From the Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081001_11_A1_Arende901685):
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/20081001_Raskinfinal.jpg)
quote:
A hotel project pitch was made Tuesday to the Tulsa Development Authority for the city property that is for sale across the street from the BOK Center.
The $38.8 million development by Howard Raskin and funded through a private trust would consume the square block from Second to Third streets and Denver to Cheyenne avenues and include a 200-room hotel, structured parking, and conference, retail and restaurant space.
The hotel likely would be under the Westin or Hyatt name, Raskin said, but representatives of the Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons also have been contacted about being involved.
Raskin said the quality demanded by the two luxury brands would double the projected cost of the project.
"We're going to have to see if it makes sense financially," he said.
The TDA — which is the city's real estate arm — has control over only the 1.29-acre, L-shaped parcel now used for parking. It is valued at $1.6 million.
Raskin said he had a contract to purchase the remaining building on the square block. The structure is owned by Geotrend LLC and leased to the arena's building team.
But he said he was having trouble reaching the out-of-state owner of the lot that
was the site of the now-razed Towerview Apartments to complete the development area.
"I don't see that as a stumbling block, though," he said. "We'll find him."
Larry Gordon Wilson of Tanner Consulting, which is working with Raskin, said the BOK Center was the catalyst that downtown needed for developers to pursue projects such as the one being pitched to the development authority.
"People can go beyond their vision and make things a reality," he said.
The presentation Tuesday was the first for the city parcel since it has been marketed by a private real estate firm, Jones Lang LaSalle of Chicago.
Kurt Little, the firm's managing director, said there were a "handful of other prospects" and that more proposals would be made to the TDA.
The firm has a one-year, $375,000 contract with the authority to market several parcels of publicly owned land in or near downtown.
TDA Chairman Carl Bracy said the authority would decide who gets to buy the lot across from the arena.
"We're really looking at what will be the best fit for that location, and not just for right now, for the next 10, 20 and 30 years," he said, adding that the authority had no time frame for a decision.
"It's not something we're going to rush," he said.
The authority put out a request for proposals for the site in 2006 and got one: a city-block-size development that would have included a Westin hotel, condominiums and commercial space.
But the developer, Heavenly Hospitality LLC of Anthem, Ariz., made too many demands, including moving the main bus terminal and renovating or demolishing nearby, privately owned buildings that it considered eyesores.
Damn, you beat me to it! I was just about to post this!
Good news, IMO. This is just the kind of economic development that behemoths like the arena are supposed to spur.
I also know that the numer of downtown hotel rooms limits the kind of larger scale events that might otherwise be attracted to the arena or to the convention center. With only the Doubletree, the Crowne, and the Ambassador, there's a real dearth of rooms. For instance, my hotel (which is out near 169) was asked to bid on accomodations for a fairly well known evangelist who's coming to the BOK this year. We're 8+ miles away from the action, and yet we'll still be included as part of the rooming options. Meaning that when there's only 700-800 rooms available downtown, multiday events that attract 10,000 or more people become very hard to accomodate.
So possible new downtown rooms now include: Mayo Hotel at 100, Courtyard by Marriott at 120, and this Hyatt or Westin project at 200. That looks like a booming market to me, my friends.
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
Their BOK Center rendering is horrible and I'd prefer something a bit more unique, but this is only an initial drawing...
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
It's currently closed for remodeling.
Lets hope the city pushes for a pedestrian friendly ground level on the west and south facing sides of whatever goes in there.
You would think that these types of places would make their restaurant, gift shop, bar, etc. have connections to the street. Make them part of the fabric of the area they are in and not "seclude" and hide them within the hotel? They would get a lot more business that way. You could even make each have its own unique looking storefront. The restaurant could even have some outdoor seating. I have never eaten at the Crowne Plazas restaurant, and dont they have a Starbucks? I have been around the hotel but havent seen either and am not going to wander around inside a hotel looking.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
It's currently closed for remodeling.
Didn't some developer from western Oklahoma buy it last year and is putting six or seven million into the building and is going to rebrand it into a Residence Inn or something?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
It's currently closed for remodeling.
Didn't some developer from western Oklahoma buy it last year and is putting six or seven million into the building and is going to rebrand it into a Residence Inn or something?
I was told it was "local" so that could jive. I went by there to talk to them yesterday but there was no sign of anyone in charge, just workers.
That new hotel will block the view of our pretty arena.
Why can't they just build it all underground?
Sure, the rooms won't have windows, but think of how easy it would be to keep the temperature constant. Plus, they could all double as storm shelters.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Their BOK Center rendering is horrible and I'd prefer something a bit more unique, but this is only an initial drawing...
Wow, did they do that in MS Paint???
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Their BOK Center rendering is horrible and I'd prefer something a bit more unique, but this is only an initial drawing...
Wow, did they do that in MS Paint???
Flat shading FTW /sarcasm
Let me rephrase:
Hotel development - Yay
TDA - Boo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets hope the city pushes for a pedestrian friendly ground level on the west and south facing sides of whatever goes in there.
You would think that these types of places would make their restaurant, gift shop, bar, etc. have connections to the street. Make them part of the fabric of the area they are in and not "seclude" and hide them within the hotel? They would get a lot more business that way. You could even make each have its own unique looking storefront. The restaurant could even have some outdoor seating. I have never eaten at the Crowne Plazas restaurant, and dont they have a Starbucks? I have been around the hotel but havent seen either and am not going to wander around inside a hotel looking.
Pedestrian friendliness was my first thought in looking at that rendering.
The Crowne Plaza has actually done a pretty decent job in that. You could eat at The Daily Grill almost without noticing it's part of a hotel.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
It's currently closed for remodeling.
Didn't some developer from western Oklahoma buy it last year and is putting six or seven million into the building and is going to rebrand it into a Residence Inn or something?
I was told it was "local" so that could jive. I went by there to talk to them yesterday but there was no sign of anyone in charge, just workers.
Are you refering to the Downtowner where Coney Island is? Or is it a different location?
I think he's talking about the one at 7th and Boulder. It's being turned into some type of extended stay hotel.
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
I think he's talking about the one at 7th and Boulder. It's being turned into some type of extended stay hotel.
The old Holiday Inn. Thanks.
I did the model of the hotel. It's very basic and conceptual. The arena model is just a simple "placeholder" model for location illustration. I did not produce it.
As the project progresses the model will become an actual rendering, and YES the arena will look much more refined. This image was for presentation to the TDA and is very preliminary.
Our Architect, Larry Gordon Wilson, AIA is really trying to push the envelope by reinforcing the Art-Deco style.
It is an exciting project, and our developer, Mr. Raskin, has gone a long way to make sure that all of the financial elements are in place. He is also making NO demands of the city, which is refreshing. He's an old-school developer that likes private projects funded by private interests rather than reaching into your pocket.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/2905050442_1eee33a056_b.jpg)
Can you tell us what the windowless part on the SE corner is then? Convention space?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Can you tell us what the windowless part on the SE corner is then? Convention space?
A portion of that will be convention space depending on the hotel chain that Mr. Raskin selects. That portion will also be expanded to accommodate at least a 200 car enclosed garage.
We want any parking we develop for the site to be completely hidden from recognition as a parking structure. Tulsa has enough of those.
I like the concept especially the large amount of store front that it provides. Lot's of good possibilities for a variety of businesses. I also like the disguised parking garage, it helps it blend into the design so that it does not take away from the flow and design.
That's a pretty sexy building. I'm excited...
Thanks for the other rendering. Glad to see it's more storefronts and glass.
Knowing we have a man on the "inside" will help me accept this project. Too often it seems like pipe dreams, but Gas seems a straight shooter.
I'm also excited to hear about embracing the Art Deco theme. I look forward to more details (and renderings).
We are excited too. We are not the only player on this property though. The city & Jones Lang LeSalle is entertaining other developers who are currently working on proposals and concepts for various developments on this land or portions of it.
Mr. Raskin is however the only developer (to my knowledge) with contracts on most of the property and a plan that does not request or require public funds.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We are excited too. We are not the only player on this property though. The city & Jones Lang LeSalle is entertaining other developers who are currently working on proposals and concepts for various developments on this land or portions of it.
Mr. Raskin is however the only developer (to my knowledge) with contracts on most of the property and a plan that does not request or require public funds.
The devil gives it %20 chance of becoming reality based on the players. Nice crayola renderings.
They best hurry because in 2 years, the arena turns into a white elephant.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
PS. I'm waiting for someone to swoop in on that no-name downtown hotel (Downtown Plaza Hotel or something?), dump couple of mil$ all over it and rebrand it completely. It seems just ripe for the picking.
I'm a volunteer for the National Historic Route 66 Federation for its Dining and Lodging Guide, which requires my wife and I to make recommendations for restaurant and hotel options for certain segments. We have to visit each of these places personally and even make unannounced room inspections of the hotels. We have the Tulsa segment.
The Downtown Plaza is on an old alignment of Route 66 through downtown. I went earlier this summer to check it out, but wasn't terribly optimistic it would be listed.
Was I ever wrong. The hotel had just undergone extensive renovation. It has just about every amenity you can think of, and it was immaculately clean and fresh.
The best hotel in Tulsa is the Ambassador. But I wouldn't hesitate to stay in the Downtown Plaza. And it's going to be cheaper -- from $99 to $150 a night.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We are excited too. We are not the only player on this property though. The city & Jones Lang LeSalle is entertaining other developers who are currently working on proposals and concepts for various developments on this land or portions of it.
Mr. Raskin is however the only developer (to my knowledge) with contracts on most of the property and a plan that does not request or require public funds.
The devil gives it %20 chance of becoming reality based on the players. Nice crayola renderings.
They best hurry because in 2 years, the arena turns into a white elephant.
Thank you. Your optimism and vast development knowledge is always welcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We are excited too. We are not the only player on this property though. The city & Jones Lang LeSalle is entertaining other developers who are currently working on proposals and concepts for various developments on this land or portions of it.
Mr. Raskin is however the only developer (to my knowledge) with contracts on most of the property and a plan that does not request or require public funds.
The devil gives it %20 chance of becoming reality based on the players. Nice crayola renderings.
They best hurry because in 2 years, the arena turns into a white elephant.
Thank you. Your optimism and vast development knowledge is always welcome.
I think it comes from living here too long and seeing how you have to include certain people or you don't get to play in the next round.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We want any parking we develop for the site to be completely hidden from recognition as a parking structure. Tulsa has enough of those.
Glad to hear there's a desire to disguise the structured parking. Does that mean street-level retail in addition to cool design? (It should! The Downtown Master Plan recommends that all stuctured parking should have "retail or other active uses along the street face"...with the goal of creating an "active, mixed-use, compact, pedestrian-friendly environment.")
The other thing that is devestating to a walkable, downtown area is any large expanse of a single thing (like a building with big, blank walls, or a large office building). The more street frontage that is dedicated to a variety of uses, the better. This encourages pedestrians, increases safety, and stimiluates lively streets with opportunities for people watching, shopping, dining, etc.)
How cool would it be if "conference center" didn't have to mean "single-use obstacle to pedestrians." Imagine a conference center surrounded by a ring of human-scaled, restaurant/retail on the streetfront!
I can't tell if that's in the plan based on these drawings...but if it is, it would make a spectacular contribution to downtown. And it would set the standard for all future downtown infill projects.
I've got my fingers crossed!
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We want any parking we develop for the site to be completely hidden from recognition as a parking structure. Tulsa has enough of those.
Glad to hear there's a desire to disguise the structured parking. Does that mean street-level retail in addition to cool design? (It should! The Downtown Master Plan recommends that all stuctured parking should have "retail or other active uses along the street face"...with the goal of creating an "active, mixed-use, compact, pedestrian-friendly environment.")
The other thing that is devestating to a walkable, downtown area is any large expanse of a single thing (like a building with big, blank walls, or a large office building). The more street frontage that is dedicated to a variety of uses, the better. This encourages pedestrians, increases safety, and stimiluates lively streets with opportunities for people watching, shopping, dining, etc.)
How cool would it be if "conference center" didn't have to mean "single-use obstacle to pedestrians." Imagine a conference center surrounded by a ring of human-scaled, restaurant/retail on the streetfront!
I can't tell if that's in the plan based on these drawings...but if it is, it would make a spectacular contribution to downtown. And it would set the standard for all future downtown infill projects.
I've got my fingers crossed!
Yes retail all around. The only break will be for entrance to the hotel and parking structure, but we are working to make that have the least impact on the frontage. What you see on the East side of the structure (the part with no windows) is due to the fact that the garage entry location is still under consideration.
There is approximately 45,000 s.f. of retail/restaurant facing the street.
Channel 2 will have more info on the development this evening on the 5 o'clock news.
This sounds like an incredibly intelligent, downtown-sensitive project. It's obvious that you and the others have spend a lot of time considering exactly what Tulsa needs to fill that space in a way that is most beneficial to the immediate area.
Here's wishing you and the developer best of luck with dealing with a capricious, aritrary TDA as well as tight credit markets. FOTD's percent likelihood was, unfortunately, more observation of reality than naysaying. Please keep us posted on progress--and feel free to ask for our input (though it appears you already have been doing so on the sly). [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
This sounds like an incredibly intelligent, downtown-sensitive project. It's obvious that you and the others have spend a lot of time considering exactly what Tulsa needs to fill that space in a way that is most beneficial to the immediate area.
Here's wishing you and the developer best of luck with dealing with a capricious, aritrary TDA as well as tight credit markets. FOTD's percent likelihood was, unfortunately, more observation of reality than naysaying. Please keep us posted on progress--and feel free to ask for our input (though it appears you already have been doing so on the sly). [8D]
The credit for the design goes to our architect, Larry Gordon Wilson, and we are always listening. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Here's wishing you and the developer best of luck with dealing with a capricious, arbitrary TDA as well as tight credit markets.
If the TDA sold itself the property back-and-forth (using pseudo-corporations) to inflate the price, it could end up requiring some sort of taxpayer rescue when the costs go over.
Hopefully the taxpayers will be enjoying a better economy by then.
This is great news. Thanks for all of the inside info and the renderings Gaspar.
Channel 8 was just here too, so I have to give them a shout out. You can get more info on both 2 and 8 tonight.
Gaspar, I also appreciate the thoughtful way this project has been conceptualized. Especially your thoughts about not breaking up the sidewalk. It seems unlikely from the renderings that the garage access points would align with the curb cuts for the alley that ran north/south through the block. But the alleys have proven that one mid-block curb cut still allows for a good pedestrian environment. Seems as though that's generally your aim, which is a good plan IMHO.
I like it so far. Glad to see the other side with the pedestrian friendly stuff facing the arena. I know the garage side cant be perfect. There is the old saying pertaining to pedestrian friendliness, "If you try to make every street a perfect street, none of them will be." You just have to decide which streets you want to be your "A" streets that will hopefully connect to other "A" streets and areas... and which will be your "B" streets. This looks to be the obvious approach in that respect.
However... you can make even blank walls more interesting to people who will have to walk by them. Course it adds to the cost but perhaps some simple, creative ideas like....
If during construction some panels are delineated in whatever the wall material is so that artwork can be painted on them [8D] like such...
Would be a very inexpensive way to add life, color and interest to what could otherwise be a boring wall.
(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/9682/fashiondistrict133wc5.jpg)
Then have local artists, TCC art students, etc. volunteer to do some funky colorful artwork in each panel. It would liven up that side of the building. Situate each panel between the trees. You could even set some paramaters. Do whatever you like but have an art-deco theme to it. Or just let em have at it... after you approve it of course lol. Also that wall could use a "wainscotting" of a different color to add something extra to it.
I will volunteer to do one of the panels. [:D]
Btw, style wise. My first impression was more contempo/retro 50s than deco. But regardless, I like either lol.
Gaspar,
I'm sure it has already been considered, but in case it hasn't, that roof space above the retail would make for a spectacular rooftop bar, restaurant or beer garden. The views of the arena and the rest of downtown would be amazing and would rival the best rooftop bars in Austin, San Diego and Denver.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaEx
Gaspar,
I'm sure it has already been considered, but in case it hasn't, that roof space above the retail would make for a spectacular rooftop bar, restaurant or beer garden. The views of the arena and the rest of downtown would be amazing and would rival the best rooftop bars in Austin, San Diego and Denver.
Yes there are some plans for the roof space. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Btw, style wise. My first impression was more contempo/retro 50s than deco. But regardless, I like either lol.
there are definitely deco elements there. The problem for art deco is that the main movement didn't have the advancements of glass technology we have now. you sort of have to take a new outlook on art deco because of this.
There are actually quite a few structural and material advances that allow the style to better accentuate the Deco style and make many of the Deco elements functional as well.
You have to understand that Art Deco is not just a single style. It's very wide in its interpretation. Usually the recognizable element of Art Deco is the use of accentuated geometry that extends beyond the "necessary." It can be very jagged and geometrically ornate or very streemlined, or it may contain elements of both.
It has a mechanical aspect that makes it seem modern. Today we have the materials and engineering to build in this style and actually make the "accentuated" elements functional parts of the design rather than simply ornamentation.
DT Tulsa still has many Art Deco elements, but over time we have added a majority of simple rectangle and square glass structures. I think this design will help to re-invigorate the architectural diversity in downtown and hopefully spur other designers and architects to revive Tulsa's unique Art Deco pedigree.
It's a really fun style to work with because it lends immense creative opportunity and as I mentioned before, we now have materials that will make sure elements of this style are useful economical and stand the test of time.
I can't predict how this development will end up. To a large extent, the Hotel, and anchors may dictate the ultimate style, but so far we have gotten a huge rush of support for what we are proposing, and this will certainly help us to maintain a strong influence over the end product.
People look at the arena and think Wow!
So lets surround it with buildings that continue that emotional response.
There are still several parcels of land available downtown for very reasonable prices. I think as good developers realize these opportunities and gain a comfort level working with the city to produce the absolute best project for each site, we will see an explosion downtown development.
I just hope that the city feels that our project is a fit for this land. We have our fingers crossed.
I saw the story on Channel 2 last night and was impressed even more. From what I have heard in the past, I don't think you will have a problem with TDA. They mishandled the Greenwood deal but that is because they were dealing with several things that they have never dealt with before, whereas this is a fairly cut-and-dry deal.
Channel 8 story, with video:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1008/558155.html
My only concern about TDA and the Mayor's office is this: Old City Hall is ostensibly on the market as well as a potential site for a convention hotel. That site won't be ready for development for some time, but it still concerns me that, as in the case of Novus homes, there is potential for the development priorities of the TDA and the Mayor's office to get sideways.
Get your popcorn ready.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Yes retail all around. The only break will be for entrance to the hotel and parking structure, but we are working to make that have the least impact on the frontage. What you see on the East side of the structure (the part with no windows) is due to the fact that the garage entry location is still under consideration.
There is approximately 45,000 s.f. of retail/restaurant facing the street.
Thanks for the info! Sounds like a great plan!
Questions:
Why would the city allow more convention space.?
Does Tulsa need more convention space downtown or anywhere in town with more than a 100 to 200 occupancy rate?
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Questions:
Why would the city allow more convention space.?
Does Tulsa need more convention space downtown or anywhere in town with more than a 100 to 200 occupancy rate?
Consider it "event" space.
People like to have very nice, new small-to-medium size meeting and banquet rooms. For instance, let's say I'm getting married at a church downtown (Trinity or First Baptist or Boston Ave) and my wedding is going to be big--like 300 people. I need a large ballroom with kitchen capacity and waitstaff for the reception. This would be the kind of hotel where I can tell my guests to stay, get a suite for the wedding night, and have an afterparty at the rooftop bar, all while showing out of towners how fun downtown Tulsa can be.
Or you could host a class reunion there.
Or a meeting of vacuum salesmen.
Demand is growing for meeting space downtown, which is why developers are starting to look at parcels down there for conference/meeting space. It's not really a direct competition to any of City of Tulsa's convention space. Rather, it's complementary.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Questions:
Why would the city allow more convention space.?
Does Tulsa need more convention space downtown or anywhere in town with more than a 100 to 200 occupancy rate?
Speaking as a hotel sales guy, that arena is a huge a juicy tomato for the hospitality industry. Events that go into that arena are almost all like small solar systems: the arena event is the sun, and in its orbit are often several smaller events that need better tailored space and catering. My hotel hosted some sales meetings that were affiliated with Zig Ziglar's motivational seminar . . . but not booked or paid for by the seminar people. About a hundred and fifty sufficiently motived people showed up and they sold a lot of books. And we made out pretty well, too.
Point being, that arena alone is worth lots an lots of money from an event booking standpoint. And that doesn't account for other DT business, like the huge corporate and association market.
Inteller seems to be on his game in this thread.
Art Deco will be different with glass technology allowing more "open space" on the facade of building. The TDA will be under pressure to let this go through, but if push comes to shove and a TDA principals interest was involved - I too think they would hold it up. And we do need more publicly available medium sized space.
Per the "Old City Hall." From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan. It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down. And why bother? There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.
PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.
Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it? I say 9 years. We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller seems to be on his game in this thread.
Art Deco will be different with glass technology allowing more "open space" on the facade of building. The TDA will be under pressure to let this go through, but if push comes to shove and a TDA principals interest was involved - I too think they would hold it up. And we do need more publicly available medium sized space.
Per the "Old City Hall." From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan. It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down. And why bother? There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.
PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.
Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it? I say 9 years. We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."
I think it will move faster than that. There is too much opportunity there, and if our project is the spark, there is a lot of fire just waiting to spread.
Developers in the area have gotten out of residential for the moment and are looking for this type of project. If they see that the city and its proxies are working in a cooperative manner with private developers those relationships will flourish again.
I think when it comes to downtown, many developers are leery and tightlipped about their plans. Unfortunately this makes it difficult for the city to get a pulse on the market.
Our doors are flapping with developers looking for projects, and what they are looking for now differs significantly from what they were looking for a year ago or two years ago. The shift is towards commercial/multi-use and urban projects, and there are a limited amount of sites.
I think, when it comes to the remaining parcels downtown, they are just waiting for the starting gun.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Per the "Old City Hall." From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan. It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down. And why bother? There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.
PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.
Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it? I say 9 years. We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."
There's very likely a 'plan' we've not yet been told about. Other shoe.
Since the County is not only staying, but has plans to expanding onsite, there's reason to believe this figures into things. The courthouse activity will remain heavy. My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.
I really like the idea of turning the building into legal-services office space. Not just for lawyers, but maybe also a school that teaches skills for the criminal justice system (paralegal, court filing, etc).
I don't really think that I would want to stay in a hotel that is just seconds from the courthouse.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Per the "Old City Hall." From the beginning I wasn't buying that plan. It would be very hard to revamp that building into a modern hotel and based on its location it would be very hard to take it down. And why bother? There is space available downtown to build and empty attractive and historic buildings where funds would be available to revamp.
PLUS, as soon as the deal was approved allowing the city to move to their new crystal palace they lost all incentive to actual try.
Over/under on how long that building sits empty before we either give it away (essentially) or pay to have something done with it? I say 9 years. We've already gone 1 since it has "been on the market."
There's very likely a 'plan' we've not yet been told about. Other shoe.
Since the County is not only staying, but has plans to expanding onsite, there's reason to believe this figures into things. The courthouse activity will remain heavy. My bet, law offices. They want to get as close to the Courthouse as possible.
Lawyers are about flashy cars and flashy offices. You might get legal aid to move in there but that is about it. I be in a year the city "condemns it" and demolishes old city hall, tenant or no.
I think part of the $80 million for the new city hall was actually money for the demolition of the old city hall. My understanding is that building is coming down.
Sq, not all lawyers are about flash. It depends on your clients and the principals. As it the building would be sub par (not good enough for city government...) for many purposes.
In addition to attorneys the U of Tulsa law could use some space in the area for something, bail bond companies, court reporters, process servers, copy shop/office supply. Maybe a library extension or archives?
Bah. My hopes are not high for that building. That's my point.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Sq, not all lawyers are about flash. It depends on your clients and the principals. As it the building would be sub par (not good enough for city government...) for many purposes.
In addition to attorneys the U of Tulsa law could use some space in the area for something, bail bond companies, court reporters, process servers, copy shop/office supply. Maybe a library extension or archives?
Bah. My hopes are not high for that building. That's my point.
I know, there are the ones who drive pathfinders and weigh 80 pounds if they're carrying luggage.
There's nothing wrong with that building, most of the complaints were marketing for the new place. At worst, it can be stripped down to the structure and made into whatever one wishes.
Expansion of it's structure is also possible. It could become quite a law center, complete with an auditorium/classrom (former Council Chambers).
Between the County Courthouse and the Federal Building across the street, demand for legal space in the immediate area would be large.
It wouldn't even need to be primary space. That is, ancillary offices of/for every attorney in town when working on live cases. Make the thing into a large number of suites for multiple tenants.
It's not like the city isn't a landlord already.
And filling actual demand wouldn't be too large a stretch.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I think part of the $80 million for the new city hall was actually money for the demolition of the old city hall. My understanding is that building is coming down.
Nice thought.... However; the 80 mil was just for purchase of One Tech Center.
The following excerpt from the Tulsa Business Journal..
Details of the agreement state the city has 90 days to search for alternative office space with a clause that permits the city to either purchase the building or walk away if the terms are not favorable.
A Bargain at Any Price
The building, completed in early 2002 for an estimated $200 million, is listed on the market for $80 million, said Angela West, vice president of CB Richard/Ellis Oklahoma. The 15-story building is priced at $75 million. The parking garage, furniture fixtures and equipment add another $5 million.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r
The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r
The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.
Point taken Swake............
However; help me to understand the following from the same Tulsa World reporter..
"Although the building was purchased for $76 million to be the new consolidated City Hall, it will keep its original name, officials said."
source:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080921_11_A13_Contra912516
Or the following from a Dallas publication.
"DALLAS -- Tulsa, Okla., will issue up to $76 million of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of a 15-story downtown building that will be the new city hall under a plan approved by the City Council on Thursday.
The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority will issue a promissory note of no more than $53.5 million to purchase the One Technology Center building. The authority was also authorized to sell up to $76 million of bonds to refinance the note, pay for some remodeling, and finance the move...
source:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32298393_ITM
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r
The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.
Point taken Swake............
However; help me to understand the following from the same Tulsa World reporter..
"Although the building was purchased for $76 million to be the new consolidated City Hall, it will keep its original name, officials said."
source:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080921_11_A13_Contra912516
Or the following from a Dallas publication.
"DALLAS -- Tulsa, Okla., will issue up to $76 million of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of a 15-story downtown building that will be the new city hall under a plan approved by the City Council on Thursday.
The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority will issue a promissory note of no more than $53.5 million to purchase the One Technology Center building. The authority was also authorized to sell up to $76 million of bonds to refinance the note, pay for some remodeling, and finance the move...
source:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32298393_ITM
I'm sure of nothing. It was in the news that BOK wanted the name to stay the same as part of the master lease agreement. As for the demolition of the old city hall. I'm all for it. I would like someone official to say that bringing that hulk down is still part of the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687&allcom=1&allcom=1&sortcom=r
The $76 million the council is being asked to spend includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money will cover the bonding costs, demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and a consultant commission fee.
Point taken Swake............
However; help me to understand the following from the same Tulsa World reporter..
"Although the building was purchased for $76 million to be the new consolidated City Hall, it will keep its original name, officials said."
source:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080921_11_A13_Contra912516
Or the following from a Dallas publication.
"DALLAS -- Tulsa, Okla., will issue up to $76 million of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of a 15-story downtown building that will be the new city hall under a plan approved by the City Council on Thursday.
The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority will issue a promissory note of no more than $53.5 million to purchase the One Technology Center building. The authority was also authorized to sell up to $76 million of bonds to refinance the note, pay for some remodeling, and finance the move...
source:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32298393_ITM
I'm sure of nothing. It was in the news that BOK wanted the name to stay the same as part of the master lease agreement. As for the demolition of the old city hall. I'm all for it. I would like someone official to say that bringing that hulk down is still part of the plan.
I recall that during the sale job for the city hall move, we were told that the hotel developer would pay for demolishing the old city hall structure. Presumably, then, until they actually come up with a hotel developer for that site, the old building will stand... unless, perish the thought, we were misled...
(and, interestingly, the old city hall (and council building) are being marketed as structures, NOT just as a site. This would seem to support the previously announced plan of having the mythical hotel developer pay for the demolition)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I recall that during the sale job for the city hall move, we were told that the hotel developer would pay for demolishing the old city hall structure. Presumably, then, until they actually come up with a hotel developer for that site, the old building will stand... unless, perish the thought, we were misled...
Maybe it will be our next Camelot Hotel shell (except without the pedigree of famous visitors)[:o)]
Almost as entertaining as the thought of the city getting on the wrong side of the Bank of Oklahoma and getting a 90-day eviction notice (sort of like Bells Vs the county, but in reverse...)
We have to call Skelly Stadium by a new corporate name...
We have to call Expo Square by a new corporate name...
And now we are expected to call City Hall by a new corporate name as well?
I would say..
We GET to call Skelly Stadium by a new name.
We GET to call Expo Square by a new name.
We GET to call City Hall by a new name as well lol.
If someone wants to pay me a million or two I will change my name as well. [8D]
As many companies as we have lost in this town, I am just glad we have a few left that CAN sponsor anything. Would love to have a few more big corporations here that could put their names on stuff.
Point of procedure Artist...
Skelly was never Skelly Stadium, it has always been, and remains, Skelly Field. It's literally etched in stone above the entrance. It is officially Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium.
What's more ,they asked the Skelly family if it was OK to add the Chapman name. If nothing else, TU knows how to keep donors happy.
(http://www.jakesjokes.com/gallery/albums/funnypics_forumstuff/threadjack.jpg)
Hampton Inn possibly coming now to this parcel across from the BOK?
A little odd I think. They're very nice hotels but shouldn't we expect more? Edit: Oh yeah, by the way it calls for surface parking.
TW Article - 10/7 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081007_11_A118444%22)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20081007_11_A118444 (//%22Latest%20proposal%22)
"My concern is that we've just built an iconic architectural structure, and my experience with Hampton is that it's a middle-of-the-road hotel," TDA Vice Chairman George Shahadi said.
But Chris Whitt of CSK Hotels said it wouldn't have a typical Hampton Inn design.
"The inside of the box would be a Hampton, but the outside of the box would be what we want it to be," he said.
I agree with TDA. Who cares if the proposed Hampton Inn will be fancier than normal? The Hampton brand remains the same no matter what. TDA needs to be courting the likes of Sheraton, Hilton, etc. Someone like Ritz-Carlton may be out of the question, given the medium-sized Tulsa market, but if a hotel is to be built adjacent to the BOk Center it should at least make a decent attempt to reflect the caliber of the arena.
The prudent thing to do here is not expect an earth-shattering project proposal during the current period of financial market volatility. The city should wait to see what proposals become available under somewhat normal economic conditions.
This Hampton Inn plan pales in comparison to the plan presented last week. I am gonna be extremely disappointed if this goes through instead of the much better plan.
The Hampton Inn wants to build a hotel on 1/4th of the block, leaving half the block for parking and leaving those dumpy buildings on the other 1/4th of the block.
The plan presented last week improves the entire block.
Why would we choose to sell to somebody who's gonna improve 1/4th of the block when the other guy wants to dramatically upgrade the entire block?
Also, there's nothing wrong with the Hampton Inn brand. Plenty of nice Hampton Inns in downtowns across the country.
Wait...so we had a cool proposal to build something unqiue and appropriate for downtown by an architect who "gets it"...on what is one of THE prime downtown development parcels...and instead we're getting a Hampton Inn with a surface parking lot?
Did the TDA confuse this parcel with one closer to the Airport?
Am I missing something, or did some form of complete insanity just occur?
I am sad.
We were even successful in contacting the final property owner and negotiating a price for his small parcel.
We had everything in line, and were in negotiations for something very special with a local celebrity investor on the SW corner.
But I'm sure the TDA had very important reasons to offer the contract to Hampton, and am thankful for their consideration and time. I am also very thankful for the kind response to our design and the thoughtful comments and considerations that we used in our design to make this a responsible development.
Don't be surprised if you see this building pop up somewhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Don't be surprised if you see this building pop up somewhere else.
How about the other block by the arena where BOK has their drive-thru bank?
I think the city should at least make this hotel put their parking underground if they aren't using the whole block.
Full story in today's World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081008_11_A1_Amilli456813
I bet they were impressed by the cash in hand factor considering the credit market today. But maybe the developer won't go for the higher price and stipulations.
Something to consider: I've heard the city wants to market the old City Hall site for something more upscale and with the Marriot going in the Atlas Life .... maybe they wanted the balance the downtown hotel market with something more midlevel?
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Don't be surprised if you see this building pop up somewhere else.
How about the other block by the arena where BOK has their drive-thru bank?
I think the city should at least make this hotel put their parking underground if they aren't using the whole block.
Would be nice but there is significant utilities under that parcel. Huge feeder lines. We were in the process of designing a vault to house them because they would simply be too difficult to relocate and could cause power interruption for the city. That's why our parking was to be an interior elevated structure rather than subterranean. There is also an 8 to 12 foot elevation difference from the north to the south side of that piece of land.
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
Full story in today's World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081008_11_A1_Amilli456813
I bet they were impressed by the cash in hand factor considering the credit market today. But maybe the developer won't go for the higher price and stipulations.
Something to consider: I've heard the city wants to market the old City Hall site for something more upscale and with the Marriot going in the Atlas Life .... maybe they wanted the balance the downtown hotel market with something more midlevel?
Yes, we still may have a chance and may be able to make another announcement next week concerning additional components to the development that would add to it's appeal and increase the destination aspect of that part of downtown.
I would hate to see that block become a giant parking lot with a hotel on it.
Keep an eye on this process.
[;)]
Is this a joke? TDA is out of control and out of touch. They sure don't seem to like urban development, since they nixed the good urban development proposal near the ballpark and did not favor the much better hotel proposal from last week. Ugh, I think I am going to be sick.
What the hell is the point of the TDA, to kill good development? Urban development near the ball park effectively killed - check. No new private buildings downtown for a decade - check. Kill all urban projects near the BOk Center and insert a suburban style hotel - heck.
So, ahh. How are we better off with the TDA over open market development? In the open market we would at least have the Brady District urban development. Which would be especially nice since the city can't get the ball rolling on the stadium anyway.
quote:
and a 106-space surface parking lot. It would employ about 35 people.
Storm Nolan of CSK Hotels said ground-floor retail space might become a component of the project if it is feasible.
Tulsa World Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081008_11_A1_Amilli456813%22)
The surface parking takes up more than twice the space of the structure. THATS what we need downtown. Surface parking. Hell yes. That will scream "new urban," "bustling city," and "success."
I don't care about the Hampton brand, but take $15mil hotel with surface parking and maybe retail
vs.
quote:
he authority had heard another proposal for the site last week by Howard Raskin, a local developer. His plan was for an upscale 200-room hotel that likely would have been under the Westin or Hyatt brands.
Raskin's $38.8 million proposal would have encompassed the square block and included structured parking and restaurant and retail space.
id.
Which one do you want?
Why not give an option to raise financing to Raskin. No financing by March, then the contract goes to the half-off project.
By my count that's 2 local developers in the last 2 or 3 months who have invested time, money, and effort into making the downtown area a better place. And both have been summarily executed for reasons not entirely clear. I ask again, what have we gained from the TDA?
Years of railing against surface parking + years of screaming for pedestrian friendly shops in all new development = exactly the opposite from the TDA.
I swear to God man, they must've all been eating so many paint chips as children.
Is there some "keep Tulsa development to a minimum" lobbyist group around? They seem to be doing a great freaking job with the TDA.
CRAP!!!!!
This TDA infuriates me. pancakes?! Why would they move in this direction? What is wrong with them?
In less than three months we've seen them make absolutly the wrong desicsion on two parcels. It's time for them to go away. The City Council would do a better job on this.
The Hampton Inn plan is lame. The building itself would be nice enough, but the site plan is beyond pathetic. To approve a plan with that much private-use surface parking across the street from a $180 million public improvement is mind-blowingly stupid.
TDA just approved a plan to put a suburban mid-rise hotel in what should be one of the most intensely urban mixed-use blocks in the city. Utterly clueless. What's next? A Sonic drive-in on the former City Hall site?
So is everyone going to voice their opinion to the TDA in some form?
http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/info.html
I wanna see what complaints you guys can come up with.
I fail to comprehend how Howard Raskin's proposed hotel site with retail and parking garage is not superior over a bland Hampton Inn with surface parking... this seems to go against everything downtown should represent, don't drop the ball on this one.
Complaint submitted:
Recently the Tulsa World announced that Howard Raskin had submitted an RFP for a hotel development at 3rd and Denver that would include stacked parking and street level retail, but today the Tulsa World indicated that the parcel has been awarded to an out of state proposal for a Hampton Inn with street level parking. I cannot understand why the TDA chose this lackluster development over something that could have been truly special. Please reconsider!
Complaint submitted:
The last thing downtown Tulsa needs is more surface parking, yet I was disheartened by the recent awarding of the land at Denver and 3rd to a Hampton Inn. This property, located near Tulsa's new arena, should be a model of mixed-use development. These elements were present in the plan, provided by a local developer, which incorporated retail and structured parking thereby providing for a lively urban streetscape. As a young professional and a life-long Tulsan, I encourage you to re-evaluate your decision.
I urge everyone to complain to the TDA about this approach. What an utter failure on their part.
Time to fire TDA. Get rid of the entire entity. Tell your city councilors. Far from being a positive development choice, they have shown total mismanagement, a propensity for being influenced by moneyed interested, and complete cluelessness when it comes to the best interests of Tulsa's inner core.
Fire 'em. All of 'em. Take their assets and put them into City Council receivership, and then sell the land to the highest bidder over the next 6 months. At very least, create a completely new, community-based entity. The current people are worthless for Tulsa--worse than that, they appear to have a negative influence on their stated mission.
Complaint submitted:
I read a week or so ago about a proposal for mixed use, dense, higher end development across from the BOk Center. One with hotel space, structured parking, a restaurant and retail. I read in the paper this morning that a suburban style Hampton Inn was awarded the contract instead.
Nothing against Hampton Inn, but on this premier location I was sold on the idea of premier development. A generic (hotel again, no offense to Hampton, they fill a niche) with surface parking and nothing else to add to the life of the area baffles me. Not to mention the tax base advantage of a $40mil development over an $18mil development. I simply don't get it.
I am a young professional who has chosen Tulsa as a home for my family. Several recent developments (or lack thereof) have begun to erode my hope for Tulsa moving forward. I really like living in Tulsa, but if it isn't moving forward it is being left behind. This decision as well as the Brady development and a lack of other developments downtown (an area of supposed focus) have me concerned.
Please consider a strategy to aim higher ($48mil) while keeping the lesser project in play if the project we *really* want doesn't come through. Please use your authority to develop downtown in a constructive urban fashion. This is not Broken Arrow or Jenks. We can offer urban excitement and a living downtown that suburban sprawl can not.
Thank you for considering my input.
You guys can be calm . . . I couldn't help but raise my voice at the fools:
RE: Arena hotel on former Towerview Site
Apologies in advance for the rant, but . . .
What in GOD'S NAME are you thinking??? A HAMPTON INN? With 2/3 of the site as PARKING??? After everything that has gone into protecting and trying to revitalize downtown, are you really going to choose the lame Hampton proposal over Raskin's Hyatt/Westin?
There have got to be financing issues or something else. Please, tell me the collective TDA board isn't that aestethically stupid and collectively out of touch. Have any of you ever traveled past BROKEN ARROW? Get on your game or resign--the current board is not doing its job.
^ nice!
lol. Awesome. Some overt hostility sprinkled with, umm, more rationed (but just as rational) complaints should get the message across.
Where's the Bear when you need him. [;)]
There's got to be a logical (to them) reason for doing what they did but Hell if I know what it is.
Maybe they were instructed to not allow proper development by the state agency to which they belong. Anyone know TDA's mother agency?
Complaint submitted:
I would like to voice my disappointment in what I read in today's Tulsa World regarding a proposed Hampton Inn & Suites across the street from the BOk Center. I am having a very difficult time trying to understand why this proposed development was picked over the Raskin proposal that was presented to you earlier this month. The Hampton proposal would be fitting for a suburban location, but this site is in downtown Tulsa, directly across the street from the premiere event destination in the region and arguably the state.
This decision in my opinion shows shortsightedness and makes me question the apparent drivel on your website – "The Tulsa Development Authority is dedicated to creating a better city and, thus, a better home for all of us." If you adhere to what you state on your website, then I implore you to reconsider this decision.
I recently moved to Tulsa from Indianapolis, a city far along on the path to downtown revitalization, in hopes of seeing Tulsa's downtown renaissance from its genesis. I freely admit that I have been wildly excited about downtown Tulsa's revitalization potential with the opening of the BOk Center, news of a new downtown ballpark, and the other various mixed use redevelopments occurring throughout downtown, but those high hopes were dashed when I read of a suburban type hotel development being plopped down in the most unique and urban environment in the City. Again, I implore you to think long-term and please do what is best for all of us, because I really want to see Tulsa be the best it can be.
Thank you!
Wait wait.. I read this thread a week ago and there was a nice rendering of an urban Hotel with structured parking and street level retail. Now we are talking about a freaking Hampton Inn?
I sent them some praise:
"RE: Hampton Inn across the street from the arena
Finally, we will get some much needed surface concrete downtown. Thanks guys, you're the best!"
I wonder if they get sarcasm?
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I sent them some praise:
"RE: Hampton Inn across the street from the arena
Finally, we will get some much needed surface concrete downtown. Thanks guys, you're the best!"
I wonder if they get sarcasm?
Young Tulsan:
Thank you for your understanding. So many Tulsan's don't get what we are trying to do. Surface parking is the face of downtown Tulsa. We should build on the amount we already have by tearing down structures that are in our way. The addition of more structures will only hinder this goal. When/if demand increases enough we hope to raze the BOK center for more parking, I trust we can count on your support.
/s/ Tulsa Development Authority (no, not really)
For those of you wishing to offer your opinion and comments to the TDA, may I suggest you contact them at their email addresses. The main TDA email is received by staff and may not get forwarded to them. Please keep in mind that this is essentially the only place to offer comment as they do not allow public discussion at their meetings.
carl.bracy.acfx@statefarm.com - Chairman
george.shahadi@williams.com - Vice Chair
jclayman@fdlaw.com - Member
Unfortunately I do not have the email addresses for the two newest members but you can contact the TDA offices and request them from the operator, they are on file.
Paula Bryant Ellis - Member
Julius Magese - Member
Channel 8 will have a feature tonight concerning the development.
The TDA and their consultants must have spent a great deal of time and money determining what would be in the best interests of Tulsa, and while we may question their reasoning (and that is our right) we respect their authority.
Mr. Raskin will continue to pursue this project, until it is clear that the project is indeed rejected. We have received no official word from the TDA, and Mr. Raskin was just assured by a member of the TDA that our proposal is still in play.
Thank you for all of your kind words and support.
Wonder how a Westin and a Hampton Inn will fit on the same block. The peeps at the TDA really do have the magic touch.
For what it's worth, I've seen (and stayed in) some Hampton Inns that are designed to fit well in urban locations: Savannah Historic District; downtown Buffalo; East Aurora, NY. Hampton has also been involved in funding restoration of historic attractions.
The problem is that unlike Savannah, Buffalo, and East Aurora, Tulsa doesn't have design guidelines that would prevent suburban-style development downtown.
No matter what project goes in this space, a surface parking lot should not be part of the concept. (Downtown Tulsa is 40% surface parking already!)
Let's say that it costs $10,000 per parking space to build a parking garage. If there are 100 events each year that you could fill those spaces and charge $10 to park (and with this location directly across from the arena, it shouldn't be hard).... It would only take 10 years to pay for the parking garage. After that, you'd be making money on parking! (I know that this is simplified math, that doesn't include interest payments, management, maintenance, etc, but I just want to make the point.)
Now, if you include (as it should) retail space on the street level of the parking garage... you've got more development, more income, more action and activity on the street, which would increase the value of your hotel.
I can't understand why any developer wouldn't understand this, and want to include it as part of the plan.
Until Tulsans understand how costly surface parking lots are to the health and welfare of Tulsa, we are going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot... and wondering why downtown development keeps falling short of its potential.
While the Hampton is nowhere near what the first proposal is and definitely not the same brand level as Starwood/ Westin, etc. The layouts used in the newer downtown Hampton hotels I've stayed in are much better then the "off the highway" ones.
I have stayed at the downtown Hampton's in Denver, New Orleans and Memphis in the last year or so... All newer construction, had structured parking, was able to walk right out the door for food/drinks and seemed to fit in with the surroundings quite well (though I was a worn out business traveler on these trips). If a Hampton was done like this SOMEWHERE ELSE in downtown I think it would fit. It would be nice to have another Hilton family hotel for business travelers.
THAT SAID, the concept of using what looks to be the prime spot for a major hotel development next to the arena for it would just be a shame, especially when there seems to be a much better option on the table. We could really use a Starwood branded hotel, with all the amenities listed in the previous proposal.
On another note, has work started on the Courtyard Marriott?
It appears that this all boils down to financing. This site was marketed by Jones, Lang, LaSalle and only two proposals were submitted, the Raskin one and the CSK one, with the latter not requiring outside financing. So, there are potentially three outcomes, 1) the site sits empty until better economic times, 2) the CSK proposal is a go, or 3) Raskin gets guaranteed financing. Only time will tell.
Here's a quote from the original Tulsa World article at the beginning of this thread:
TDA Chairman Carl Bracy...
"We're really looking at what will be the best fit for that location, and not just for right now, for the next 10, 20 and 30 years," he said, adding that the authority had no time frame for a decision.
"It's not something we're going to rush," he said.
I certainly hope this proves to be true. The BOK Arena is already garnering attention for it's stunning architecture. It has become a source of pride to many Tulsans. It adds a striking and beautiful new dimension to downtown.
If we fail to leverage the arena...if we fail to insist upon excellence for this site, we're going to look like a bunch of hayseeds. Like a used car salesman with a huge diamond ring...who thinks it looks just fine with his plaid jacket and polyester pants.
According to the article, the TDA is asking for design approval. Let us hope that they can be convinced of the necessity of good urban design... not just on this prime spot...but throughout downtown.
Received a response:
quote:
Good evening Robert:
Thank you for your e-mail. Many details appear to be misunderstood. TDA is in negotiation to sell the property, there has been an offer and counter-offer but there is not a definitive deal made. Any deal is subject to TDA's approval of any architecture.
Your viewpoint is shared by a number of people. I did not participate in the Howard Raskin presentation but I understand that CSK Hotels was deemed to be the more qualified opportunity. If my understanding is correct, the Howard Raskin proposal was apparently just that based upon information supplied by Jones Lang.
The 3rd & Denver property was one of five parcels that the City and TDA agreed to market through a brokerage agreement with the national real estate firm of Jones Lang LaSalle. There was a comprehensive marketing package prepared seeking interest in the development of the 3rd & Denver site that was prominently marketed through a website and direct solicitations by Jones Lang to numerous developers over several months. Jones Lang's marketing efforts resulted in effectively two proposals, one from Howard Raskin and one from CSK Hotels. I'd be the first to admit this was a disappointing response given the belief that engaging Jones Lang would result in substantially more interest on a national scale. For whatever reasons, Jones Lang was unable to deliver a major developer who had interest in 3rd & Denver.
The only other proposal came from CSK Hotels from Fort Smith. TDA has been under criticism from HUD as of late for holding properties in inventory too long. CSK seems to be an active developer with sufficient financial resources to actually do a deal. One of the principals of CSK is a graduate of Cornell's Hotel and Restaurant program. The PowerPoint presentation given of CSK's developments seemed to show they have good taste in the décor of its hotel developments. As part of any deal with CSK, TDA has the right to approve the architecture of the hotel. There was acknowledgement by CSK of the importance of having a hotel that looked upscale given its proximity to the BOK Arena.
I was very surprised to hear the relatively low revenue numbers for hotels in the downtown area (effective room rental rates of $60.00 per day). I don't know if a prestige hotel chain could be located on that site in this economic climate (of untold duration) when there is competition from the newly renovated Crowne Plaza, a soon to be remodeled Mayo and the Doubletree. The economics do not seem to justify a substantial, upscale hotel without substantial subsidies and I do not know where they would come from. In addition, the Mayor wants a large hotel at the former City Hall site and there is discussion of a large hotel at the former BOk drive-in location on Denver.
I don't know if this deal will get done or not but no other qualified proposals have been made on this site and none may be forthcoming in the current economic environment. It is a difficult situation to be in but TDA felt the ability to control the look of the development will help to ensure that the aesthetics of the BOK Arena are not compromised. I would prefer something better but it is has not presented itself nor can we predict if it ever will.
My understanding is that hotel development will be at a virtual standstill given the implosion of the credit market and the future of such financing is unknown. Who really knows what will happen with this economy?
CSK advised TDA that it does not need outside financing. TDA is in a difficult position, and I would have hoped a nationally renowned real estate firm like Jones Lang would have generated a major developer. It didn't happen. The City recommended that we pursue this opportunity.
So, do we let the property remain vacant or do we develop the best of what is available? It's a quandary and we're doing the best we can with few options.
I look forward to your thoughts and comments. Best personal regards.
John D. Clayman
A nice and thoughtful response.
Julius Magese (sp) was just approved for the position. He was on the EDC before then with both appointments via Mayor Taylor. Previously he was on the TAA/TAIT for the airport via Mayor Savage. Oh and he was there during the Great Plaines fiasco.
I am sure though he was put in for this authority position for a greater reason this time also.
Dang and where is all the thanks this forum gave when Hampton gave the Admiral Twin money a few years ago.
Oh and yes "I told ya so " somewhat[:X]
If it turns out that this second development goes through instead of the first one, I would hope that the TDA retains control of the area designated as parking. The hotel can use it as parking until the TDA gets some other development on it. They can use valet parking afterwards and or do structured parking on the lot to the north if they do a hotel on that one. But they shouldnt sell that parking lot area, they should try to get something else on it like some restaurants or other businesses.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
No matter what project goes in this space, a surface parking lot should not be part of the concept. (Downtown Tulsa is 40% surface parking already!)
Let's say that it costs $10,000 per parking space to build a parking garage. If there are 100 events each year that you could fill those spaces and charge $10 to park (and with this location directly across from the arena, it shouldn't be hard).... It would only take 10 years to pay for the parking garage. After that, you'd be making money on parking! (I know that this is simplified math, that doesn't include interest payments, management, maintenance, etc, but I just want to make the point.)
Now, if you include (as it should) retail space on the street level of the parking garage... you've got more development, more income, more action and activity on the street, which would increase the value of your hotel.
I can't understand why any developer wouldn't understand this, and want to include it as part of the plan.
Until Tulsans understand how costly surface parking lots are to the health and welfare of Tulsa, we are going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot... and wondering why downtown development keeps falling short of its potential.
+1, emphatically. I saw this and couldn't believe my eyes. Maybe the Raskin development required outside financing, but the siteplan is far superior. We NEED the kind of development Raskin proposed. We need street-level retail, structured parking, all of the things that would come from Raskin. This Hampton "development" is nothing that the area needs. It's absolutely ridiculous. And also the email response received by TURoby may sound nice, blaming their wanting to accept this purely because "who knows when the economy will improve?" is a cop-out.
"We're not going to rush this". One week later: "We've changed our minds about rushing. We've already approved an alternative, weaker development. It's all about the economy."
+20 for Raskin. If ya gotta build a hampton downtown, put it by the Home Depot.
It was an intelligent response, but clearly influenced, IMHO, but Hamptons proposal. Essentially a more upscale development can't make it in this site anyway, so we will rush this one through to reduce our inventory.
Another neat idea, stop expanding your inventory. I think 120 Lofts would be happy with that.
And if the details are misunderstood it is because the public is un or under-informed by the Dear Leader(s).
/sorry if I reacting gutturally, but I'm frustrated.
Well let's look at the positive. Let's say this is built and it's 8 stories, all brick, and comes right up to the corner of 3rd and Denver with retail/restaurant space. TDA, during design review, makes them put all parking in a garage north of the site along Denver. 3rd and Cheyenne is preserved for future retail/office development.
Then we finally get the feds to build us a new federal building/post office, possibly at 2nd and Denver (the BOK drive-thru) or 5th & Denver across from the library, OR they simply re-use old city hall (if possible). That paves the way for that important site next to the arena to then be redeveloped into a Westin/Hyatt with actual access to the convention center next door. Then you have two new hotels, a midrange Hampton Inn and a more upscale Westin/Hyatt right by the main entrance to BOK at 3rd and Denver.
We presented a wide range of higher end hotel components of varying price ranges, all higher quality than a Hampton or Holiday Inn style offering.
The more important factor here is that our design incorporates up to 50,000 sq ft of retail/restaurant space directly across from the BOK.
There also may be a "celebrity" restaurant/bar offering on the SE corner of the development. Mr. Raskin is in discussion with a number of different exciting entities expressing an interest in that space for something truly unique.
Or it could just be a parking lot . . .
Someone at TDA needs to wake up and negotiate with Raskin. If the other person isn't willing to pay list price (which isn't that high) give it to raskin. It's a MUCH better development.
I'm sure it will go to the Hampton Inn group. First of all, Hampton Inns can be very nice. There is a 10 story, 200 room one nearing completion in OKC that is very tastefully done and complementary to the surrounding area (BUT it's still no Hyatt/Westin, let alone Ritz/Four Seasons). Pictures courtesy of oktalk.net and Doug Loudenbeck:
(http://okmet.org/bb/gallery/2_16_11_06_8_01_09.jpg)
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/hotels/hamptoninn_6_8_08_1s.jpg)
I'm really dismayed that I was right about the pressure from the Mayor's office against this development (if I can spot from a distance, why can't the daily paper do it?). In Kathy Taylor's SimCity version of downtown, she arranges the pieces and manipulates TDA to her political benefit. Unfortunately for us, in the real life version, it may be that City Hall sits vacant while a poorly designed mid-range hotel goes in where an outstanding upscale one should have.
Hopefully this isn't how it turns out . . .
I see some bait and switch on the Kc one pictured. The glass tower has been removed and the parking garage is no longer screened.
Za-zing!
Any artists design a T-Shirt with a "F.U.T.D.A." or "Who Owns TDA" logo?
Seriously, how do we get rid of them?
Just to keep everyone up to date with TDA and Jones Lang LaSalle...
The City is the one that insisted that a contract be signed with JLL to support research and marketing of this property along with 4 other parcels. This effort was spearheaded by the Economic Development department of the City. TDA was simply "told" to enter into contract and pay the fee...$375,000 I think. This is evidenced in the TDA minutes from general meetings. For the longest time, TDA members had no idea what JLL was doing, what their focus was and how they were implenting their strategies. TDA board had to actually ask Mike Bunney of the City to inform them. It was disturbing to see that the contracting entity was completely left in the dark and that its contractual obligation were being directed by the City. Kinda takes out the TDA being a "separate legal entity where the City has no authority" as stated in the City's legal memorandum in response to our ethics complaints.
JLL contacted us to see if we had any interest in proposing for the site as they were not getting any proposals at the time. We declined, thinking that Tulsa deserved a much better scope of development for mixed use than we were capable of providing in comparison to the Brady site. Something so close to the arena and within a prime location deserves something on a grander scale with many attractive amenities for lodging, restaurant, retail and entertainment space in my opinion.
Such a design should take into account the advice of PLANitulsa's John Fregonese where he states dense uprban infill is the best approach for sustainable growth and development.
I agree with most on this topic...surface parking is a waste. I would like to see more emphasis given to a development that will offer more diverse choices for establishments and will help attract the "destination spot" visitor to downtown.
But thats just my opinion :)
Floyd:
I am not against a Hampton Inn. If they make it a more urban design and make it fit in I could be persuaded. Why not mandate parking and a more urban design. Make it a zero lot line and allow someone else to develop those lots right up to that building. Mandate structured parking and an art deco (or other interesting) facade.
It is the suburban nature coupled with the apparent inside track that irks me.
I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses. I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses. I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
I think most would agree that this development is superior. The problem is apparently not with the renderings, design, or what could be added to it.... Its the funding. Get the funding and you get the go. As much as we would all want this one, and sorry to sound harsh, until there is funding, its nothing but pretty drawings and hot air. That doesnt make a judgment on the other project and whether it should be stopped, changed, whatever, just stating facts on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses. I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
I think most would agree that this development is superior. The problem is apparently not with the renderings, design, or what could be added to it.... Its the funding. Get the funding and you get the go. As much as we would all want this one, and sorry to sound harsh, until there is funding, its nothing but pretty drawings and hot air. That doesnt make a judgment on the other project and whether it should be stopped, changed, whatever, just stating facts on this one.
Not worried about funding.
Mr. Raskin will announce proof of funding on the project soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses. I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
I think most would agree that this development is superior. The problem is apparently not with the renderings, design, or what could be added to it.... Its the funding. Get the funding and you get the go. As much as we would all want this one, and sorry to sound harsh, until there is funding, its nothing but pretty drawings and hot air. That doesnt make a judgment on the other project and whether it should be stopped, changed, whatever, just stating facts on this one.
Not worried about funding.
Mr. Raskin will announce proof of funding on the project soon.
Yay lol. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Mr. Raskin will announce proof of funding on the project soon.
In this case, the sooner the better. LOL. My stomach has been in knots all week because of this. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I have created a gallery that will change as the project progresses. I will post all public up-to-date images and animations here, and once we begin to produce imagery and concepts for the selected hotel, restaurants, and other retailers, I will post them here.
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
If he fails to get this spot, will he look at the Autobank or City hall locations?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
Has there been any consideration of a terra cotta frieze on the south side of the tower that extends up the SW corner of the hotel? Or, any kind of detailing so common in art deco buildings? I think it would serve the building well to take some cues from our existing buildings:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/185197312_9a9ebc2dff_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1331/724541208_20d505c003_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/723668849_509f81ffd7_m.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2425084497_0da8e2c52a_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/724546814_362638f1ab_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1267/724511898_cb8aba0181_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/724525812_67d5410ae5_m.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/2425902424_3a05f60c7c_m.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2425120953_5aba2db647_m.jpg)
Additionally, will the exterior be made of brick?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Raskin Downtown Image Post (//%22http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar#100021%22)
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
Has there been any consideration of a terra cotta frieze on the south side of the tower that extends up the SW corner of the hotel? Or, any kind of detailing so common in art deco buildings? I think it would serve the building well to take some cues from our existing buildings:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/185197312_9a9ebc2dff_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1331/724541208_20d505c003_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/723668849_509f81ffd7_m.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2425084497_0da8e2c52a_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/724546814_362638f1ab_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1267/724511898_cb8aba0181_m.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1091/724525812_67d5410ae5_m.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/2425902424_3a05f60c7c_m.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2425120953_5aba2db647_m.jpg)
Additionally, will the exterior be made of brick?
as I said before those are just specific STYLES of art deco. art deco is a movement. Do we only want to build buildings that have a zigzag or WPA art deco style, or do we want any and all art deco? I'm voting for the later because although I do think those buildings from the past are great, we need to show Tulsa can take art deco into the future.
I agree with inteller about taking Art Deco into the future, not just create some cheap imitation which you see sadly in Miami.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Do we only want to build buildings that have a zigzag or WPA art deco style, or do we want any and all art deco? I'm voting for the later because although I do think those buildings from the past are great, we need to show Tulsa can take art deco into the future.
Very good point. I'd love to see some more modern interpretations of the elements from the art deco movement, showcasing our past and our future. Advancements in glass technologies have improved since then, as well as illumination technologies. Maybe patric could chime in on some suggestions?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
as I said before those are just specific STYLES of art deco. art deco is a movement. Do we only want to build buildings that have a zigzag or WPA art deco style, or do we want any and all art deco? I'm voting for the later because although I do think those buildings from the past are great, we need to show Tulsa can take art deco into the future.
I agree. I included those pictures as examples of the many kinds of art deco. While each is different, they do all have some kind of detail work. I just think the building needs some.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
I agree with inteller about taking Art Deco into the future, not just create some cheap imitation which you see sadly in Miami.
well now that's not true, Miami just has more examples of the streamline moderne style of art deco....which I prefer actually. The building frenzy in Tulsa had slowed somewhat when streamline moderne came along towards the end of the main movement. There are a couple of smaller examples of streamline around tulsa....but in reality to "compliment" our polished bed pan downtown I think the hotel should pull more elements of streamline moderne than some intricate facades found in PWA or zigzag works.
I wasn't including any of the iconic buildings from the past, I was talking about some of the newer stuff outside of the older parts of town that are trying to copy the original buildings but doing so in a poor way, sort of like some of our new Tuscan inspired architectural drek we see popping up aroung here especially in commercial buildings, i.e. strip shopping centers. Some of the new stuff is good but some is really dreadful.
edited to add, I am with you on streamline moderne, a hotel that would do that across the street from the arena would be a good thing.
Wow I thought everyone liked the arena look. Now everyone wants to go back in style? [:o)]
No, not going back, taking the heritage of what we already have and then taking it into a new level of design.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
.....
All suggestions are very welcome and taken seriously.
Well if you insist....
I took this rendering.
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/14/downtownhotelraskin1webjz3.jpg)
And made some tweaks. Lightened everything a bit, especially the colors of the windows. I felt that if the color of the building (golden sand) were soft and light, that a softer and lighter glass color (aqua) would compliment it better. Left and enhanced the bold red to add a little flair. Then redrew the curve on the tower and added a little touch on top to bring out more of the deco while still keeping it clean and contemporary. Just seemed to need something extra. Hope you at least find it interesting.
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1266/downtownhotelraskin1abciu5.jpg)
I know, let's build the hotel to look like a big castle.
Oh, it's been done?
It is tricky, when you add a detail it can throw off the balance and make you want to add some other detail in another spot. You either have to leave this one alone, add just a smidge, or tweak up some other areas for balance. Seems that if you were going to tweak up the design a bit, you would either add some more art-deco suggestions or shift gears towards more contemporary.
Here are some other deco "variations". I also like the "topper" ideas suggested in the new art-deco buildings on the bottom left and right.
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7691/downtownhotel1tm6.jpg)
Some other contemporary deco stuff.
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1613/contemporaryartdecoua4.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
that ship style streamline in the lower left corner is cool. Is that in Miami?
Those are new apartments in San Fran believe it or not. There is of course a ton of new streamline deco in Miami though. From looking at some of the pics I have seen lately, there is a lot more than there was even just 5 years ago when I was there last. They have really added on to their deco heritage. Though I like the streamline style, I would almost rather Tulsa accentuate a different deco style in any of its new deco buildings. That way it would keep us distinctive. I would rather us add "Tulsa Deco" than Miami Deco. I can see us doing more deco in brick and prarie deco style, or going whith the more dramatic, over the top, NY/Chicago style deco. If the Hampton in is the one that is approved. They typically do brick like the one in OKC. So I would hope that we would push for it to be brick/deco with a Tulsa flair. We cant really expect a mid-range hotel like the Hampton to be the over the top style deco, for thats very expensive to do, but it could definitely be done in brick with "stone" accents.
Tulsa has a very wide range of styles of art-deco, but Again, if we are going to build up a unique Tulsa Deco look, perhaps it shouldnt do the Miami streamline thing, but go its own way and develope a Tulsa style of contemporary art-deco. If we were to do both the Ballpark and the Hampton inn with a brick/deco look... and perhaps even some of the developments around the Ballpark in that manner with a contemporary/brick/deco twist... well it could be the start of something quite interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
I'd love to see some more modern interpretations of the elements from the art deco movement, showcasing our past and our future. Advancements in glass technologies have improved since then, as well as illumination technologies.
Illumination technologies have a tendency to be abused (as we see among many of our floodlighted structures) but the inverse could be true if the builder's heart and science are in the right place.
L.E.D. technology isnt so great when it's used as a giant roadside video screen to lure people into a car lot or casino, but prudent design make L.E.D.'s a very practical replacement for neon accents. The light source behind translucent glass bricks, for example, would be safer to operate and easier to maintain if it were solid state instead of a long gas-filled tube with high voltage flowing through it.
I would discourage any sort of flashing or Vegas-style animation, despite the fact that the technology makes that very easy and tempting.
And since L.E.D.'s are rapidly emerging as the next big thing in street illumination, we're going to have to learn to distinguish between designs that are meant to
be seen from those that are meant to
help us see.
People like DTU dont understand that their decorative fixtures that look so good in the daytime arent so decorative at night because they are a source of blinding eye-level glare that overwhelms any possible appreciation of the fixture's artistic beauty.
Decorative illumination must have an intensity sedate enough to be able to look directly at the fixture without discomfort or visual disability.
To not be able to do so defeats the purpose of having decorative lighting.
"Acorn"-style lights fail because modern levels of illumination necessary to light a street surface cant be achieved (when the Acorn is used as the primary source of illumination) without creating more glare than useful light.
In the past when the goal of lighting a structure was to create a luminant face, massive floodlighting has been the cheap and easy way out. A more worthwhile goal might be for the surface to
be the light source rather than simply an inefficient reflector. Not only would that approach eliminate the stray, wasted floodlighting associated with skyglow and migratory bird kills, but the intensity could be easily modified to give the building a presence without being a gaudily bright one.
Moderation in all things.
The Hampton Inn Hotel and parking lot is off the table.
[:D]
Keep an eye on the Tulsa World for more details.
Interesting...
I just got over my last ulcer. Don't give me another one by keeping me in suspense...!
Thank the Lord! Detail, Gaspar, details!
Quick, everyone get a shovel and break ground before they change their minds again!
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Thank the Lord! Detail, Gaspar, details!
Tulsa World will have more details in the morning. I can't comment at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Tulsa World will have more details in the morning. I can't comment at this point.
Today or tomorrow morning?
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
Quick, someone shoot me before I post more showtune lyrics.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081013_1__Plans61755
No more Hampton Inn
Let's hope this other one can happen then...
This is a telling line from the Tulsa World story...
"But Jones Lang LaSalle, the city's independent real estate consultants, indicated in a September letter to Tulsa Economic Development Director Mike Bunney that Raskin's proposal was "insufficient to accurately assess project feasibility."
Still needed were a development pro-forma, financing plans, site plans and a preliminary commitment from a hotel operator, according to the letter."
I tried looking up some history on this first developer and couldn't find much. It doesn't look like he has ever done anything close to this size. I found a bankruptcy, but not much more...that is not reassuring to me.
Gaspar...since you know this guy...can you get some more info on this developer? What else has he done...where is he gonna get $38.8 million...etc?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is a telling line from the Tulsa World story...
"But Jones Lang LaSalle, the city's independent real estate consultants, indicated in a September letter to Tulsa Economic Development Director Mike Bunney that Raskin's proposal was "insufficient to accurately assess project feasibility."
Still needed were a development pro-forma, financing plans, site plans and a preliminary commitment from a hotel operator, according to the letter."
I tried looking up some history on this first developer and couldn't find much. It doesn't look like he has ever done anything close to this size. I found a bankruptcy, but not much more...that is not reassuring to me.
Gaspar...since you know this guy...can you get some more info on this developer? What else has he done...where is he gonna get $38.8 million...etc?
Yes, He's an older gentleman (about 80) that has been developing in Oklahoma for about 30-40 years. He's done about 500,000 sq ft of retail space all over the state, mostly small shopping centers. He's also done several office buildings in Tulsa like the IBC bank building on 73rd and Lewis. and what everyone calls the Darth Vader building (BOK location) on 58th and Lewis. He's worked on some of the malls in Oklahoma City and apartment complexes all over the place.
He knows what he's doing and how the game works. He's very focused on doing what is right no matter how much it costs. He'd rather just do things than talk about them. We have confidence in his funding sources for this project, they are just not ready to go public yet, and won't do so until Howard makes his hotel selection.
I have actually known him for my entire life through a close family friendship. He's a very sweet, but tough old guy. He's not going to rush this thing.
Thanks...I knew there had to be more than just pretty pictures.
I will be interested to read further developments...
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Thanks...I knew there had to be more than just pretty pictures.
I will be interested to read further developments...
I just got off the phone with Howard to follow up on some details. Within the next week everything should be solid, and we will have some more exciting news, until then you just have to speculate. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
The Hampton Inn Hotel and parking lot is off the table.
[:D]
Keep an eye on the Tulsa World for more details.
I'm taking the smilie as a good sign. Let's hope so. The area around the arena has major draw potential, I'd like to see it utilized as such. I'm hopeful that Raskin's deal gets done and they use frontage on at least three of the four corners, plus utilize the patio/balcony area as something very unique.
Every step of thinking urban in downtown, is a step in the right direction, IMO and Raskin's plan seems to be better planned in that direction. I can't wait for the details to unfold and to hopefully help spur growth downtown, so that is will become a vibrant place to be.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
It is tricky, when you add a detail it can throw off the balance and make you want to add some other detail in another spot. You either have to leave this one alone, add just a smidge, or tweak up some other areas for balance. Seems that if you were going to tweak up the design a bit, you would either add some more art-deco suggestions or shift gears towards more contemporary.
Here are some other deco "variations". I also like the "topper" ideas suggested in the new art-deco buildings on the bottom left and right.
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7691/downtownhotel1tm6.jpg)
Some other contemporary deco stuff.
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1613/contemporaryartdecoua4.jpg)
Thanks! Great study! These are now hanging on our Architect's wall. [:D]
Here's a little more detail. Remember this building will change significantly as the space programming and architectural needs of the hotel and retailers are satisfied, but the style will continue to evolve in the right direction.
(http://www.me.com/ro/scottgaspar/Galleries/100021/raskin/web.jpg?ver=12239927420001)
Gaspar
For the last year we have been pursuing a number of potential hotel concepts for the downtown area. Most recently, we brought the Courtyard Marriott to the Atlas Life building and are pursuing two more potentials.
If Mr. Raskin is still looking to secure a hotel component for that site, we have a couple of hotel flags that we feel would do very well in that particular space and offer Tulsa something that is unique and not available in Oklahoma at this time.
If you or Mr. Raskin are interested, we would enjoy talking to you about the possibilities. You can contact Cecilia Wilkins with W3 Development, LLC at 918-902-8959
The second property JLL has put forth, fintube, is currently open for bids and closing soon. Apparently there has been a lot of interest in it as well and we should hear more in a few weeks or so.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The second property JLL has put forth, fintube, is currently open for bids and closing soon. Apparently there has been a lot of interest in it as well and we should hear more in a few weeks or so.
Would make a nice farmer's market like they have in Broken Arrow now. The building is a strong steel structure with a bad skin. The building itself is intact and structurally sound.
quote:
Originally posted by TheLofts@120
Gaspar
For the last year we have been pursuing a number of potential hotel concepts for the downtown area. Most recently, we brought the Courtyard Marriott to the Atlas Life building and are pursuing two more potentials.
If Mr. Raskin is still looking to secure a hotel component for that site, we have a couple of hotel flags that we feel would do very well in that particular space and offer Tulsa something that is unique and not available in Oklahoma at this time.
If you or Mr. Raskin are interested, we would enjoy talking to you about the possibilities. You can contact Cecilia Wilkins with W3 Development, LLC at 918-902-8959
He will call you this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I believe he has a commitment from one chain, but he said he would call.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The second property JLL has put forth, fintube, is currently open for bids and closing soon. Apparently there has been a lot of interest in it as well and we should hear more in a few weeks or so.
wow, that is great news.
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin3/web.jpg)
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin/web.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
(http://www.me.com/ro/scottgaspar/Galleries/100021/raskin3/web.jpg?ver=12240734890001)
That pic isn't showing up
Should work now.
Ahh.. much better. How much longer until you superimpose it into a real image of downtown? I think that would look cool. Also, if you do that, do a "night" version.
The hotel looks really good Gaspar. Great renderings.
It might be advantageous for future projects to more fully render the BOk Center... or is keeping it lesser to not draw attention on purpose. Or simply too much work. Just a thought, but it looks good.
I hope it gets on track and isn't scuttled by TDA.
I really like that design. It incorporates the best of old Tulsa design in it.
I think it will be challenging; that parcel has a pretty steep downsloping grade from east to west. It favored the arena. I'm curious to see a profile and how the slope is incorporated into the construction.
I like the massing model you've created but explain some things to me
1. Where is the main entrance to the hotel in the rendering, on 3rd or on Cheyenne? I personally think 3rd would be the best place for a grand entrance to both the hotel and retail/restaurant space. Is there another entrance on Denver?
2. Is the mass at the corner of 3rd and Cheyenne the parking garage? If so why not move the garage to 2nd and Cheyenne and have the hotel rise at the more important 3rd and Cheyenne corner?
3. I like that you've included retail/restaurant space along Denver. What kind of potential tenants are you thinking for this area? Some type of rooftop patio element for a restaurant/bar would be awesome here.
As far as design goes, I stayed at a hotel in Seattle recently called the Pan Pacific that was exceptional. It's a good example of how a hotel (and this case a condo tower as well) can effectively take up an entire block and mix together retail/restaurants while hiding parking. Here is a pic I took, the colors of which are similar to your rendering with balconies and lots of glass:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/Picture019.jpg)
And another which shows a brick "base" which would be appropriate in downtown Tulsa with our abundance of 2-3 story brick buildings and then either brick or another high quality material on the upper floors (I personally think sand colored brick, like some of our Art Deco gems, would look amazing). Again lots of glass, balconies, and setbacks with some "Deco" detailing. Some aluminum/steel elements would also be interesting as a nod to the adjacent BOK Center, and would give it a more contemporary look:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/Picture030.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Ahh.. much better. How much longer until you superimpose it into a real image of downtown? I think that would look cool. Also, if you do that, do a "night" version.
Very soon.
Here is another pic I found showing the whole development with retail at street level (and a Whole Foods!):
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/2200.jpg)
Another example of nice massing, setbacks, and materials in this case brick and glass. I like the rooftop terrace, would be great over the retail portion of the project:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/Dancer-2/bg_co_ColmanWestern.jpg)
Maybe you can input your rendering into one of the fabulous aerials Bill Cobb has taken of our beautiful downtown with the BOK Center:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/tulsa_39_9377.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
I like the massing model you've created but explain some things to me
1. Where is the main entrance to the hotel in the rendering, on 3rd or on Cheyenne? I personally think 3rd would be the best place for a grand entrance to both the hotel and retail/restaurant space. Is there another entrance on Denver?
Main entrance is still up in the air, but we would like to focus all street exposure to the South and West on retail. Hotel/Garage entrances serve only that purpose. As we develop the design with our hotel, I'm sure things will change. There has already been some discussion about making the tower and parking more central as not to interfere with maximizing the Retail exposure.
quote:
2. Is the mass at the corner of 3rd and Cheyenne the parking garage? If so why not move the garage to 2nd and Cheyenne and have the hotel rise at the more important 3rd and Cheyenne corner?
Possible, but the current location keeps the mass of the building from being too close to the elevation of the BOK. Gives it more of a relaxed/reclined look and offers all of the rooftop space for possible development. Maximizes the important views.
quote:
3. I like that you've included retail/restaurant space along Denver. What kind of potential tenants are you thinking for this area? Some type of rooftop patio element for a restaurant/bar would be awesome here.
Mostly restaurant and bar tenants. No one is going to buy a suit or a lounge chair on their way to a show at the BOK, but they will want to eat and drink. We have some very exciting and unique concepts in the works. Yes the roof is also valuable space and will be used as the project develops.
quote:
As far as design goes, I stayed at a hotel in Seattle recently called the Pan Pacific that was exceptional. It's a good example of how a hotel (and this case a condo tower as well) can effectively take up an entire block and mix together retail/restaurants while hiding parking. Here is a pic I took, the colors of which are similar to your rendering with balconies and lots of glass:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/Picture019.jpg)
And another which shows a brick "base" which would be appropriate in downtown Tulsa with our abundance of 2-3 story brick buildings and then either brick or another high quality material on the upper floors (I personally think sand colored brick, like some of our Art Deco gems, would look amazing). Again lots of glass, balconies, and setbacks with some "Deco" detailing. Some aluminum/steel elements would also be interesting as a nod to the adjacent BOK Center, and would give it a more contemporary look:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/Picture030.jpg)
Very nice. We see a lot of this type of architecture, and we too like it, but part of this project is to embrace Tulsa's Deco roots and develop a complementary structure to the BOK. We hope that this will stimulate future development that is "Tulsa Style" not Dallas, or Kansas City, or San Diego style.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
I like the massing model you've created but explain some things to me
1. Where is the main entrance to the hotel in the rendering, on 3rd or on Cheyenne? I personally think 3rd would be the best place for a grand entrance to both the hotel and retail/restaurant space.
Facing the bus station?
Rendering looks better. Much cleaner and more detail. But... I am still concerned about where the colors are going. I would either go with the darker colored glass like you have in those last renderings and then richen up the wall colors. Or go with pale wall colors and pale glass.
The design is nice over all, but the color choice alone can make a wooorld of difference. Hate to say, it but right now the color choice looks very "staid". Its saying, "Ok, here is just another common, everyday, dreary hotel that you would stagger into on a business trip, after the end of a long day."
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Rendering looks better. Much cleaner and more detail. But... I am still concerned about where the colors are going. I would either go with the darker colored glass like you have in those last renderings and then richen up the wall colors. Or go with pale wall colors and pale glass.
The design is nice over all, but the color choice alone can make a wooorld of difference. Hate to say, it but right now the color choice looks very "staid". Its saying, "Ok, here is just another common, everyday, dreary hotel that you would stagger into on a business trip, after the end of a long day."
I think with more detail it would show up better. I think either red or sandstone brick would be the best exterior material with lots of clear glass mixed in (like the prelim. rendering shows) and like I said before aluminum/steel elements as a nod to the BOK Center and Art Deco details. Stay away from EIFS or Stucco if at all possible.
Can't wait to see more detailed renderings. Something that takes the massing and Deco details you have shown but shows more depth. The placement of glazing and mullions can have a big effect and turn an otherwise "bland" building into something great, another example:
(http://www.720lofts.com/Images/Rendering2.JPG)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Rendering looks better. Much cleaner and more detail. But... I am still concerned about where the colors are going. I would either go with the darker colored glass like you have in those last renderings and then richen up the wall colors. Or go with pale wall colors and pale glass.
The design is nice over all, but the color choice alone can make a wooorld of difference. Hate to say, it but right now the color choice looks very "staid". Its saying, "Ok, here is just another common, everyday, dreary hotel that you would stagger into on a business trip, after the end of a long day."
I agree, we typically use a very limited pallet at the conceptual stage of a structure to keep the modeling/texturing time to a minimum and develop a more detailed color scheme as the concept develops. We will also do a photo study of the surrounding properties.
I really like the renderings thus far Gaspar. My only comment for the project has to do with the look and feel of the retail component. Making it all appear as though it is one giant building makes it too monolithic for me personally. It would be cool it you could make it look as though there are several separate, but attached, buildings similar to a main street. Use a variation of materials and even deco styles on the facades to break it up a bit.
Just an observation on my part. Not sure of all the costs involved in doing something like that, but thought I would add.
Curious, what rendering software did you use? It looks like Kerkythea, SketchUp? Maybe you can get with Matrix and see if they'll get you a nice model of BOK for your rendering. You might also try OU-Tulsa's graduate Urban Design program, they do lots of downtown projects and I'd imagine they have SU models, CAD files, etc. that show more of the built environment. Now whether they give them to you or not that's another story...[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
Curious, what rendering software did you use? It looks like Kerkythea, SketchUp? Maybe you can get with Matrix and see if they'll get you a nice model of BOK for your rendering. You might also try OU-Tulsa's graduate Urban Design program, they do lots of downtown projects and I'd imagine they have SU models, CAD files, etc. that show more of the built environment. Now whether they give them to you or not that's another story...[;)]
Well, that would take a long answer. I use a hybrid Mac/PC system (don't ask, it's complicated) linked to 38 duel processor computers running RenderBull. I model in Sketchup but render in Strata, Maya, or VUE, depending on the look I am going for and the size of the development.
I have used Kerkythea. It's far too limited and it teaches bad habits. But it's free!
Wow, regardless, beats the heck out of my old photoshop program on my even older Dell computer lol.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Wow, regardless, beats the heck out of my old photoshop program on my even older Dell computer lol.
Hey we have a bunch of folks here in our land planning dept that can do amazing things with an old version of Photoshop and about 8 Mountain Dews!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Well, that would take a long answer. I use a hybrid Mac/PC system (don't ask, it's complicated) linked to 38 duel processor computers running RenderBull.
Sounds like time to upgrade. Multicore.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Well, that would take a long answer. I use a hybrid Mac/PC system (don't ask, it's complicated) linked to 38 duel processor computers running RenderBull.
Sounds like time to upgrade. Multicore.
We are slowly!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin3/web.jpg)
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin/web.jpg)
Kinda looks like the new Hilton in Branson
(http://www.bransonlanding.com/images/CC_Hotel_Shots/convention-exterior.jpg)
(http://www.bransonlanding.com/images/CC_Hotel_Shots/exterior-with-sign.jpg)
I'm hoping the parking garage will include some fake windows or something. Even with some architectural details, it still screams "parking garage" to me.
Also might be good to include a drawing from the perspective of looking out of the BOK Center. Since a big part of the iconic glass wall and the windows encircling the arena were to allow people to enjoy the Tulsa skyline.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2814541128_822405a668.jpg?v=0)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I'm hoping the parking garage will include some fake windows or something. Even with some architectural details, it still screams "parking garage" to me.
Also might be good to include a drawing from the perspective of looking out of the BOK Center. Since a big part of the iconic glass wall and the windows encircling the arena were to allow people to enjoy the Tulsa skyline.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2814541128_822405a668.jpg?v=0)
Good point. I can understand why the tower will rise at 2nd and Cheyenne so as not to completely block the view.
I also agree about the parking garage, hopefully it can done to blend in like a regular building. This garage is Austin is pretty cool:
(http://www.cambridgearchitectural.com/Files/ProjectFiles/11/Images/MainPhoto_Large.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
How much longer until you superimpose it into a real image of downtown? I think that would look cool. Also, if you do that, do a "night" version.
Im interested in a nightscape, as well.
The two Acorns depicted in the renderings wont cut it, but there's no reason you couldnt have them for looks as long as they employ decorative intensities and you dont try to use them to lay down a gazillion footcandles of street illumination.
Some suggestions: Pedestrian-scale bollards, shielded (of course). Think St John Medical Center.
(http://www.betaled.com/images/pDuke8.jpg)
For area and street illumination, the LED fixtures that Minnesota DOT chose to light the newly reconstructed I-35 bridge give them some serious bragging rights.
...but just about any alternative to high-wattage Acorn lights would be forward-thinking at this point.
(http://www.betaled.com/images/prd-spider.jpg)
This may have been answered but how many floors will it be?
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
This may have been answered but how many floors will it be?
15 proposed.
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin4_2/web.jpg)
That looks WAY cool!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
This may have been answered but how many floors will it be?
15 proposed.
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin4_2/web.jpg)
I thought they said on the news that it was 20 story? When will construction start?
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
This may have been answered but how many floors will it be?
15 proposed.
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin4_2/web.jpg)
I thought they said on the news that it was 20 story? When will construction start?
I've heard lots of things in the news. [}:)]
Construction date is not set. We are still pending TDA approval for the project.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
We are still pending TDA approval for the project.
Queue ominous music
Gaspar,
I sure hope you all get TDA approval. Assuming you do, I think it would be a must to have some cafes type, open air establishments, at least on the side that faces the arena and hopefully more. Some of the more modern structures allow walls to open up and be closed for dining purposes. I think a walkable, main street type feel is a must for a few of the sides. I would almost consider dropping the structure back an additional ten feet from the street to allow for uber walkability and leisurely activity, while adding a more urban feel. Allowing for patio dining, street vendors, etc. The idea is to make a retail outlet for the masses to flock to, creating demand, thus spurring additional growth.
The power and light district is a good example of an entertainment district in downtown KC, that shows how sucessful a well-planned entertainment district can benefit from close proximity to an arena.
(http://gallery.me.com/scottgaspar/100021/raskin4_2/web.jpg)
Jim Norton wont let you have those lights as long as DTU is setting lighting standards.
Maybe their way of saying thanks to AEP for all their support?
Look at the rendering of the Matthews Warehouse art project. They have some very contemporary lights around that. Perhaps you could find out something about those and use them?
They've just installed acorn lights around the Williams Tower. Ahhhh...those traditional acorns, a perfect fit with the 1970's architecture!
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
They've just installed acorn lights around the Williams Tower. Ahhhh...those traditional acorns, a perfect fit with the 1970's architecture!
They are planting trees in dirt however, unlike the clay pits used at the Williams Green.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
They've just installed acorn lights around the Williams Tower. Ahhhh...those traditional acorns, a perfect fit with the 1970's architecture!
they didn't "just" install those. Welcome to two weeks ago.
i suppose they are installing those lights to decrease the glare since they will reflect off the trees.....when they have leaves.[}:)]
We can always count on Downtown Tulsa Unlimited to stay ahead of the curve...
Of course the cost to power and maintain them wont be born by the taxpayers but by a handful of influential merchants who spend a lot of nights downtown...
...And the blinding glare of those bluish lights will make downtown feel warm and inviting to pedestrians after dark.
Such sarcasm tonight. Im on a roll.
Any new updates on this hotel development??
Things are progressing nicely. We await the completion of the feasibility study.
No Inteller, it will not be a Hampton Inn.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Things are progressing nicely. We await the completion of the feasibility study.
No Inteller, it will not be a Hampton Inn.
well, you better tell the mayor's borrowed planning buddy that. He was quoted on the news saying to that effect about a week ago....channel 2.
Yes we know. Mr. Crowley has some excellent ideas in the works, and feels that the price-point of a Hampton is all that the area will support, but we will be presenting a hotel concept soon that we believe he will be able to support.
No, it won't be a Four Seasons, but will represent a far higher class concept than a Hampton Inn at a similar price-point.
Ritz? Waldorf? One of them there Dubai towers? [^]
My bet is on a Hilton or Westin
I am hoping it is a Yotel.
http://www.yotel.com/
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I am hoping it is a Yotel.
http://www.yotel.com/
Wow! That's like a train-station locker with a toilet.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I am hoping it is a Yotel.
http://www.yotel.com/
Wow! That's like a train-station locker with a toilet.
Yea, but not quiet as classy. That guy has an unnatural affinity for purple.
Gaspar any updates on this?
I heard a rumor from a reliable source that no hotel will be coming to downtown Tulsa for the next couple of years at least. I guess the metrics just don't show a demand for one. DoubleTree is for sale, AdamsMark is not having the occupancy they wanted, and the old Ramada hasn't improved at all. Coupled with a poor credit market no one will loan money for a downtown Tulsa hotel.
I reiterate my prediction that Tulsa will pay to tear down the old city hall.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I heard a rumor from a reliable source that no hotel will be coming to downtown Tulsa for the next couple of years at least. I guess the metrics just don't show a demand for one. DoubleTree is for sale, AdamsMark is not having the occupancy they wanted, and the old Ramada hasn't improved at all. Coupled with a poor credit market no one will loan money for a downtown Tulsa hotel.
I reiterate my prediction that Tulsa will pay to tear down the old city hall.
Agreed on all counts. We'll be VERY lucky to see any new hotels downtown Tulsa in less than 2 years.
Mayo Hotel
Courtyard Marriott
Those are both in the next two years. I believe the one by the ballpark is still a go as well since it is supposed to provide for visiting teams, entertainers, players, etc.
I was specifically thinking about the 2 locations near the BOk Center when I heard this comment. Perhaps I misconstrued it and/or they did not mean hotels already funded.
I would still be surprised if the ballpark got a new hotel in the first phase of development.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Mayo Hotel
Courtyard Marriott
Those are both in the next two years. I believe the one by the ballpark is still a go as well since it is supposed to provide for visiting teams, entertainers, players, etc.
I should have specified I meant other than those two. But, now that you mention it.... any updates available on either of those?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Mayo Hotel
Courtyard Marriott
Those are both in the next two years. I believe the one by the ballpark is still a go as well since it is supposed to provide for visiting teams, entertainers, players, etc.
I should have specified I meant other than those two. But, now that you mention it.... any updates available on either of those?
Mayo Hotel is under construction. When I went by thursday it looked like they were adding some sort of exterior scaffolding/left to the west side. There is already a construction lift on the north side. Every floor has construction documents on the windows detailing the work needed for those areas. Look like it's pretty full-bore.
Atlas Life I haven't seen anything other than tenants being evicted to make room. I heard there was some signs of construction in the back alley but haven't looked.
Mayo Building is also hot-and-heavy in construction.
Its really a shame we are getting the baseball stadium right during the hot and heavy of an economic meltdown. That really just pulls the rug out from under the potential "energy" that getting a new ballpark would bring to the area. Otherwise we would definitely see development quickly going in around it. You know, on all those other downtown proposals I kept saying lets do what ever it takes to try to make it work and get going on it, we have been riding the wave of good times for too long and its gonna end soon. People were like, oooh be patient, lets wait for something better. Well here we are, true to Tulsa form, we argued and piddled away the good times. If the city had played hard ball, got all that property, had donors step up, etc. like they did to get this going, for the East End thing, It would have likely happened in some form or another. Same with the development on the west side of the river. We would see buildings in the air right now. Also, what happened with the guy that was wanting to build the mixed use building and hotel by this new ballpark? In this economic climate he may not be able to do anything anywhere downtown. They may end up wishing they had let him do his thing when the momentum was there. At this point they may get a small hotel, but not the rest. This town definitely has a way of squandering away opportunity and putting itself in the position of later having to go to extraordinary measures to get anything at all done. We know that we are behind the curve on economic ups and downs. Yet when things start going good for us we think we are invincible or something, despite the beginnings of the downturn rumblings in other parts of the country. By the time we are done squandering away opportunity and get the ball started rolling, the economic downturn hits us here. We need to grasp the reigns and run with it when the good times START, not end lol.
During the last, at least 3 years, we have had glimmers of potential developments and I have been so frustrated that we didnt do more to get them to happen. Do we wand the core to revitalize or not? Because during those last several years while we have been looking at the core and squabbling, I keep looking behind me at the rest of the country and seeing a train wreck headed our way, then turn back to see us fighting and not moving. Oooh it would be too difficult to get that going, or they were asking for too many concessions, etc. etc. But then the train hits us, "Oh my where did that come from?[:O][B)] duh" And then what do we do? We have to work just as hard and do difficult things, make concessions only for far less result. Its just absurd.
Artist I feel the same crushing defeat as you. There are so many plans that build excitment only to be put on the shelf and forgotten about. So many announcements that lead to nothing.
Maybe it's time to try something smaller.
I have to credit JMBlake for this idea (he has great vision).
What if in the long term plan for East End we wanted retail, residential, and entertainment with a small ammusement park, bowling, movies, theater etc.
Why couldn't we start with a small amusment park? Couldn't we use some of the city land there and create a longer running version of Oktober Fest ("Summer Fest?") and put in some temporary family entertainment? If it takes off it could get developer attention. I don't think it would be very difficult and the city could make some money off of unused land.
What about a community garden? Art show?
Someone start a thread of projects that failed to develop in 2008 and lets get the rundown:
Naked Indian
Movie Production Studio
East End
River Parks West development
120 Lofts
etc.
Ok, so it's out there. I'll put a collection jar inside the front door of the restaurant and we'll start saving up to make it happen.
Who says TulsaNow can't get in the development game?
....one of these days. I just keep saying it. One of these days it's going to happen.
Don't give up. It's still alive.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Don't give up. It's still alive.
Well, that's nice to know. Keep us posted.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
Are they offering demolition or are they offering renovation to what is there already?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
The city hall block would allow direct connection to the convention center. They are also believing the tenant for this spot would have their own private convention space as well to complement the city space. (ie. breakout sessions and meals in the hotel and general sessions in the Tulsa Conv Center)
I understand that a convention hotel is complementary to the convention center and BOk Center, but should the city be issuing RFPs for a hotel alone? It would seem that the site might be more marketable if it were not designated for one use alone. Perhaps the city could consider other types of development as well-- such as mixed use hotel/office/retail? In my opinion, the biggest void downtown is in the retail sector. Does anyone know if the site is big enough to accommodate more than just a single hotel?
It's plenty big, but retail will not want a place with almost no storefront. They will be more interested in the federal building or library when they become available.
Hotels include retail of some sort anyway. There are 3-4 businesses in crowne plaza for example.
450-500 parking spaces are claimed in that article. Other than courthouse parking and ground level parking... is there a magic 3rd tier I am not aware of? Otherwise, 500 spaces would consume a huge portion of what is available there.
I've never just wondered around the lower parking levels (restricted areas, us lowly attorneys only have a small slice) so correct my ignorance if that be the case.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
The city hall block would allow direct connection to the convention center. They are also believing the tenant for this spot would have their own private convention space as well to complement the city space. (ie. breakout sessions and meals in the hotel and general sessions in the Tulsa Conv Center)
Understood. Problem is, we already have a hotel that completely matches that description (the Doubletree) and it is struggling.
Another thought on PJ's article in the Whirled. It's fundamentally dishonest. It tells us that the marketing of the site has just now begun, when, in fact, Jones Lange LaSalle has been marketing it for many months.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
Are they offering demolition or are they offering renovation to what is there already?
The city is offering the site and building "as is", meaning, you get it with the building on it... if you don't want the building, the demolition is on your dime; if you want it renovated, the renovation is on your dime.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
450-500 parking spaces are claimed in that article. Other than courthouse parking and ground level parking... is there a magic 3rd tier I am not aware of? Otherwise, 500 spaces would consume a huge portion of what is available there.
I've never just wondered around the lower parking levels (restricted areas, us lowly attorneys only have a small slice) so correct my ignorance if that be the case.
Yeah, I think they are counting the entire parking structure.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_11_A1_Thisae597559 (//%22Hotel%20on%20City%20Hall%20Site%20%20%22)
[}:)]
Ask yourself this... if we have not been able to get a legitimate proposal for a hotel on a cleared block (the "TowerView" block), why would anyone think we'll have more success with a parcel that would require a huge investment just to get it ready for construction (demolition costs for the former city hall and the parking deck).
Are they offering demolition or are they offering renovation to what is there already?
The city is offering the site and building "as is", meaning, you get it with the building on it... if you don't want the building, the demolition is on your dime; if you want it renovated, the renovation is on your dime.
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the information.
Would anyone really build a hotel there? I just can't imagine a hotel surrounded by government buildings. That and the fact that it requires significant demolition and reconfiguration of the surrounding area.
I've never thought that the idea of new old city hall as a hotel was very viable. But what do I know.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I've never thought that the idea of new old city hall as a hotel was very viable. But what do I know.
Its not, and I dont think anyone is suggesting that it would be. It could be part of a larger development on that site though. There is more than just that one tall building. You could build a large hotel just to the north of the tall building and remodel that old one into offices and perhaps other uses.
One thing I think any developer will need to know is will the city county library be moving and if so when. Once that is known there will be more property and a bigger development potential.
It's becomming more and more clear to me that until we have a cohesive plan for downtown and appropriate zoning code changes already in place that we will not see the big money developers coming in.
All we hear is "there has been a flurry of interest", but still we don't see solid plans and the interest never coalesces. We've seen several entrepreneurs (and I am thankful to everyone of them that have taken the huge risk), public funds for street improvements or event centers and philanthropic endeavors but no big sure deals.
It's time to take the bull by the horns and indentify where we want residential and retail and then fix the zoning so it can happen. The city and the TDA need to unload some property at a loss so they can make a premium once the land starts getting scarce. What good is it for the city to own huge chunks of land downtown and then ask market price so they can place a bunch of flaming hoops of RFP bureaucracy that scares people away?
I'm not suggesting that we act in fear that nothing will ever happen or throw reason to the wind, but simply that we act. We've created the infrastructure, we've created lovely streets and sidewalks, we've built an iconic arena and now we've got a ballpark on the way. All of these things have created interest, but they have not been the magic bean we've hoped for.
Bottom line is we ignored downtown for so long that it turned into an empty office park...it's starting to get a glimmer of life, but not that cosmic big bang that will take it to the next stage.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad at that Gaspar says to be paitent on this hotel development...I'm happy everytime I walk into a coffee shop in Crowne Plaza or the Mayo, get a bite at any of the great restaurants downtown, or meet friends for a beer at Arnies. But I'm worried that we will not get the critical mass (shopping...living...) until we focus.
The map says build X here, no need for a variance for X, it's already covered and we can make you a sweet deal on the land if you build "urban".
+1 Carltonplace.
BINGO!
So many other cities have a "downtown plan". I was perusing through skyscraper page forums and ran across a discussion about a building going in in downtown Denver. There were colorful maps from the "Downtown Denver Infill Plan" that showed where they wanted what type of future growth to be. People were talking about which streets were the pedestrian oriented ones, or were in the future going to be designed as pedestrian friendly and the things they would be doing to get them that way and connect to other pedestrian friendly streets. People were talking about one new, really neat looking, high-rise residential, building that was being proposed, some were complaining that it wasn't pedestrian friendly enough to be in such and such an area. Others were pointing out the map and saying that actually the street designated to become pedestrian friendly was 1 over, etc. THEY HAD A PLAN! just like I have said Tulsa needs, I was amazed lol.
Developers know where they can build what. People, businesses, developers, know what each street and area in downtown will evolve into. They can make an investment, build, and know that what goes in next to them will compliment what they are doing and nobody is going to complain about what they are building and where it is lol, because the right development goes where its supposed to go, creating a well thought out downtown atmosphere.
I have no idea what the hell our approach is? And I dare say, nor does anyone else (developers, businesses) looking at our downtown lol? Its like we are a bunch of backwards hicks saying to potential developers and businesses. "Oh, we just build whatever, wherever, don't matter dude. There is no plan. Take your best bet and cross your fingers."
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
BINGO!
So many other cities have a "downtown plan". I was perusing through skyscraper page forums and ran across a discussion about a building going in in downtown Denver. There were colorful maps from the "Downtown Denver Infill Plan" that showed where they wanted what type of future growth to be. People were talking about which streets were the pedestrian oriented ones, or were in the future going to be designed as pedestrian friendly and the things they would be doing to get them that way and connect to other pedestrian friendly streets. People were talking about one new, really neat looking, high-rise residential, building that was being proposed, some were complaining that it wasn't pedestrian friendly enough to be in such and such an area. Others were pointing out the map and saying that actually the street designated to become pedestrian friendly was 1 over, etc. THEY HAD A PLAN! just like I have said Tulsa needs, I was amazed lol.
Developers know where they can build what. People, businesses, developers, know what each street and area in downtown will evolve into. They can make an investment, build, and know that what goes in next to them will compliment what they are doing and nobody is going to complain about what they are building and where it is lol, because the right development goes where its supposed to go, creating a well thought out downtown atmosphere.
I have no idea what the hell our approach is? And I dare say, nor does anyone else (developers, businesses) looking at our downtown lol? Its like we are a bunch of backwards hicks saying to potential developers and businesses. "Oh, we just build whatever, wherever, don't matter dude. There is no plan. Take your best bet and cross your fingers."
I guess that will do, if you need an "excuse du jour".
But, seriously, downtown Tulsa's problem has not generally been that developers don't know where they are allowed/expected to build or don't know WHAT the city would like them to build. I think we have been exceedingly clear that we will allow (and desperately hope) someone will build a hotel on the TowerView block. Likewise for the site of the old city hall.
On the other hand, they screwed up BIG time when they ordered the developer in the new ballpark area to halt his plans. How many developers are going to be eager to spend time and money working on plans for downtown when the city has shown it is perfectly willing to march in and hand over the opportunities to members of the club.
I completely agree with Oil Capital. Its not that developers dont want to develop in downtown. Its that the City has been and continues to be viewed in a negative light when it comes to developers that are not in the club. I know a few, and every time its the same excuse..."why would we go somewhere we're not wanted" or "its too difficult to work with the City in downtown." The IDL is primarily CBD zoned meaning just about anything can go anywhere without limitation.
The consciencious developer will seek to work not only with the city but their neighbors surrounding the site, and the general public. Without public support for their project, what chance do they truly have? I remember that the devloper for that project where the ballpark is going now made an effort to ask this forum what we wanted to see...how many others have in here? I have yet to hear the ballpark developers ask what it is the citizens of Tulsa want to see there. No one asked what we thought of the ballpark design and some public dollars are helping build it.
Also you have to consider this. The City makes no effort to promote what it can do for developers (i.e. tax abatement, TIF funding, grants help, incentives, etc.). They also don't go out of their way to help in the permitting phase from what I've been told.
The site on Denver thats the subject of the hotel development being discussed here was offered under an RFP a couple years ago for $1.75 mil if I remember right. Thats what the Hampton Inn developer was offering but since Jones Lang LaSalle got involved, apparently its worth more ($2+ mil) and worth chasing away a developer that was ready, willing and able to fund and start Day 1...no offense Gaspar, but that was the case then.
I hope they can make a go of it there. But in the end, if the City wants private redevelopment to start, they have to be willing to make some efforts and sacrifices to attract it as well.