WPX Downtown HQ

[SXSW]

Honestly I thought it would stick out being the tallest building in a mostly low-rise district but it fits in well with some of the other new buildings.  Now just need a company to move in and fill it with workers...bonus points for a new company moving to Tulsa and needing a brand new office in the most vibrant part of downtown

[shavethewhales]

Surely they have to be at the top now. I believe that is 11 stories, but unsure if there is some kind of mechanical penthouse on the top level. Looks like one more level on the parking garage.

Windows already going in. Can't wait to see some exterior finish. Hopefully it will still be the brickwork originally shown.

[tulsabug]

Honestly I thought it would stick out being the tallest building in a mostly low-rise district but it fits in well with some of the other new buildings.  Now just need a company to move in and fill it with workers...bonus points for a new company moving to Tulsa and needing a brand new office in the most vibrant part of downtown

I think it's going to be a tough fill since remote work is probably going to increase in the future but I guess we'll see. I'm glad they didn't scrap it when WPX left though.

[SXSW]

I think it's going to be a tough fill since remote work is probably going to increase in the future but I guess we'll see. I'm glad they didn't scrap it when WPX left though.

Maybe in the short term but within a year things will be mostly back to "normal" maybe with more hybrid schedules but still keeping their offices.  This building will be the nicest office space in one of the best locations in the city.  Great spot for a growing company to plant a flag.

[LandArchPoke]

Maybe in the short term but within a year things will be mostly back to "normal" maybe with more hybrid schedules but still keeping their offices.  This building will be the nicest office space in one of the best locations in the city.  Great spot for a growing company to plant a flag.

Something else that many people probably don't realize is the square feet per person post COVID is going to go up. Tech companies started it mainly because programmers/coders didn't need big offices and then every other company realized it was a way to cut down margins by cramming as many people into a space as possible. Then spin it as we're doing this for you, it's good for you, good for collaboration, etc. Pretty much everyone hates it outside of management hell bent on margin costs. There will be focus on 'social distancing' far into the future and actually looking into how that type of density in office space isn't a good thing. I've seen some studies that showed the flu went through offices twice as fast in the newer more dense floorplans. It's hard to avoid getting sick when you have 6-8 co workers staring you in your face everyday. It's also terrible for productivity for most workforces. So, while there will be a permanent increase to remote working for a lot, the amount of square feet per person using office space will likely double which in the end will limit some of the impact to office space usage. That trend wasn't overly prevalent in Tulsa, but in many of the bigger cities it was. I think you'll see it creep back up to 300 or 400 square feet per person where it was about through the 2000s but the 150 to 250 square feet per person trend is likely on the way out. There will also continue to be what is called the flight to quality, meaning newer buildings like this one. Better air flow, better filtration systems, etc. which helps keep people healthier. Well certification (https://www.wellcertified.com/) is the new 'LEED' but probably more beneficial.   

[buffalodan]

My company is going to try to reduce the building footprint post covid. I'm not sure how it will end up. But right now they are considering have some teams be a monday/wednesday/friday and some being tuesday/thursday. So you give each team more space, but they share it with others. Not sure what this will do the business space in the future though. I know quite a few companies aren't willing to do much work from home and are looking at increasing the personal space of everybody, so it may start to even out a bit?

[TulsaBeMore]

Something else that many people probably don't realize is the square feet per person post COVID is going to go up. Tech companies started it mainly because programmers/coders didn't need big offices and then every other company realized it was a way to cut down margins by cramming as many people into a space as possible. Then spin it as we're doing this for you, it's good for you, good for collaboration, etc. Pretty much everyone hates it outside of management hell bent on margin costs. There will be focus on 'social distancing' far into the future and actually looking into how that type of density in office space isn't a good thing. I've seen some studies that showed the flu went through offices twice as fast in the newer more dense floorplans. It's hard to avoid getting sick when you have 6-8 co workers staring you in your face everyday. It's also terrible for productivity for most workforces. So, while there will be a permanent increase to remote working for a lot, the amount of square feet per person using office space will likely double which in the end will limit some of the impact to office space usage. That trend wasn't overly prevalent in Tulsa, but in many of the bigger cities it was. I think you'll see it creep back up to 300 or 400 square feet per person where it was about through the 2000s but the 150 to 250 square feet per person trend is likely on the way out. There will also continue to be what is called the flight to quality, meaning newer buildings like this one. Better air flow, better filtration systems, etc. which helps keep people healthier. Well certification (https://www.wellcertified.com/) is the new 'LEED' but probably more beneficial.   

Good stuff

[TulsaBeMore]

Maybe in the short term but within a year things will be mostly back to "normal" maybe with more hybrid schedules but still keeping their offices.  This building will be the nicest office space in one of the best locations in the city.  Great spot for a growing company to plant a flag.

Agreed. 

Also, not expecting this caliber of a tenant, but I wondered why Nestle USA moved from its swanky 30-year Glendale, CA headquarters to a building in Arlington, VA.  I figured it was to be closer to lobby the federal government or similar.  But, I read an article where a Nestle exec/insider said increasing Cali costs of all kinds and longstanding time zone business issues in California set the company looking for a new state.  It was said a large part of the Arlington decision aside from any incentives (which everyone offers) was a new Class-A swanky glass office tower overlooking DC. It was empty --- can't recall for sure, but I think the building was a rare spec building as opposed to a large tenant leaving.  I wonder if some incentives and a shiny new available building could lure an out-of-state headquarters here.  Something additive would be great as opposed to Magellan, ONEGAS or somebody just changing addresses.     

[LandArchPoke]

My company is going to try to reduce the building footprint post covid. I'm not sure how it will end up. But right now they are considering have some teams be a monday/wednesday/friday and some being tuesday/thursday. So you give each team more space, but they share it with others. Not sure what this will do the business space in the future though. I know quite a few companies aren't willing to do much work from home and are looking at increasing the personal space of everybody, so it may start to even out a bit?

That's my assumption is eventually it will even out for the most part. It at least won't be a dramatic downsizing in office space that some have predicted nationally.

Agreed. 

Also, not expecting this caliber of a tenant, but I wondered why Nestle USA moved from its swanky 30-year Glendale, CA headquarters to a building in Arlington, VA.  I figured it was to be closer to lobby the federal government or similar.  But, I read an article where a Nestle exec/insider said increasing Cali costs of all kinds and longstanding time zone business issues in California set the company looking for a new state.  It was said a large part of the Arlington decision aside from any incentives (which everyone offers) was a new Class-A swanky glass office tower overlooking DC. It was empty --- can't recall for sure, but I think the building was a rare spec building as opposed to a large tenant leaving.  I wonder if some incentives and a shiny new available building could lure an out-of-state headquarters here.  Something additive would be great as opposed to Magellan, ONEGAS or somebody just changing addresses.     

That deal was mainly because they felt they could recruit better in the DC market. The LA market is challenging for professional businesses. That building also had a very desperate landlord (who I also worked for). They got a crazy deal on that space just so that developer could get an anchor tenant in the building, add in incentives from local and state and it made sense for them to relocate. The DC area at that time had several Class A trophy properties completely vacant that were built spec. They still have buildings in NOVA built spec over a decade ago that have never been occupied. After BRAC it really screwed the office market, particularly in NOVA. There was also a dramatic shift around that time to buildings along the metro and there's some submarkets that just will never recover.

But you do have a good point in that sometimes having an available building can be enough to pull in a surprise. I hope given the quality and location that we can snag someone new to the market. Part of Tulsa's problem too that I've seen in other markets is the lack of entitled sites. If you're looking for an HQ in Denver, Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake, Portland, etc. there's at least a dozen trophy buildings ready to break ground. In Tulsa that's not the case, and that's enough to get chopped off a list sometimes when they're looking in the 18 to 24 months range. A lot of companies don't want to risk going through the entitlement process and having to get a building designed, they'd rather just tweak plans that are shovel ready and are sure things when they are expanding into new markets or completely relocating.

[Red Arrow]

Something else that many people probably don't realize is the square feet per person post COVID is going to go up. Tech companies started it mainly because programmers/coders didn't need big offices and then every other company realized it was a way to cut down margins by cramming as many people into a space as possible. Then spin it as we're doing this for you, it's good for you, good for collaboration, etc. Pretty much everyone hates it outside of management hell bent on margin costs. There will be focus on 'social distancing' far into the future and actually looking into how that type of density in office space isn't a good thing. I've seen some studies that showed the flu went through offices twice as fast in the newer more dense floorplans. It's hard to avoid getting sick when you have 6-8 co workers staring you in your face everyday. It's also terrible for productivity for most workforces. So, while there will be a permanent increase to remote working for a lot, the amount of square feet per person using office space will likely double which in the end will limit some of the impact to office space usage. That trend wasn't overly prevalent in Tulsa, but in many of the bigger cities it was. I think you'll see it creep back up to 300 or 400 square feet per person where it was about through the 2000s but the 150 to 250 square feet per person trend is likely on the way out. There will also continue to be what is called the flight to quality, meaning newer buildings like this one. Better air flow, better filtration systems, etc. which helps keep people healthier. Well certification (https://www.wellcertified.com/) is the new 'LEED' but probably more beneficial.   

I worked through several cycles of "office" and cubicle sizes.  Mostly the cubes were always a bit too small.  Do your 300 to 400 and 150 to 250 sq-ft/person include hallways, restrooms, conference rooms.....?  I think the biggest cube I ever had was 8' x 10' and that was when engineers were still dealing with E-size (34" x 44") paper blue-lines in the early to mid 1980s.  The drafting department took care of the originals.

I am retired now but my former employer converted some of the collaborative work areas back to individual cubes due to Covid.

[LandArchPoke]

I worked through several cycles of "office" and cubicle sizes.  Mostly the cubes were always a bit too small.  Do your 300 to 400 and 150 to 250 sq-ft/person include hallways, restrooms, conference rooms.....?  I think the biggest cube I ever had was 8' x 10' and that was when engineers were still dealing with E-size (34" x 44") paper blue-lines in the early to mid 1980s.  The drafting department took care of the originals.

I am retired now but my former employer converted some of the collaborative work areas back to individual cubes due to Covid.

Yeah, that includes the net rentable area so everything but stairwells, elevators, (bathrooms and hallways if the floorplate is broken up into multiple tenants) that kind of thing. The 300 to 400 sq. ft. per person was a pretty common metric in the 1990s to around mid to late 2000s. 2010 and on is when that decreased pretty rapidly. A lot of that had to do with that being around when the reubranization started really taking in most cities around the US too, and many employers were moving to urban areas and trying to figure out ways to decrease operating costs in the process from overhead like office space.   

[TulsaBeMore]

That deal was mainly because they felt they could recruit better in the DC market. The LA market is challenging for professional businesses. That building also had a very desperate landlord (who I also worked for). They got a crazy deal on that space just so that developer could get an anchor tenant in the building, add in incentives from local and state and it made sense for them to relocate. The DC area at that time had several Class A trophy properties completely vacant that were built spec. They still have buildings in NOVA built spec over a decade ago that have never been occupied. After BRAC it really screwed the office market, particularly in NOVA. There was also a dramatic shift around that time to buildings along the metro and there's some submarkets that just will never recover.

But you do have a good point in that sometimes having an available building can be enough to pull in a surprise. I hope given the quality and location that we can snag someone new to the market. Part of Tulsa's problem too that I've seen in other markets is the lack of entitled sites. If you're looking for an HQ in Denver, Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake, Portland, etc. there's at least a dozen trophy buildings ready to break ground. In Tulsa that's not the case, and that's enough to get chopped off a list sometimes when they're looking in the 18 to 24 months range. A lot of companies don't want to risk going through the entitlement process and having to get a building designed, they'd rather just tweak plans that are shovel ready and are sure things when they are expanding into new markets or completely relocating.

Good thoughts. Thank you. Nestle thought they could recruit better in DC than Los Angeles - OK.  It would be easier in the packaged food industry to recruit in Chicago or Dallas or a handful of other cities where that industry and fast-moving consumer products HQs/ops are well represented over suburban DC.  That led me to believe the Nestle move was either to be closer to the DC power/regulation crowd --- or even more likely, they looked around and saw that great building which in opulence looks near the same in class as the Brand Blvd. building in Glendale.  If a similar building and deal existed in Chicago or Charlotte --- for example --- you think Nestle would still pick Arlington, VA? 

[tulsabug]

Something else that many people probably don't realize is the square feet per person post COVID is going to go up. Tech companies started it mainly because programmers/coders didn't need big offices and then every other company realized it was a way to cut down margins by cramming as many people into a space as possible. Then spin it as we're doing this for you, it's good for you, good for collaboration, etc. Pretty much everyone hates it outside of management hell bent on margin costs. There will be focus on 'social distancing' far into the future and actually looking into how that type of density in office space isn't a good thing. I've seen some studies that showed the flu went through offices twice as fast in the newer more dense floorplans. It's hard to avoid getting sick when you have 6-8 co workers staring you in your face everyday. It's also terrible for productivity for most workforces. So, while there will be a permanent increase to remote working for a lot, the amount of square feet per person using office space will likely double which in the end will limit some of the impact to office space usage. That trend wasn't overly prevalent in Tulsa, but in many of the bigger cities it was. I think you'll see it creep back up to 300 or 400 square feet per person where it was about through the 2000s but the 150 to 250 square feet per person trend is likely on the way out. There will also continue to be what is called the flight to quality, meaning newer buildings like this one. Better air flow, better filtration systems, etc. which helps keep people healthier. Well certification (https://www.wellcertified.com/) is the new 'LEED' but probably more beneficial.   

Great point! I hope they do increase the amount of sq ft per employee as my experience in the corporate world was "stack 'em deep and pay 'em cheap". We were piled desk next to desk next to desk to the point the noise level made phone calls difficult (a real problem in a call center) - good times.

[LandArchPoke]

Good thoughts. Thank you. Nestle thought they could recruit better in DC than Los Angeles - OK.  It would be easier in the packaged food industry to recruit in Chicago or Dallas or a handful of other cities where that industry and fast-moving consumer products HQs/ops are well represented over suburban DC.  That led me to believe the Nestle move was either to be closer to the DC power/regulation crowd --- or even more likely, they looked around and saw that great building which in opulence looks near the same in class as the Brand Blvd. building in Glendale.  If a similar building and deal existed in Chicago or Charlotte --- for example --- you think Nestle would still pick Arlington, VA?  

I think some of it likely had to do with MARS being based in McLean too and Hersey is just up the road in PA, so there's companies in that region they can recruit from. Chicago and Dallas definitely would have made sense too, but my guess is some of the executives didn't want to live there. The bonus of being in the capital and being able to have more visibility in the lobbying community probably didn't hurt either. Nestle has a lot of ties to Europe and DC is easier to get to than LA, Chicago or Dallas too. International flights into the NE are generally cheaper than Chicago or Dallas given you can fly into a variety of cities even outside of DC and then take a train into DC if needed and a flight into DC instead of LA takes off hours of travel time as well. A lot of the execs had stronger ties to the NE than anywhere else - generally at the end of the day that is usually what it boils down to is where the execs want it to be and they'll justify it for whatever other reason they can figure out.

LA has been a challenging market for the more corporate world given it's more of an arts and entertainment focused region. Most of the big HQ's there have struggled for years finding and retaining good talent compared to places like NY, Boston, DC and even areas like Dallas, Chicago, etc. that are just different culture wise and attract different types of people to move to those areas than LA does.

[DTowner]

I'm not sure why, but if you look at this space you will be told the top two floors are not available. 

Anyone know the answer why?