What if the MidTown Mercy Evaluations Were Done as a Grid?
Urban Renewal director JoeVan Bullard is taking issue with the suggestion that the report on the old Mercy Hospital site leaves questions about the criteria used and whether the projects were evaluated on an equal basis.
More often than not, a grid that sets out how each proposal fares with each criteria is used for such analysis (and one is being used in the site selection for a new convention center).
So let’s try and take the information available and see for ourselves whether the same criteria is being used with each project.
The report begins with an extensive explanation on how the use of HUD financing can slow a project. And yet this criteria seems to only be used on the proposal submitted by Marva Ellard, and is not mentioned on any of the other proposals.
So, let’s submit just three categories to the grid:
1. HUD FINANCING AS A POSSIBLE DELAY IN STARTING PROJECT:
Ellard: HUD financing, cited as a con with statement: “redeveloper’s availability to timely execute.”
Henderson/Brooks: HUD financing, no such mention
Wiggin: HUD financing, no such mention
Tanenbaum: Not relying on HUD financing, not listed as a “pro.”
Home Creations: Unclear.
2. RETAIL
Ellard: Cited as con, “large commercial space: 49,450 sf,” does not explain that the proposal suggests much of the commercial space is designed to be “flexible” and could be turned into additional apartments.
Wiggin: Cited as a pro, “Commercial space: 24,000 sf”
Henderson/Brooks: Cited as a con, no retail space along Walker.
Tanenbaum: Cited as a con, no retail space along Walker.
Home Creations: Cited as a con, “Commercial space: 36,000 sf to 68,000 sf”
3. EXPERIENCE (Now this is an interesting criteria. Are we to assume this means “outsiders, you’re not welcome to play in this game?”)
Ellard: No comment made on Ellard’s development of the Sieber Hotel Apartments or involvement with The Hill, an Urban Renewal housing project in Deep Deuce.
Wiggin: Cited as a pro, “Familiar with OCURA procedures, successful developer.”
Henderson/Brooks: Cited as a pro, “Familiar with OCURA procedures, successful developer.” No mention is made on the team’s difficulties meeting deadlines, deviations from original proposal on last Urban Renewal project, the Legacy at Arts Quarter.
Tanenbaum: Cited as a pro, “Experienced developer with proven success record” Doesn’t make clear this is Tanenbaum’s first attempt at an Urban Renewal project.
Home Creations: No comment made on experience; the developer has decades of experience building homes in the Metro, but has not previously attempted an Urban Renewal project.
Now, what follows are criteria used to favor Henderson/Brooks that are not mentioned as a pro or con with the other proposals:
- Good exterior elevation variances for historic appearances
- Roof top amenities of dog park and community patio
- Good parking structure aesthetics
- Flexible open living floor plans
- Attractive street level unit entrances
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
Since you are implying a large bias against Marva, why do you suppose it exists? You must have a suspicion
Rover, Steve’s not saying there’s a bias against Marva. He’s pointing out that the Henderson/Brooks proposal seems to have a lot of arbitrary plus points that were either not considered or mentioned in connection with the other properties. And the assessment as a whole at least has the appearance of lacking a common formula for comparing proposals. How could they even consider this a relevant evaluation without a grid?
At least Bullard is aware that there are questions/issues. My concern is that they are blissfully unaware that any problems might exist with the developers selected. Is there any way we can get them to respond to questions about, for example, how they plan to hold Henderson and Brooks accountable to their design from an architectural and materials standpoint this time, if selected? They certainly did an abysmal job last time with the Legacy. Have they looked at resident satisfaction with the quality of the building at the Legacy? Or is it all based on pretty pictures? Are there any time constraints on Wiggins? Do they designate a back-up if he doesn’t come through this time? It would be nice if there at least some public input into this process.
The selection process certainly appears arbitrary and capricious. Things like this go a long way to discouraging participation from high-quality, experienced developers who don’t have an “in” with OCURA.
Excellent post. Grids are so important both to help reviewers keep their focus and to show the public that there was some measure of objectivity in the evaluation.