Downtown OKC 2020: Bert Belanger
Bert Belanger
When I became re-involved in 2003 in OKC development, I touted TIF (Tax Increment Financing) as the means through which the MAPS sales tax incentive could be “bootstrapped” to help create a dense mixed use environment. The target: a broadly defined “triangle” bordered by I-40 on the south, I-235 on the diagonal and on the west, a north-south boundary splitting what is now known as MidTown.
The Factory - an unrealized redevelopment of an entire square block in Bricktown pitched by Bert Belanger and the McLain family in 2003.
My first efforts were with ERC on Deep Deuce, then the Arts District, then The Factory, in which I was technically “Oh for three.”
However, we learned a great deal that we have tried to apply since. We conducted a market study of 14 peer cities that had neither sexy mountains nor shorelines and found that each had between 2 percent and 8 percent of their MSAs’ population within the urban core. At the low end for OKC, that math translates to 24,000 people. Even counting the Jail, we are under 2,000 today.
Now that a number of players have emerged downtown, the geographic focus has naturally gotten blurred. The Thunder and Devon Tower have brought into the game two 800-lb gorillas – the NBA owners group and Devon Energy. To a significant but lesser extent, Sandridge, the Humphreys family, Roy Oliver/Mark Beffort and CHK/McClendon have gained strong positions in the core. Greg Banta/Bob Howard/Mickey Clagg and Corsair/Smith Brothers have made a number of speculative buys in MidTown that are starting to see life. Steve Mason, Chris and Meg Salyer, Nick Preftakes, BMI and Earl Neighbors have taken very different but positive approaches as user/owners.
The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber and the City Staff are clearly and rightfully feeling their oats, while the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority has been weakened by Larry Nichols’ departure and the controversial pick of The Hill’s developer, which probably has spawned a winding down of some trustees’ long running influence. The approval of a un-Urban design for the Chamber’s building was an unfortunate reminder of the darker days in OKC history before the Bombing made consensus and grass roots projects possible over politics.
The highly-anticipated Brownstones at Maywood Park have not sold as quickly as hoped.
A perceived negative out there is that the former Triangle group has splintered, which is true but not necessarily a bad thing, as each of us can now play in their own sandboxes and probably get more done, and I think Maywood Park has been unfairly maligned as a bit of a bust as most of the brownstones sit empty. I say unfairly because I think they will ultimately sell, and because the City got exactly what it asked for from all of the Downtown housing developers – expensive, high-end for sale homes.
Neither the City or Urban Renewal wanted affordable rentals, as they turned down both of my ERC proposals for mixed income apartments in the competition for the Deep Deuce site (2002, with Benham) and the Arts District site (2003, with ADG and Raptor). The only for sale projects that have sold out have been the Centennial (albeit to mostly corporate buyers) and the Harvey Lofts rehab (only 17 units between $100k and $200k).
Dick Tannenbaum has made a very successful entre into housing development (Park Harvey and Lincoln), but not without hiccups (eg the failed attempts to condo both the Montgomery and the Classen). Block 42 has more dark windows at night than not, and The Hill deal is a ticking time bomb; the unpaid contractors will soon grow tired of waiting for their money and will no longer play as nice as they have been.
The national meltdown has been a big factor, but the reality is that OKC has never been a big condo market. Also, no one can blame even the richest buyers for a reluctance to buy if the surroundings of a real dense and active urban village does not materialize as quickly as everyone would like.
The reality that the City is experiencing downtown is that critical mass and density matters most, and is not delivered quick enough through the linear production and absorption of for-sale housing. The decision by Urban Renewal and the City to promote and push for upper end, for-sale housing first was ill-timed to be sure, but generally a violation of real estate development fundamentals.
In my opinion, the critical path to successful infill Downtown development in OKC begins first with creating density of people using the real estate on a 24/7 basis. This happens quickest through 2 uses – Hotels and Rental Apartments, which more quickly put more heads on beds than any other use.
Everyone wants to experience an urban “Magnificent Mile” environment like Michigan Avenue, but Daniel Burnham’s Plan For Chicago took 15 years to draft and adopt and over 90 years to develop, culminating with Millennium Park, absolutely the coolest urban green space in America. That is why I think that the current Core to Shore emphasis puts the cart way before the horse. We need to finish the Core first in a most excellent way.
I believe that the following represents a better chronology for a critical path for OKC’s Downtown Development
1- Plan for Core to Shore through a broader 20 year long process and horizon, led and participated in by more than a couple dozen people, incrementally stopping and adjusting every 3-5 years to review how the market is responding. Mix in Social Initiatives like the Jail (on a more modest, phased basis, not as a response to another unfunded Federal mandate) and Homeless Center with the sexy stuff so that voter fatigue doesn’t kill the Goose that Laid the MAPs Eggs.
2- Avoid the consolidation of power in administering Business Improvement Districts comprising the current and emerging “districts” that make up the Downtown Core. Remember that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
3- Let the Neighborhoods and Districts decide where their boundaries begin and end and manage themselves through Business Improvement Districts and other Owners Associations. The localized characteristics of Auto Alley, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Maywood Park, Midtown, Film District, Lower Bricktown, Courthouse Block, Devon/Botanical Gardens each have their own forces of will, market attraction and good design attributes that will help compel and sort out the timing and priorities of projects – politics should not.
4 – Use TIF creatively and broadly to include Sale and Room Taxes for discrete user-driven projects, as per the examples of the Skirvin Hotel and Devon Tower.
5- Inventory current infrastructure opportunities and challenges in the Core and create a priority list that gets addressed by TIF. Example on one end of the spectrum – we can cheaply double parking on Broadway through angled striping and narrowed, slower traffic; versus the other end of the spectrum – the costly Boulevard through nothing to nowhere, which only happens five years after the Feds fund I-40.
6 – Agree that density, shared parking, connectivity and walkability are good and should be the paramount ideals for Project design.
7 – Focus on Big Users and what they need to come into the Core.
8 – Rental apartments can be tailored for sites big and small, renters rich and not so rich, and are the most finance-able class of real estate today and for the foreseeable future.
9 – The Quiet Zone (property owners are seeking new gates along the BNSF railroad to quiet train noise as it passes through the Flat Iron district) is a threshold need that must happen first BEFORE any other project Downtown – it is absolutely essential to any private project of scale, and will create incremental value on both sides of the tracks for miles East and West, North and South.
10 – Do not try to Force the Core to Shore – it is my sense that a relatively small group of parties are unduly influencing priorities. I am okay with the MAPs 3 Convention Center Idea just South of the Ford Center, but it is still a long ways to the South shoreline. Our version of Millennium Park will have to be birthed and season for 10 years before development happens naturally further South. The thing that could change this is if a huge User shows up, but none are on the horizon that I can see.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Wow. A fantastic post. The most articulate reading of the current state of downtown I’ve seen, plus a vision for moving forward. I’d like to see regular postings by Bert.
It’s also nice to see a list of the players with financial interests. This is certainly not something you usually come across in The Oklahoman. I’m curious Bert, does the Gaylord Family not have interests downtown (beyond the Thunder)?
Finally, the judgement on what projects have succeeded and which ones have failed is excellent. This sort of matches my perception of things, but I’m certainly not on the inside. And all of the high-end housing downtown is definetely a joke. Why pay $250,000 for a unit downtown when that can get you a very nice house anywhere in the city for the price? What’s the advantage of being downtown right now that justifies paying so much for condo living?
I mean, I live near 23rd and Pennsylvania, which is actually the most densely populated area in OKC. So this area is, as far as density goes, more urban than downtown is. And $250,000 will get you a ton of house in this area.
Anyway, great column.
Personally, I don’t have many problems with Mr. Belanger’s statements. There are many good ideas here. His post is more of a nuts and bolts look at how to progress downtown and that is great. However, there are a few things I question. First, my understanding is that the C2S plan is not a 5 year plan, but a 20-30 year development plan for the area south of the current I-40 with some items being proposed for the next MAPS vote–i.e. the central park. Thus, is Bert suggesting that the entire C2S plan is acceptable, but should be put off for an indeterminate amount of time? If so, for how long and what criteria should be met before C2S proceeds? If we wait until things are “perfect” downtown before C2S proceeds, we will wait forever. However, if there are measurable goals then there is a better argument. For example, we need X-number of people per square kilometer downtown before C2S. With actual proposed goals we have something to argue about rather than an esoteric “things aren’t ready yet” position.
Like it or not, I-40 is being moved and plans should be made for that area once the current I-40 is demolished…otherwise, if we proceed with just a convention center south of Ford Center as Mr. Belanger suggests, we will have conventions in the middle of an industrial/eyesore area without a central park surrounding it.
I don’t want to go line by line with Mr. Berlanger’s points, and I am fine with more BID Districts and the use of TIF funds, but I am concerned with the geographical “closeness” with each other as that can just lead to overlapping functions and a waste of money. We don’t want to place businesses in the position of researching and asking dozens of BID districts as to their individual benefits and jumping through a myriad of hoops. That is inefficient and one of the many reasons the Bricktown area was developed as it was…to streamline the regulatory process and show businesses in a clear manner what the benefits were (yeah, you can argue as to whether that is still succeeding or not). Finally, before getting too windy here, maybe too late, if the property owners and city want a Quiet Zone established downtown, the FRA has a set procedure for doing so and the process can be started immediately…submit an inquiry to the FRA today and get the ball rolling if that is the most important item to complete before anything else.
Wow. What a lot of thought and time went into the making of your article, Bert. Lots of good information. Having now read yours, Casey Cornett’s and Dennis Wells’, I’m even more embarrassed now by what I’ve sent to Steve but I suppose that he’ll publish it anyway. You guys know stuff; I don’t. I’m very impressed by all of what I’ve read as it (individually and combined) certainly gives lots to think about.
I’m guessing that when the series is all done that one will be hard pressed to say that well thought out positions haven’t been put forward by many and that’s all good whether the positions agree or disagree in whole or in part.
I commend you for doing this, Steve. When the series is done, I hope that you’ll stick all the articles together somewhere for a “Reader” on the topics.
Didn’t I just read a lengthy comment by Blair on this post? I don’t see it anymore, anyways…I like the devil’s-advocate look on the subject but I don’t see where the idea of Maps 3 being an instant build comes in. Most of the suggestions throughout this post suggest that OKC’s downtown is not ready for all “this and that” and we need to build-up “this or that”…I agree…but the park will be a 25-30 year process to fully come to fruition and the convention center at earliest will not be completed and functional til 2020…neither of those are instant, leaving OKC time to head in the direction you say it needs to be at.
I am by absolutely no means an architect/city-designer/engineer and every other occupation in that industry and won’t give suggestions in that direction, but how do you build “critical mass” with so many vacant buildings? No park space? No effective transportation? I think we need those things to make people want to live downtown and fill that critical mass issue.
It’s time we stop saying “We have so much potential” and just start proving it. I think once a developer puts reasonable housing downtown then most of our critical mass issues will begin to fix themselves. Of course that is just a guess…something we are all doing.
Yep! Great post and very well thought out. Should be read by many more than just those who will see this on the blog. Steve’s blog is proving to be a great asset to Oklahoma City.
I tend to agree with Casey on the subject as well. Maybe it’s because I’m a naive “twenty-something” too, but I’ve also got the “keep the momentum” mentality going.
In this particular post it postulates that the city both needs to grow in density and improve the core first.
I don’t think anyone is denying that there is plenty of work to be done on the actual foundation of downtown, but the point that was just brought up in important to think about. What is the advantage to living in the “core”? You can get a house, three times as large, in a good area 4 miles away for less than what they’re asking in the Urban Center. There isn’t a grocery store to get easily accessible foods and specialty foods, there isn’t a lot of public art, or a well oiled, reliable bus system.
It seems to me that you have to provide an advantage to living downtown. I just moved back from Washington DC and thought it would be a good idea to move downtown to fill that bustling urban hole I’d be leaving in the district. I couldn’t find any other reason other than I’d be within walking distance to the local bars and restaurants.
The argument is that we need the critical mass to be built up before any of these things happen, and I tend to believe that things like Core to Shore initiate that volume. I think I’d reconsider moving downtown if I knew that I could take a walk out to a park and read a book by a water fountain or sit on a bench by the river and watch the bikers go by with my little brother. Maybe walk across the street and grab a burger and beer looking over the park and read the Gazette. It’s things like that, that would make me want to move downtown.
It’s a chicken and egg type conversation, but I don’t see any real advantage to buying a $250,000 condo downtown unless there is a reason to pack up and move downtown. We dont have to have all of this done in 5 years, but look at what has happened in downtown OKC in just the last 10 years. I imagine in most situations if anyone ever talked about the original MAPs bringing a professional sports team to town it was met with laughter. That’s if anyone was talking about it at all because it seemed something of what another commenter said earlier, a “pipe dream” and unpragmatic. However, in nearly 15 years downtown Oklahoma City has gone from a deserted ghost town, to one of only 30 cities in United States to have a professional basketball team. Things like the NBA not only bring economic growth to an urban core but also improve quality of life and provide great advertising to businesses that may want to set up shop or expand to Oklahoma.
It’s a “build it and they will come” mentality, but I tend to believe that nothing would have happened downtown unless we took a risk on MAPs 1 and 2. If we dont facilitate the momentum it may dry up and destroy everything that we’ve watched spring up in the past 15 years. We have to continue to be forward thinking.
Well Joe, it’s hard to dismiss anything you’re saying other than that Gazette part… sure you don’t want to be reading a great story (I’ll do my best to provide it) in The Oklahoman instead? 
I thought Mr. Berlanger’s piece was interesting and thought provoking and I agree with many of his points.
I would like to add a counterpoint to the “You can buy a bigger house outside downtown for comparable money to a condo, so why would you live downtown” statements I’ve seen in the comments here. There are multiple reasons I chose to live downtown: I grew up in a walking environment and I missed it. Living in an area without sidewalks, I found myself popping in the car to go four blocks. My mother, who is older, shamed me when I found she was riding her bicycle to the supermarket a mile away to buy groceries. I’m now downtown, living in one of the “joke” townhomes and loving it. I get up in the morning and walk my dog. I come home from work at lunch and walk her again. My husband and I walk to restaurants for dinner and to the movies. We’ll walk to the Thunder games in the fall. We spent last evening walking along the Oklahoma River, and I’m buying a bicycle. I love looking out at night and seeing the city lights, and I’m excited to have a denser neighborhood as people move in. Yes, I do have to drive to the supermarket, but I do it when I’m running other errands. I understand that downtown will have to be more dense before we can get a supermarket, and I don’t feel like it’s my right to have one if a retailer cannot yet make a reasonable living. Even in a city the size of Oklahoma City, things just feel more vibrant and interesting down here. It’s a bit of a financial risk, but it feels like an adventure. I can’t get that feeling in Crown Heights or Nichols Hills, I’ve found.
Also, you cannot look only at square feet when estimating value. Look at a 2500 square foot house in Yukon and compare it to the same size house in Linwood, Crown Heights, Nichols Hills, south Edmond and some of the pricer areas in Edmond. You’ll find huge disparities in price per square foot. That is not only related to perceived desirability of the area, but also the age of the home, the types of materials used in constructing the home, the quality of the construction, etc. It far too simplistic to try and compare a house in one location in OKC to another using only price per square foot.
An idea to bring tourists, improve quality of life and increase tax revenue.
Consider building a very large hill or mini mountain. Artificial Rock shell near or in a large park in downtown OKC.
This rock hill or mini mountain could do many things. Cave atmosphere inside structure.
Caves, water falls, cliff repelling, rock climbing, roller coaster going in and out of cave openings and around out side of mountain, retail shops and restaurants with open air eating places in cave openings, etc. Possibilities unlimited. Architects and designers could go wild with creative design. Example: Indian cliff dwellings as retail shops. Unconventional building designs could be used because the outside and inside surface is just rock formations. Don”t have mountains? Build one. Use it to improve quality of life and increase tax revenue.
I think if we move Crossroads Mall to Core to Shore, and make that our brilliant futuristic planning gesture, that not only will we have finally put downtown Oklahoma City on the map, but we will have capitalized on Ed’s brilliant idea for retail caves…
Keith, we could also use a mountain in flat OKC :~)
I read an article about an artificial rock mountain which was a smaller scale that was in Illinois or Indiana, I think. It was a great success. Imagine a park where all the bathrooms and buildings look like giant rocks sticking up out of the ground. Any of which could have a water fall on the outside. They have a artificial mountain at Disney land in California which has a roller coaster in it. The Artificial Rock Mountain could be expanded with ease at any time buy adding more stone surface any where around the structure. Any man made object could be hidden from ground view with ease. One area could have a high cliff with a waterfall on the out side with smaller waterfalls anywhere inside or out. Think about Mall Of America with the rides and entertainment there, only here you could make the whole thing look like a natural stone mountain with a cave like internal space. Would look good in or near a park and be unusual enough to draw many tourists and locals. The possibilities are great. Private business may want to invest in it to get space for business.
Another idea for artificial rock formation.
You could place one or more of these on the canal so the canal would flow through it. You could have a small train to move people around inside and out of the structure. It would be a ride and a way for people to move from one area to another. Waterfalls everywhere. It would be a good place for tourists to go when you have 100+ weather or rain. Rock formation designs are only limited by nature. You can use any formation mother nature provides. Hope these ideas help.
Well my post wasn’t to get into details on housing numbers and costs, my dad and I have been buying old houses and fixing them up around OKC and in Edmond since I was a toddler as side projects and long term investments. So when it comes to dollars and cents I have at least a decent idea of how far the dollar goes in most areas of Oklahoma.
Also, let me say I’m super pumped people like you are living downtown and actually contributing to the urban feel and quality of life. My point was simply, and I think this is the general point. Fantastic Okie’s like you and your husband wouldn’t be living in downtown if it wasn’t for the successes of MAPs 1 and 2. Those successes initiated the drive for downtown development and urban living. I know there is a chew before you swallow feel going on with a lot of people, but if we aren’t forward thinking now about a developmental project that may take 1-2 decades it will simply never happen.
Steve – Obviously a fan of the writing, would it be better if it was a “Look at OKC”?
Ed – You keep dreaming the big dreams man, Oklahoma could always use more man made mountains with roller coasters going through them and caves, and maybe a chocolate waterfall like the movie Willie Wanka, we could put that on the back of our quarter.
Interesting and informative post. I have to say it’s refreshing to have someone so openly be self-interested. At least that’s my reading of it. While I tend to agree with some of the points (esp in regards to downtown housing), I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that OKC (all of us) shouldn’t pursue a core to shore (especially the Central Park part). It seems to me that the CP portion of c2s would be used by many OKC citizens that don’t live downtown. To me, that benefits a far greater amount of people and moves the city forward. Why doesn’t any of the folks who are “worried” about to c2s say what they really think? I believe that to be “hey man, we spent a lot of money on real estate, plans, etc on the east side of downtown OKC and we’d just HATE for the people to vote to build a park, etc where we don’t have any land to speculate with”. Hate to be harsh. But I can see the opposition shaping up for C2S under the guise of “getting the cart before the horse”, but let’s be honest here, it’s really “we already have sunk costs and could lose a lot of money”. Again, while I agree with many of the points made, it troubles me to see the self-serving part. It should be a big red flag to everyone.
Here’s the rub, Plainsman: did the committee studying Core to Shore have an obligation to first question how it would impact downtown and whether it was even a good idea? From what I saw and heard, they automatically started with the assumption they needed to do it and move forward. Wasn’t that sort of assumption made with tearing out Main Street during the height of Urban Renewal?
I’m not saying Core to Shore is good or bad. But it troubles me to hear such assumptions made, especially when there are experts without any bias (like Jeff Speck and others who have yet to go public) issue warnings about how Core to Shore could damage downtown development.
What do we know that they don’t? Or what do they know that we don’t?
I don’t disagree with you in regards to input Steve. But, the worries here are over the harm to private development in primarily the downtown housing market, correct? I mean, I’m definitely still going to go eat and take in a movie in Bricktown on a Saturday afternoon. Then afterward, maybe stroll on over to the park (if it existed). All I’m saying is that real estate speculation is just that–speculation. Do you think it was “fair” for those folks in Edmond to have a Wal-Mart built essentially as their backyard neighbor? I respect your opinion and love the fact that you love OKC and are a true historian about it. I just don’t don’t find it hard to say that it’s easy to see the motivation of those who are self-serving. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying it’s obvious. Also, I’d be interested in knowing just how self-serving OCURA was back in the day when they wiped out Main Street? I’m guessing there was quite a bit more of that going on and far less public interest going on when those decisions were made. Perhaps you can speak to that. It’s not in the public interest to underwrite real estate speculation. While I’m rooting for all of those developments, I’m simply pointing out the obvious (or at least I think it is)–that opposition is shaping up under the guise of “cart before the horse” when it’s actually self-preservation. As always, thanks for the forum about something I really care about–OKC-and in particular, downtown/urban OKC.
For some reason I see a lot of contradictions among many people posting on this site…I read a lot by people bringing up the point that some of the designers for the park were from out of town (non-bias) and that we should use designers here…I’m fine with that. Then I read about why people here aren’t listening to people from out of town (Speck) instead of just local people…which is it? Do we want to listen to people from here or people from out of town?
When do we listen to non-biased people and when do we not?
For the record- I loved listening to Speck and hope most of his ideas get put to use.
I didn’t see a lot of people upset over out-of-town designers on this site. That said, isn’t this an apples and oranges comparison?
People who do question the use of out-of-town designers vs. in-town designers, at least when I’ve heard this discussion over the years, aren’t questioning the qualification of the outsiders – they only want to see more work going to people who live here.
And when it comes to the hiring of “outside” consultants, it’s my understanding they are preferable because they come with no bias and no stake in the game other than their contract fees and maybe trying to appease who is hiring them (an issue sometimes regardless of where a consultant is hired from)
Great post! Finally something less pipe dream and more pragmatic.