move look good on paper ($$$). Later, when no-one is looking anymore, tenants and their revenue will leave and more city folk can move in.