Mayor looks at moving City Hall
Center could house nearly all city employees
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
3/16/2007
Mayor Kathy Taylor will announce Friday that if a plan to purchase the One Technology Center downtown is successful, city hall could be moving from its current site as early as fall.
"This is one of the few opportunities the city of Tulsa has to use assets it already owns to spur economic development . . . and to look at consolidating the city's departments to provide cost savings through efficiencies," Taylor said. The city has entered into a purchase-option agreement with the Leucadia National Corp. of New York, the owner of the 15-story glass building, formerly the WilTel building.
The 120-day option is not costing the city any money and is contingent upon further study during the next 90 days on whether the purchase is economically feasible, Taylor said. "If it's not the right thing to do, we'll walk away," Taylor said. The decision to move forward came as a result of a preliminary study on consolidating City Hall conducted by The Staubach Co. The company will continue to lead the further study and data analysis. The city is paying Staubach $100,000.
The preliminary study has a proposed timeline that suggests that if the city decides to move forward contract drafts are set to be drawn in April with a closing date July 15. The city has several facilities that are in poor condition with a mini mum of $12 million in deferred maintenance costs, but are in prime development areas, Taylor said. "This is about looking for the highest and best use of the taxpayers facilities," she said.
Some of those facilities include the city hall site next to the conven tion center and arena, the Public Works facility at 23rd Street and Jackson Avenue on the west bank of the Arkansas River, and the Hartford Building in the east end area of downtown. Freeing up those sites and others would spur development and put properties back on the tax rolls, she said.
City Council Chairman Bill Martinson said he is excited about the proposal. "This plan has tremendous potential, and I'm anxious to see what comes of the due diligence process. I think we would be remiss if we didn't investigate an opportunity like this." he said.
The site where City Hall now sits could be used as a hotel site for the convention center and arena, the 23rd Street and Jackson Avenue site has been identified as a retail node for river development, and the Hartford Building is in a site that is ripe for development, he said. The city is looking at consolidating as many as 12 facilities in and near downtown into the One Technology Center. The total square footage of those buildings is just shy of 500,000.
The One Technology Center, however, has about 742,000 square feet. Its vertically designed campus features ergonomic work spaces, Internet cafes and state-of-the-art technology. Of the 15 floors, seven are fully furnished, high-tech-ready and unoccupied. The other floors are occupied by Level 3 Communications and Deloitte & Touche.
Taylor said if the city is able to acquire the building, the current tenants will stay and there is an opportunity for the city to lease extra space to other public or private businesses. "Long term this is an asset we feel will only appreciate . . . and provide an opportunity to have a positive revenue stream for the city," Taylor said.
Financing a purchase of the building has not been worked out completely, but it would either involve seller's financing or tax-exempt financing involving a trust authority, she said. If the One Technology Center doesn't pan out, city hall and other offices could still move. The preliminary study indicates other alternatives for sale or lease include downtown build ings owned by Maurice Kanbar, who owns 16 sites downtown.
Preliminary findings in the study indicate building a new consolidated City Hall with 250,000 square feet, plus a 1,000 space garage would cost a minimum of $82 million. The current market price for the One Technology Center, which includes a garage with 1,007 spaces, is $80 million.
Late last year, when rumors began to circulate that the city was looking at the One Technology Center, Angela West, broker for the building said the building price was $75 million. The study also says that filling One Technology Center with governmental offices will have a positive effect on the downtown real estate market by reducing the vacancy rate.
The study outlines several positive outcomes of consolidating city facilities into One Technology Center. They include: reduction of overall costs, efficient use of space, increased use of technolo gy, elimination of environmental and air quality concerns, support of economic development initiatives, improvement of the city's image and investment in an appreciating real estate asset.
Ed Keller, retired Oklahoma chairman of JPMorgan Chase, said the mayor's move to look at consolidating to the One Technology Center, "makes a lot of sense." The city is getting a "free option to offer a price without spending any money other than what would be expended to evaluate whether moving to one location makes economic sense," he said.
Keller said he applauds the mayor for looking at "what it cost the city to do business in multiple locations versus consolidating in this one location, particularly a location like this one with the deep discount that it is selling for. Only after that do you decide what it costs and whether you can afford it."
I have a brilliant solution - create smaller government and stay where you are.
"Well, government has grown so much that we need more space. Any old place will do. Lets see... hey, why not the newest most high tech building in downtown? Good enough for government I guess."
Come on CEO Taylor, you said you were going to run the city like a company - companies dont upgrade when they are short on cash.
Not to mention you want other people to tackle the refurbishing of the older buildings downtown yet you high tail it to the newest building of them all. Bah!
It's discussed here too:
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=122623
Selling the current city hall to build a hotel could make sense. A new hotel in that location will make Tulsa able to go after new conventions.
Moving the city operations on the west bank of the river will open that area up to redevelopment as well.
Consolidating employees into one building should be more efficient as well as making it easier for the public to interact city government.
Running short on cash, but we've got $100K to pay to an out of state consulting firm to study a move which will cost at least $82mm.
Mayor has authorized $45K to a search firm to find a new police chief from outside our city.
How have we managed to elect two such incompetent and arrogant boobs in a row for mayor? First clue should have been Ms. Taylor spending $1.2mm for a $105K per year job.
I think we need a re-call election, this is Mayor Bill part deux.
I know it sounds shocking, but I'm going to back the Mayor on this one. City Hall, as well as the other buildings around downtown where city employees work, for the most part, are extremely cramped. The number of city employees hasn't grown that much, if at all, in the last 10 years or so, but the work space many are in were never meant for the number of people currently occupying the space.
The problem with early city leaders, who built some of the city owned buildings, forgot one thing..... growth. They built buildings with only their current needs in mind. By the time the buildings were built, they were already outgrown.
The city lost out (or should I say turned down) a great opportunity to move into the old Hess building, which is now the Community Care building, at 6the and Denver. Hess was basically going to give the building to the city, full of furniture, but someone at City Hall thought otherwise.
The One Tech Center is a bargain at $80M (I'm confident it cost more to build, but I speculate), allows for consolidation, and allows for expansion.
What year was the current City Hall complex built?
Wilbur,
I may be wrong, but 1969 pops up in my search.
I tend to agree with you that the City Hall seems cramped at best.
But I wonder where the money will come from. The "third-penny" money is designated for very specific things. I would say it is a contract with the voters. Does she plan to "re-direct" those funds?
Otherwise, with all departments slashing budget or personnel, where does 89 mil. come from?
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.
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.
Not just the sale...if those areas are redeveloped into something that generates taxes for the city, then that is part of the equation, too, I would think.
Not really Chicken Little - because the new building will be taken OFF the tax rolls. Also, contrary to the article, it wont do much to help the overall downtown occupancy rate because most of the city services being located are downtown already. Leaving them vacant creates more empty buildings.
But this time, the empty buildings are being abandoned because they are run down. No one is going to want, if no one wants to move into the brand new One Tech Center the city is moving into... so the city will retain ownership of these now abandoned buildings.
Not to mention the grand daddy of them all, current city hall. Who would want to buy that bunker looking thing? We could make it a prison I guess. The entire forum area that it is build looks like someone spat it out into the late 1960's and left it to rot, decay and die. The entire area would have to be redone to facilitate any development - which means spending more money the city doesnt for the potential of private development.
In short:
- It abandons more property downtown.
- Takes grade "A" office space off of the Tulsa market, as if we want to avoid jobs downtown.
- Costs tens of millions of dollars we dont have
- Will likely have no effect of development (what property that the city holds are people dying to grab up?)
and provides a bigger building for the city to fill up (which they will).
How about this. Make the city successful and then reward yourself for your effort. Failing business dont get new headquarters.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Not really Chicken Little - because the new building will be taken OFF the tax rolls.
That would be part of the equation, too, no argument here. I was simply pointing out that it is not just a cash transaction for the city, there are longer term tax revenue generation factors as well.
As for the vacant city buildings, if they were torn down and redeveloped as something else, then it would help the vacancy rate. If they sit there vacant, it would not. Unless the city actually has buyers lined up, then that claim seems a little speculative.
There's a reason One Technology Center is a bargain, it is a poorly built, energy inefficient, money pit. The city will be making a huge mistake if they buy this building.
I have to agree. Very energy inefficient. Glass that can't withstand almost tornadic winds.
71 says
Running short on cash, but we've got $100K to pay to an out of state consulting firm to study a move which will cost at least $82mm.
Mayor has authorized $45K to a search firm to find a new police chief from outside our city.
______________________________________
Soon we may have to come up with another study to find out why we need so many studies when we have all those high salaried at-will employees in the mayor office.
How about a party week dedicated to studies? We getting ready for a beer party right now and making preparations to get the drunks home. Have we made a study on how much this party will cost the taxpayer? We could add another ½ cent sales tax, setting it aside as a party cleanup tax?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
There's a reason One Technology Center is a bargain, it is a poorly built, energy inefficient, money pit. The city will be making a huge mistake if they buy this building.
Isn't that the kind of a building the city is looking for? The second day after they move in they will have an out of town study made to find out what your post indicates. We will need another 100K. As it has been said eventually we will be talking about the need for real money.
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."
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.
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.
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.
(http://www.nfl-legends.com/nfl-legends/images/roger-staubach.jpg)
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.[;)]
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 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.
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 (//%22http://www.predock.com/austin.1.html%22)
(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 (//%22http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/2006/leed_cityhall.htm%22), but 500,000 sq ft is not big enough for the city of Tulsa's(the 44th largest city in the U.S.) government?
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?
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 (//%22http://www.predock.com/austin.1.html%22)
(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 (//%22http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/2006/leed_cityhall.htm%22), 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
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.
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....
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 (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6158%22) on this topic.
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.
You might want to show a little more respect to the folks paying your salary there A.J.
BTW, I support a new city hall that consolidates city services in one place at a new location. I think One Tech Center is absolutely the wrong place for it.
Once Again, 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?
Last we heard, a hotel wasn't feasible downtown without a $60 Million subsidy from taxpayers.
Given that, a 2nd major hotel development on abandoned City Hall property probably would only cost us a total of $120 Million or so, eh?
Add the $80M+ for the new place, and we're right up there with the revised arena cost.
BTW, I just want to point out a widely used term around town, that is "deferred maintenance".
Translation: "We haven't been doing our job, or what's required to maintain our public facilities, so now we have a real problem which only a lot of money can fix."
If I see one more video clip of a wet, dripping ceiling tile on the news, I'm going to croak.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
You might want to show a little more respect to the folks paying your salary there A.J.
BTW, I support a new city hall that consolidates city services in one place at a new location. I think One Tech Center is absolutely the wrong place for it.
Once Again, 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?
But why do you think that the Tech center is so bad? Having known people who worked there, I have heard nothing but good things--state of the art, internet connections galore, great teleconferencing facilities, flexible floor plans, great meeting areas, and even a production studio. Yet, the city gets it for next to nothing because Lucedia is ready to move on. It would cost an arm & a leg to purchase the land and build something comparable downtown.
As for Austin, as mentioned above, the city won't use the entire space. And does Austin house all of the city employees in one location, anyway? (wow--wouldn't it be great if Tulsa did something
more efficiently than Austin?). Yea, I am sure that there will those who use it as an opportunity to grab a good seat for lobbying the city. Like that will be something new. That's why we have people like you, DoubleA, to watch our elected officials like hawks. If we hesitated every time we worried about the possibility of corruption, well, we would have to stop acting altogether.
Not that actual facts seem to matter to some people (and I admit, I keep losing track of which ones I already counted on this list), but I'm getting something like 18 different addresses for City offices in Austin.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/help/orgcharttext.htm
Austin also spent over $50 million to build their city hall.
What happens to the central library?
^I believe that land was already donated to the Central Library for relocation, but a bond vote that would have paid for the move failed. My understanding is that the current library is too small and inadequate. I would imagine that the library would be willing to sell, too.
Do recall where the land donated is? Also, if they sell...does the money generated from the real estate add up to enough to build on the donated land?
BTW, isn't there a huge federal building between the Arena and this prime hotel development real estate? I seem to remember the city running into a few costly federal land acquisitions for the prime real estate where the BOK Center is being built. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is always in the details.
I am sure the building can be kept comfortable, but the real question is what is the energy consumption and ultimately the cost to provide that comfortability? The glare thing kind of reminds me of ants under a magnifying glass, which is somewhat ironic, considering that architecturally speaking, One Tech is the equivalent of a giant ant farm.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
You might want to show a little more respect to the folks paying your salary there A.J.
BTW, I support a new city hall that consolidates city services in one place at a new location. I think One Tech Center is absolutely the wrong place for it.
Once Again, 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?
But why do you think that the Tech center is so bad? Having known people who worked there, I have heard nothing but good things--state of the art, internet connections galore, great teleconferencing facilities, flexible floor plans, great meeting areas, and even a production studio. Yet, the city gets it for next to nothing because Lucedia is ready to move on. It would cost an arm & a leg to purchase the land and build something comparable downtown.
As for Austin, as mentioned above, the city won't use the entire space. And does Austin house all of the city employees in one location, anyway? (wow--wouldn't it be great if Tulsa did something more efficiently than Austin?). Yea, I am sure that there will those who use it as an opportunity to grab a good seat for lobbying the city. Like that will be something new. That's why we have people like you, DoubleA, to watch our elected officials like hawks. If we hesitated every time we worried about the possibility of corruption, well, we would have to stop acting altogether.
But can we all agree that parking will suck? At least the current City Hall is designed well so people who come to City Hall, can park at City Hall and conduct their business. I don't see the One Tech Center as being too customer service friendly.... just being able to pull up, park, do your business and leave. That goes for both employees and citizens.
Wilbur makes a good point that public access is one of the most important factors in what we need in a city hall. I think that the flash cube looking building will be better for public access.
I work across the street from the civic center complex and people are always wondering where city hall is. I see people in city hall who are looking for the courthouse and just try to find a parking space when there is a big daytime event at the convention center.
I have also had the parking attendents try to charge me for going to a city council meeting because there was a hockey game going on at the same time.
If you are not familiar with the complex, finding a city hall parking spot and entering the building is like going down an alley, then walking on a underground sidewalk that won't accomodate a wheelchair, then entering a hallway hoping to find an elevator.
The new proposed city hall stands out by itself, has an easy to negotiate parking garage across the street with a walkway, and will allow city hall to have an entrance that invites the citizenry rather than makes them go through a maze.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
they cant scrape it you TARD. it sits on top of the city plaza complex. Furthermore, that location is HORRIBLE. if heavenly hospitality would do the towerview location because of the bus station you think a hotel operator is going to locate NEXT TO THE COURTHOUSE in the middle of BUM PLAZA with KNOWN sex offenders and other criminals filtering in and out? That place is damaged goods.
I would rather one of the rental car places occupy the entire OTC than the city. it paints a HORRIBLE picture for businesses looking at Tulsa as they see the city in the newest highest tech building and then they have to choose from **** office space.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
BTW, isn't there a huge federal building between the Arena and this prime hotel development real estate? I seem to remember the city running into a few costly federal land acquisitions for the prime real estate where the BOK Center is being built. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is always in the details.
I am sure the building can be kept comfortable, but the real question is what is the energy consumption and ultimately the cost to provide that comfortability? The glare thing kind of reminds me of ants under a magnifying glass, which is somewhat ironic, considering that architecturally speaking, One Tech is the equivalent of a giant ant farm.
I'd be interested if you have evidence that the building is energy inefficient. I have heard that the design of the building is actually quite energy efficient--there are double layers of glass, and the air in between helps to regulate the temperature of the building. Inside is quite nice, and the windowed walls provide terrific views of the city. As a side note, don't you like the metaphor of the city working under a magnifiying glass, with all the world to see?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
BTW, isn't there a huge federal building between the Arena and this prime hotel development real estate? I seem to remember the city running into a few costly federal land acquisitions for the prime real estate where the BOK Center is being built. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is always in the details.
I am sure the building can be kept comfortable, but the real question is what is the energy consumption and ultimately the cost to provide that comfortability? The glare thing kind of reminds me of ants under a magnifying glass, which is somewhat ironic, considering that architecturally speaking, One Tech is the equivalent of a giant ant farm.
I'd be interested if you have evidence that the building is energy inefficient. I have heard that the design of the building is actually quite energy efficient--there are double layers of glass, and the air in between helps to regulate the temperature of the building. Inside is quite nice, and the windowed walls provide terrific views of the city. As a side note, don't you like the metaphor of the city working under a magnifiying glass, with all the world to see?
its the same concept (in theory) as thermal windows, minus the argon.
the magnifying glass concept is the only redeeming quality, since you could see the blood spattering the windows when the mayor eviscerates one of her minions.
the thing that disgusts me is they think moving into a high tech building will help them get ahead on the tech curve....hell they wouldn't know what to do with such a high tech building.
I submit an alternate proposal. Move the downtown library in there. for now spare me the hoo ha about UV light damaging the books. You would give that library an instant parity with the Hardesty library in terms of technology. If the place is doomed to fall into public space, at least let it be that. The library could use the machine room downstairs to store emense volumes of digital data. I believe the library would also rival the one in OKC at that point. More people would use it to because you move it away from the bums and drudges that hang out at the plaza.
prospective businesses would look at that and think "wow this town really cares about education" and would be more likely to move here. Instead of "wow the buracracy took over the best real estate in downtown".
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
they cant scrape it you TARD. it sits on top of the city plaza complex.
Gimme a break, of course they can. Tie in the hotel with the plaza or remove a portion of the plaza. It's just a concrete deck.
quote:
Furthermore, that location is HORRIBLE. if heavenly hospitality would do the towerview location because of the bus station you think a hotel operator is going to locate NEXT TO THE COURTHOUSE in the middle of BUM PLAZA with KNOWN sex offenders and other criminals filtering in and out? That place is damaged goods.
That location is OUTSTANDING. It would be the closest hotel to BOTH the arena and the convention center.
And I hate to point this out to you, but the convention center is already adjacent to "bum plaza" as you call it. If anything, a hotel would improve the situation -- more life, more eyes on the street, private security on site 24/7.
quote:
I would rather one of the rental car places occupy the entire OTC than the city. it paints a HORRIBLE picture for businesses looking at Tulsa as they see the city in the newest highest tech building and then they have to choose from **** office space.
If one of the car rental places wanted the ice cube, they would've bought it. It's been on the market for awhile. And what's worse for the city image, having City Hall in a new, technologically advanced building or in a crumbling, decrepit pit?
quote:
Originally posted by intellerits the same concept (in theory) as thermal windows, minus the argon.
the magnifying glass concept is the only redeeming quality, since you could see the blood spattering the windows when the mayor eviscerates one of her minions.
the thing that disgusts me is they think moving into a high tech building will help them get ahead on the tech curve....hell they wouldn't know what to do with such a high tech building.
I submit an alternate proposal. Move the downtown library in there. for now spare me the hoo ha about UV light damaging the books. You would give that library an instant parity with the Hardesty library in terms of technology. If the place is doomed to fall into public space, at least let it be that. The library could use the machine room downstairs to store emense volumes of digital data. I believe the library would also rival the one in OKC at that point. More people would use it to because you move it away from the bums and drudges that hang out at the plaza.
prospective businesses would look at that and think "wow this town really cares about education" and would be more likely to move here. Instead of "wow the buracracy took over the best real estate in downtown".
I don't disagree with you about the need for a library to "wow" visitors--a library should be awe inspiring, much as Carnegie built. Unfortunately, the financial incentives for the city would be lost there, since the library isn't owned by the city. Plus the other two prime real estate areas (river & near the east end) couldn't be sold off. If we were simply trying to occupy a big building, and not increasing revenue for the city, your proposition wouldn't be bad.
Here is some information about the efficiency of the building:
quote:
The 15-story vertical campus features 52,000-sf floor plates, allowing office floors to function as self-contained mini-campuses. Designed by HOK, the energy-efficient facility uses natural light, 16-foot-high ceilings, and a vertical "solar well" circulation core that acts as a return air plenum, natural ventilation shaft, and thermal buffer. At the center of the building is a secure three-story, 47,000-sf Network Operations Center and the Executive Center .
-Tradeline
well, I would even compromise to move the city services currently outside of city hall into part of that building along with the library. that way they can sell off much more attractive properties along the river. but taylor and her minions have to stay in the current city hall.
I do think Inteller is correct that the old city hall property would not be attractive to a hotel owner with a library, police station, a district courthouse, and federal building directly adjacent to it. I think it would give it too much of a "penal" feel. [xx(]
Secondly, that parking garage has been falling apart for years, that cost would get stuck up the tax payer's tail pipes.
[quote
they cant scrape it you TARD. it sits on top of the city plaza complex. Furthermore, that location is HORRIBLE. if heavenly hospitality would do the towerview location because of the bus station you think a hotel operator is going to locate NEXT TO THE COURTHOUSE in the middle of BUM PLAZA with KNOWN sex offenders and other criminals filtering in and out? That place is damaged goods.
I would rather one of the rental car places occupy the entire OTC than the city. it paints a HORRIBLE picture for businesses looking at Tulsa as they see the city in the newest highest tech building and then they have to choose from **** office space.
[/quote]
Yes, they can scrape it. In fact they need to rebuild the entire parking deck. Have you ever been under there? The thing leaks like a sieve and has sustained all sorts of damage. If you look under there near the convention center there are patches galore. Apparently they do not allow ambulances to drive on the deck because it is so weak.
Also for what it's worth, One Technology Center, despite its glass fascade, is very likely the most efficient building downtown right now.
BTW, did anyone know that the Staubach Co. is Roger Staubach's company? http://www.staubach.com/index.asp
He has all sorts of ex Dallas Cowboys working for him including Emmit Smith.
http://www.staubach.com/ProfessionalSearch/Professional_Profile.asp?ID=1843
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Do recall where the land donated is? Also, if they sell...does the money generated from the real estate add up to enough to build on the donated land?
Denver & the BA Expressway. The land was donated by an individual who will likely develop the land around the library, once it is built. The library system took themselves off of vision2025 and tried to pass a bond issue shortly after the passage of Vision2025. It was fairly well supported but did eventually fail. A repackage and revote is expected.
One prime reason they lost imho is the fact they continued to ignore BA and have not put a decent sized library there. Even west tulsa has an (albeit small) regional library but Broken Arrow does not. This affront effected enough voters to make the bill fail.
Selling the library building will help with some costs, but doubtful it will cover everything.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Do recall where the land donated is? Also, if they sell...does the money generated from the real estate add up to enough to build on the donated land?
Denver & the BA Expressway. The land was donated by an individual who will likely develop the land around the library, once it is built. The library system took themselves off of vision2025 and tried to pass a bond issue shortly after the passage of Vision2025. It was fairly well supported but did eventually fail. A repackage and revote is expected.
One prime reason they lost imho is the fact they continued to ignore BA and have not put a decent sized library there. Even west tulsa has an (albeit small) regional library but Broken Arrow does not. This affront effected enough voters to make the bill fail.
Selling the library building will help with some costs, but doubtful it will cover everything.
There have been multiple plans for the land at Denver and the BA... Going back to when Mayor Savage and the City purchased the property, Bowen's, The Liquor store, and the other Bar where located on... At that time... it was to have been a Park..
One sticking point was the eyesore of a building still remaining... That... bit the Library bill in the backside as well..
IMO that is not a preferable location for a Central Library .. That being said the "eyesore" is still standing and to my knowledge has never been addressed.
The Library is one very large issue that would need to be dealt with in the plan for moving City Hall..
Who Knows..... Maybe they already have it figured out...
I would change my mind IF, and only IF, the city can prove:
1) there is an actual need for more space. How much office space do cities our size usually utilize and how can we do better than them?
2) the numbers work so consolidation is actually cost effective. $82,000,000.00 is a lot of money to spend upfront, I would like to know how the city intends to save money while servicing that kind of debt.
3) and finally, I need to see these often mentioned "interested parties" that are apparently in line to develop the the TWELVE (12) city properties that will be abandoned in this move. I want to see them sign a dotted line committing them to do so.
I do not think any of this will happen since Austin apparently uses less space than we do, $82,000,000 is a ton of debt to service and no one is developing the abandoned property we have sitting around currently.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I would change my mind IF, and only IF, the city can prove:
1) there is an actual need for more space. How much office space do cities our size usually utilize and how can we do better than them?
2) the numbers work so consolidation is actually cost effective. $82,000,000.00 is a lot of money to spend upfront, I would like to know how the city intends to save money while servicing that kind of debt.
3) and finally, I need to see these often mentioned "interested parties" that are apparently in line to develop the the TWELVE (12) city properties that will be abandoned in this move. I want to see them sign a dotted line committing them to do so.
I do not think any of this will happen since Austin apparently uses less space than we do, $82,000,000 is a ton of debt to service and no one is developing the abandoned property we have sitting around currently.
Well, Austin's city hall doesn't house all the city services like they are proposing to do here....In Austin, a lot of services are still spread out around downtown.
But I will go on record as opposed to this. I don't see a benefit to consolidating all services into one place. the only thing I can imagine is you have to have multiple maintenace staffs. But I think that certain city services are better served in different locations. For instance, I like the building permit center over on Greenwood with it's easy access. It was a pain when it was located in the basement of the current city hall. I say keep city hall where it is, just remodel the eyesore.
Some people havent gotten the fact that the City of Tulsa will not be paying $80 million for the building.
$80 million is the "market rate" for a building of that size.
$82 million was quoted as the "starting price" for us building a brand new consolidated City Hall. Leucadia bought out WCG (Wiltel) when it went bankrupt. After acquiring all of these assets, there are some that they would just be better off cutting their losses on. Like a giant building in Downtown Tulsa sitting mostly empty. That is a money loser for them, so they are willing to negotiate a deal. They are smart enough to realize that no one but the City of Tulsa is going to have a need to buy an entire building of that size in Tulsa in the forseeable future (decades?) - It makes sense for them to get the building off their hands by striking a reduced price deal for the City of Tulsa to get that money losing property off of their hands.
Tulsa will pay "pennies on the dollar" I've heard, but who knows the exact ballpark they are going for here. Not 80 million dollars.
They are doing a feasibility study to see if we will actually save MORE money than we are going to spend on the building by consolidating things, creating more efficiency, and more productivity. Selling off the numerous current city buildings to for redevelopment. The proposal as I understand it, is win-win-win-win-win all around. Leucadia gets rid of a building that no company in Tulsa will fill in the forseeable future. Tulsa gets a first class city hall, which to non-downtowners will improve their impression of the city and downtown over what they currently experience in the dump now known as city hall. City of Tulsa employees get better morale by working in better conditions. Different parts of city government can work together better by being housed in the same facility. Productivity will go up. Perhaps even allowing for staff reduction in some areas. Hotels, river development, east end development, etc will eventually create more tax revenue.
We get all of this for an extremely reduced price due to Williams Communications erecting a building at the peak of inflated technology valuation projections that ended up not being needed after everything crashed and burned. So instead of getting nothing but misery out of their demise, we get a little something of value.
Can you tell I'm for it?
Another thing about the deal that looks like good business strategy by Taylor's office, is the 4 month option to purchase they have right now. We've already got them agreed to a certain price. The feasibility study might prove the property to be worth MORE to us than Leucadia thought it was when they settled for that price. If we ran out and did a study beforehand, Leucadia could use it against us to raise their asking price. We could save several million dollars this way, because even if it looks like the benefit to us is worth more than what they WERE going to sell it for, they've already agreed to that price and must honor the deal.
I'm just curious to find out how low they got them to settle the price for. The "feasibility study" is just going to confirm what Taylor wants to do, using whatever numbers neccesary to paint that picture. If I worked at City Hall I would start organizing and packing my stuff now just so the move goes smoothly.
I also think there will be better worker productivity when the workers mostly work in the same building. Today a meeting with the permits people, the engineering people and the policy people requires two thirds of them to get in their car and travel.
I also see a big boost in worker morale. The current building has had mold issues and needs updating. The new one is a new shiny glass tower. There are not many restaurants near the current city facilities, but the new city hall will be near at least half a dozen nice places to eat.
I would think that the land beneath the current city hall could be as valuable as any other parcel in town. I also think the city can get out of propoerties at 7th and Houston, the west bank property and the Hartford building very well financially.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
[A repackage and revote is expected.
yeah, lets just keep bringing it up and RAMMING it down taxpayers throats until we finally catch all the south Tulsans and suburbanites off on spring break and get it passed. THAT'S DEMOCRACY!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
... had mold issues and needs updating.
the same thing could be said about the city government itself.
Some time ago I suggested that city, county, state and federal governments consolidate their offices and become anchor tenants for downtown. That's a good idea.
Abandoning City Hall and slowing dismantling Civic Center is a horrible idea.
Does anyone out there really believe that Tulsa has the will to create another Civic Center?
Are there any major American cities without a civic center? Civic Center already has a good synergy of people doing business. It's downtown's only success story as it were.
Not to mention our Civic Center is a Modern Classic that will look better with age. In a few more years we'll be seeing Modern architecture with a new eye. Just in time to lament what's been torn down and to curse the bad remodel of the Convention Center.
Let's see: No Civic Center but big suburban style Sports Arena, Home Depot and Wal-Mart.
I'd say chances are very good that major trends of the last three decades will continue and within 20 years downtown will no longer be recognizable as a downtown, despite the noble efforts of the local intelligentsia.
Leaders that dismantle Civic Center will earn a permanent spot on my sh** list.
Downtown was healthier when government uses were mixed in with retail and office buildings. The County Courthouse used to be at 6th & Boulder. The old Federal Building (still in use) is between 2nd and 3rd on Boulder. Old City Hall is at 4th and Cincinnati. The Carnegie Library was at 3rd and Cheyenne.
Having a government ghetto was a fashionable fad about 50 years ago, but it didn't work any better than the pedestrianized Main Mall did. The neighborhood that was replaced by the Civic Center used to provide a gradual transition from the high-intensity downtown core to totally residential areas. (Look at old aerial photos and you'll see treetops where there is now only concrete and asphalt.) Segregated uses and superblocks are bad urban planning.
While the library and county courthouse are nice examples of modern architecture, City Hall is just plain ugly. I think it may be the ugliest City Hall of any major city in America. I suspect some corners were cut when it was built.
If the financials work out, move city offices to the Borg Cube, tear down old City Hall, reopen Frisco Avenue and Fifth Street to traffic, and sell the land (at market rates) to a private developer who can create some variety in the midst of that monotonous cluster of government buildings. If there's more room in the new City Hall than city government needs, move Central Library there, and let the district court adapt the current library building for their needs.
Before anything happens, though, let's make sure we don't put city government in a deeper financial hole.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
If the financials work out, (run on sentance)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Before anything happens, though, let's make sure we don't put city government in a deeper financial hole.
Same thing?
Anyways, the financial benefits are under investigation as we speak.
I'm confident that the study wouldn't even be taking place if Taylor & Co. didn't already know they got a hell of a deal on the giant glass building.
Bates brings up a good point on the District Courts, they have been wanting more space (and nearly had a new building a while back). However, I believe the sorting facilities currently located downtown for the USPS are being moved and the space will be available to the Courts.
Anyway:
When was the last time a government entity proposed something contingent on a "study" and then decided the study doesnt support it? In my humble opinion, those studies are just paying the choir to sing...
I hope I'm wrong and this is an opportunity to improve city services, save money, and help revitalize downtown. But I remain skeptical.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Bates brings up a good point on the District Courts, they have been wanting more space (and nearly had a new building a while back). However, I believe the sorting facilities currently located downtown for the USPS are being moved and the space will be available to the Courts.
Anyway:
When was the last time a government entity proposed something contingent on a "study" and then decided the study doesnt support it? In my humble opinion, those studies are just paying the choir to sing...
I hope I'm wrong and this is an opportunity to improve city services, save money, and help revitalize downtown. But I remain skeptical.
The sorting facility did move a while back. It will still take money & time to take that space over, even if it could be made useful.
Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse. I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved." There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down. Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.
Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject? What's changed?
And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.
City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse. I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved." There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down. Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.
Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject? What's changed?
And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.
City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.
OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive. Anything of quality, i can appreciate. Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture. In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction. I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too. But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks. You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case. In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather. The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years. The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.
Has anyone considered the Homeland Security of the proposed new City Hall building? Moving a major government operation into a totally glass enclosed structure doesn't seem the most secure to me.
There is very little 'secure' about the current City Hall facility.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Has anyone considered the Homeland Security of the proposed new City Hall building? Moving a major government operation into a totally glass enclosed structure doesn't seem the most secure to me.
The new building was built with a lot of security features built in. Given that terrorists rarely attack with lights (despite what boston thinks) the glass isn't real applicable.
bullsh*#t.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse. I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved." There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down. Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.
Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject? What's changed?
And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.
City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.
OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive. Anything of quality, i can appreciate. Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture. In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction. I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too. But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks. You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case. In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather. The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years. The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.
Great, I love architects. I'm a published art critic and I find City Hall a decent example of Modernism.
More important than the one structure is maintaining the integrity of civic center which could be livelier if anyone ever thought to present a free lunch time concert.
You complain about walking but many folks on this forum want to see walking as part of the downtown experience.
I agree all of the additions in the Civic Center area are bad and should be removed.
A careful restoration would leave us with a Modern gem that would grow in value. Other than the bad remodels and add-ons the problem with Civic Center is maintenance. There is a pattern in Tulsa of not funding maintenance.
You might say Tulsa is pound foolish and penny wise when it comes to maintenance of government property.
I'm not for "anything old." I'm for quality. Today's developers don't have the budgets that we had when the oil companies were headquartered here. Not to mention the general decline of work product across the board. Structures today tend to be built on the cheap.
And if you've made it this far let me ask you, "Do you believe that it is important for Tulsa to have a civic center?"
If you want to see what emphasis this City places on our public facilities, one need look no further than here:
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendadetail.asp?T=board&Q=TULSA+PUBLIC+FACILITIES+AUTHORITY%22)
The one meeting in October 2006 with an Agenda has only three items:
Election of Officers
Fiscal Year Financial Statement
Vision 2025 - Arena & Convention Center Project - Update
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
If you want to see what emphasis this City places on our public facilities, one need look no further than here:
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendadetail.asp?T=board&Q=TULSA+PUBLIC+FACILITIES+AUTHORITY%22)
The one meeting in October 2006 with an Agenda has only three items:
Election of Officers
Fiscal Year Financial Statement
Vision 2025 - Arena & Convention Center Project - Update
The Public Facilities Authority exists to issue bonds on the Convention Center and a handful of other projects. It has no bearing whatsoever on the maintenance of City Hall or other city facilities. That is overseen by the Building Maintenance division of the Public Works department.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse. I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved." There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down. Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.
Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject? What's changed?
And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.
City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.
OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive. Anything of quality, i can appreciate. Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture. In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction. I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too. But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks. You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case. In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather. The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years. The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.
Great, I love architects. I'm a published art critic and I find City Hall a decent example of Modernism.
More important than the one structure is maintaining the integrity of civic center which could be livelier if anyone ever thought to present a free lunch time concert.
You complain about walking but many folks on this forum want to see walking as part of the downtown experience.
I agree all of the additions in the Civic Center area are bad and should be removed.
A careful restoration would leave us with a Modern gem that would grow in value. Other than the bad remodels and add-ons the problem with Civic Center is maintenance. There is a pattern in Tulsa of not funding maintenance.
You might say Tulsa is pound foolish and penny wise when it comes to maintenance of government property.
I'm not for "anything old." I'm for quality. Today's developers don't have the budgets that we had when the oil companies were headquartered here. Not to mention the general decline of work product across the board. Structures today tend to be built on the cheap.
And if you've made it this far let me ask you, "Do you believe that it is important for Tulsa to have a civic center?"
Define walkable. I love walking. Downtown as it is IS walkable, you can walk across parking lots with more character than is currently available at the civic center plaza. There is very little sense of place there. To me, a walking environment would entail being able to window shop, stroll in clearly defined paths, something providing a sense of place. As it is today, the civic center plaza is a parking lot without stripes. And I don't know that it is all that important that we have a civic center plaza. I can imagine that the current city hall could be renovated and leased out as professional offices for lawyers. Or build a new modern building in it's place. If each of these buildings were spread out two or three blocks from each other, THAT would encourage a quality walking experience. Restaurants and shops on the way in between, etc. Where is the enjoyment in walking across that plaza? Bring on the Artist's old idea of a solar canopy. Farmer's market. Put some small cafes on it. A huge sheet of concrete that an occassional band will play on? We need activity, and free band lunches aren't enough.
Well I've spend most of my adult life in New York and San Francisco, so walkable to me is probably unaccepable to most Tulsans, who insist on parking next to the front entrance.
Back at the ranch:
The items you listed that were suggested by another poster to enliven civic center are all great ideas. Your thought about redeveloping city hall for offices is not bad. As it stands civic center is busier than anywhere else downtown.
The problem we have with our civic center is that its historic period is so close to us in time that it is difficult for us to see it as historic. But we will soon.
People hated Victoria bric-a-brac. Now they love it. Just as we now admire the architecture of the old county court house that was torn down. Look what Fort Worth has done with their old courthouse. We could have had that too.
Our fabulous old movie theatres rivaled the great ones. We tore ours down, even after other cities had begun to preserve theirs. The list goes on and on.
To our credit, all of this redevelopment means that a lot of people have a vested interest in Tulsa. But so much of it is misguided that I am afraid my beautiful hometown is no longer recognizable and we are in the fast lane driving as fast as we can, headed straight towards butt ugly.
Now, I'm acquainted with an architect that is working on a project outside of Tulsa for a well known oil man. He says that the word from their benefactor is "spend what ever you need to spend to do it right."
That is the spirit that built old Tulsa. New Tulsa isn't in the same class.
Word.
We can find 80 million dollars to buy a building in "tornado alley" that can not withstand strait winds, that is a hazard to the public from fragmented tempered glass, who engineering could have the domino effect like the twin towers, including 1140 space parking garage for 1400 employees but we cannot find 12 million dollars to repair the present city hall building.
Are we to believe the building under consideration would withstand a down burst like destroyed the church at 15th and Memorial? Course we could file that with the hundred year flood files.
Fifty years has changed from the centralizing of government function for public accessibility at the plaza to decentralizing of government functions under one roof.
Governments over the centuries build buildings that define the strength of the government it houses. Visiting dignitaries' would not be impressed by our glass house concept of our government .
We have all those birds in the bushes that want to buy the high priced city owned lands but I have not heard of any birds in our hands.
We arent paying 80 million for the building.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
We arent paying 80 million for the building.
who is then? Mickey Mouse?
Yeah, the city is doing real good at things coming in at the promised price, can anyone say: "BOK Center"?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
We arent paying 80 million for the building.
who is then? Mickey Mouse?
He's saying we won't pay that price.
As noted before, the owners are more interested in getting out than making a profit. I would assume there would be certain tax breaks as well when selling to a non-profit or governmental agency.
I'm personally all for consolidating into one building. This will not only increase efficency among departments, it should make it easier to see where redundancies exist...and better for the mayor to "drop in" on various agencies. I would expect long-term savings. Plus, I like the "transparancy" metaphor.
Parking will be much easier with the attached parking garage, and it will be easy to tell people where to go: "look for the building that looks like a Coke bottle." (I'm not fond of the architecture, but it's cool inside...and much better than the current hideous city hall.)
I do wonder why there are several hundred sand bags on the roof of One Technology Center. Does this hold the roof down in case of high winds? Doesn't seem very "high-tech."
And I remember back in the WCG days that anyone with a window cube really struggled with heat and glare from all the sunlight. (Hard to see your computer screen.) As I recall, people were instructed NOT to use umbrellas or large hunks of cardboard to shade their computer screens (didn't look professional/hi-tech to guests!) Did the glare issue ever get fixed? (One rumor at the time was that the glass was installed inside out, but surely that was an urban myth!)
nah, I visited clients at wiltel several times and I never experienced anything unpleasant about the building except you had to walk to the edge of the building to get to a bathroom.
Taking in consideration of the builders of the glass building and them wanting to get out from under the obligation of maintenance I get the same feeling that so many of the working poor stockholders were in, by the unprecedented action of misinformation and fraud, biked out of their saving in the deleting by the parent company of their stock interest.
The bargain glass building is being transferred again under the same conditions and procedures to the losses of the working poor. I am sure on the open real-estate market the selling price would be much, much less that the city paying 80 million for the glass monstrosity. Even if the mayor was to buy and give it to the city I would believe the upkeep cost would out distant all gains in this pre-energy construction, inefficiently deigned monster .
The present building halls seem to be where we are lacking in space. One can note that the parade of persons in the halls carrying coffee cups 8 hours a day are the city employees on their 8 hour coffee breaks. We do need more room for them in case some citizen has a problem and tries to meander around to find someone to talk with him.
It once was so easy to take you problems to a commissioner who overlooked single departments.
The unanswered question: Is this purchase being made to benefit the city bureaucrats or the struggling retirees or the working poor?
Or a party house for the visiting dignitaries?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
nah, I visited clients at wiltel several times and I never experienced anything unpleasant about the building except you had to walk to the edge of the building to get to a bathroom.
Cool! We can set up a web cam outside the buildilng so we'll know when our public officials take a crap. That's transparency!
yeah that was pretty weird., but really only one end of the building could be spied on since the north side just overlooked the street.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
nah, I visited clients at wiltel several times and I never experienced anything unpleasant about the building except you had to walk to the edge of the building to get to a bathroom.
Cool! We can set up a web cam outside the buildilng so we'll know when our public officials take a crap. That's transparency!
Ooof, be careful what you wish for... [xx(]
UTW article by Bates (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A16818%22)
Way too long to copy and paste, and it wouldn't make sense if butchered. But it sounds reasonable to me.
I hope if this does happen, they drop the plans to lease out the extra space and instead move the library to those floors.