Guess How ….
A building like this could save taxpayers $20 million or more on land acquisition costs as part of MAPS 3. Care to guess how?
UPDATE: It took less than hour for someone to guess correctly. No surprise the winner was Nick Roberts, though Blair Humphreys must be credited with bringing my attention to this alternative solution. One has to wonder: will the MAPS 3 oversight board be given the chance to thoroughly study this as an alternative to paying $30 million to moving the OG&E substation across from the future Core to Shore central park? I realize from having reviewed public records that city staff have spent a lot of time behind the scenes preparing for such an acquisition and move.
But if one steps back from the edge, why not give this option serious consideration? A year ago I was hearing that LED lighting was simply not an option for Project 180. Now it’s becoming a reality. Step back from preconceived notions and ponder the alternatives. I’m not saying this is the right or wrong way to go. But certainly I’m questioning why it wouldn’t be a good alternative – especially if it allows for a fair funding basis for all possible convention center sites.
Here are links to consider:
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
That’s a reasonably attractive alternative to a substation, although it reminds me of The Hill, which has received a lot of criticism for its design. However, this substation would front our Central Park, and, like a convention center, would basically create a dead block. I’d rather see the substation go and a hotel, retail or residential development take its place. Even a convention center might be preferable, honestly, especially if it was a cenvention center/hotel combo, with the hotel fronting on the park.
It doesn’t even have to be that elaborate. Just about any covering would be great. Did a search for “urban substations” and got several interesting results. I even like this really minimal one on the 2012 Olympics site in London.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lauolc5cBr1qat99uo1_500.jpg
You can even imagine ways to make a blank wall like that interact with the street- perfect place for a video board, or even funhouse glass along the sidewalk to make walking past the building kind of a fun experience (Inspiration from the mirrored columns at Leadership Square that I once spent about 20 minutes playing with). Why shouldn’t it be possible for an electric substation to contribute to the identity and experience of a neighborhood?
Also, if we are spending $30 million on relocating the substation… Why not spend $40 instead and buy part of the Cotton Mill?
I like the London substation better, although I suspect a majority of Oklahomans wouldn’t. But, if we’re going to argue that you can make a blank wall interact with the street, why not put the convention center there for $10 million less than the Cotton Mill? I just don’t think you can argue that the Convention Center cannot be on one side of the park and, in the same breath, say a covered substation would be fine. Either both work or neither works, IMO. Again, I’m not necessarily in favor of putting hte convention center adjacent to the park, but I do think we need our arguments to be consistent.
Jill brings up some interesting points.
As a utility, does OG&E pay property taxes on it? If not, would rather see it return to development and get tax money generated from it. However, if you have to spend $30M and only get back $2M then probably shouldn’t do it. But if something other than the c.c. is located next to it, would anyone really want to be living right next door? Will it’s presence damper property values on that side of the Park?
Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but isn’t the substation already in the least desirable place along the Park? Meaning, isn’t it tucked into or at the base of what will be the on/off ramp of the relocated I-40 (may have it confused with something else). While I understand Jill’s point about being consistent, it may go back to the scale of each project as the substation is a much smaller footprint (deadzone) than what is planned for the c.c.
This reminds me of the false houses built in London that acted as chimneys for the underground trains.
Beeeeeecause there’s a power substation hidden inside of it!