The original plans – click on image to enlarge

I posted this in 2008. In light of recent discussions over the decision by the Urban Renewal Authority to award development of the MidTown Mercy site to Legacy apartments developers Gary Brooks and Mike Henderson, I am reposting this blog post:

From time to time I hear grumbling about the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority and whether it really holds developers to the plans that get them selected against other competitors.

What’s wonderful about The Oklahoman’s archives is we can see for ourselves whether there is any validity to this complaint.

Today we start this new series with a look at developer Mike Henderson’s original designs and compare them to what was built. I pick Legacy at Arts Central because it by far the one most mentioned by critics.

As noted on this blog, if a grid were done on those pros and cons, it would have quite a few gaps for four of the five proposals.

Bullard advised the board they will need to reserve quite a bit of time to hear the proposals, and asked if they wanted to hear two or three of them. He went on to say that to hear three proposals they would need about three hours.

New chairman Larry Nichols countered the board needed to “do the right thing” and hear all the proposals. Bullard reminded the board the Home Creations proposal did not match up with the request for proposals. Nichols responded that Home Creations should be told as much, and if they want to make modifications and still do a presentation, they are welcome to do so.

The presentations will be heard sometime next month with the exact date and time yet to be determined.

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

When you have groups proposing to invest millions in redeveloping the inner-city, what message is being sent if one, two or more of these teams are told, in essence, “don’t bother making a pitch to us, don’t call us, we’ll call you?”

As I write this, I recall how one developer who responded to Urban Renewal’s effort to restore the Skirvin hotel came up with a proposal that simply didn’t comply with the spirit of the city’s objectives. But that developer, Paul Coury, was treated with respect, allowed to make his pitch, and ultimately he was recruited to convert the Colcord building, which was then tired and worn out, into a plush boutique hotel. What opportunity, if any, might be lost if such respect isn’t given to all of the developers bidding for the Mercy hospital site?

UPDATE: I think it’s important to add this comment made by Jeff Click, former president of the Central Oklahoma Homebuilders Association and the group’s 2009 homebuilder of the year:

On the second go-around I noted the following bit of intrigue:

Urban Renewal commissioners have as a guide a citizen’s review report that recommends Overholser Greens, praising it for complementing Heritage Hills neighborhood to the north and criticizing Mercy Park because it includes apartments and retail.

But a look at the membership of the citizen’s committee shows that while it includes a longtime resident of Heritage Hills, it doesn’t include anyone from MidTown.

The Mercy site is in MidTown — not Heritage Hills.

Greg Banta, who is developing more than 30 properties in MidTown and is one of the district’s most influential voices, isn’t taking sides and was not invited to participate in the review.

But he questions the citizen group’s comments against retail. He wonders — isn’t mixed retail what urban development is all about?

What followed the next four years shows such concerns were well-placed. Chuck Wiggin won the development bid even as Urban Renewal commissioners were being warned that his model of high dollar condos – the one favored by the Heritage Hills crowd – was about to crash. The mix of apartments and retail pitched by his unsuccessful competitor, Marva Ellard, is now being sought out as the goal with this latest effort to redevelop the site.
So now the Urban Renewal Authority will be meeting at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday to possibly decide which of the five current proposals they will want to hear – essentially by doing so they will be narrowing the list down to a group of finalists no matter how much they might deny it.
So the the report that was sent to commissioners on Friday will weigh quite a bit on who they might choose to advance to the final round.
I’m calling this report out. I am questioning whether this report was either badly written or written with the purpose of steering selection to one developer over the others.
Consider what some might say are blatant contradictions:
- The proposal by Marva Ellard is cited for being “suburban” in its footprint, and yet the proposal by Chuck Wiggin, which  is almost identical to Ellard’s, is praised for being “urban.”
- Wiggin and yet another team, Mike Henderson and Gary Brooks, are given credit for their experience with Urban Renewal on previous projects, and yet there is no mention of how either team failed to meet deadlines on their previous projects, and Ellard is not given credit for her experience as part of the original team with The Hill in Deep Deuce.
- The exterior elevation on Wiggin’s proposal is knocked for looking “institutional.” Yet it features a retail mix on the first floor, and from my view, it was remarkably similar in scale to the much praised exterior elevation for the Henderson/Brooks proposal. There is also no mention in the report about how drawings submitted by Henderson and Brooks for their last Urban Renewal project, Legacy at Arts Quarter, were dramatically altered by the time the project was actually built. Did the committee not discuss this at all? If it wasn’t, why not? And if it was, why not include that in the evaluation of the Henderson/Brooks proposal?
- Another “huh” moment occurs with the following critical comment on Ellard: “redeveloper’s availability to timely execute.” Really? Really? From what I saw, there is no difference in the scheduling and financing of these projects between Ellard, Henderson/Brooks and Wiggin. They all rely on HUD financing, which they all will have to apply for and go through the red tape of waiting for approval. Ellard and Henderson/Brooks have experience working with HUD (there is no indication of any experience for Wiggin). If any of the developers have an advantage in this category, it’s Tanenbaum, who has $20 million in financing READY and is most likely of any of this group to start construction this year.
- Ellard’s inclusion of retail space is listed as a “con” in the report, and yet it’s listed as a “pro” for Wiggin. Yet another “HUH?”
There’s more contradictions, I’m sure. I asked Urban Renewal director JoeVan Bullard to let me attend the committee discussion. I was denied the request on the basis of the old excuse of needing to foster a “free and open discussion” and that I’d get in the way of that. I’ve known Bullard for many years, I’ve known him to be an honest and hard-working civil servant. But this report makes me question – are there other reasons for not wanting “Lackmeyer in the room”?
Does this report really reflect the discussions of the committee, which consisted of Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor, Downtown Oklahoma City Inc. President Jane Jenkins, University of Oklahoma architecture professor Bob Goines, Oklahoma City Planning Director Russell Claus, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber economic development Vice President Robin Roberts-Kreiger, former Urban Renewal executive Dave Jones, St. Anthony Hospital President Joe Hodges, and Heritage Hills Association President Steve Jacobi.
Read the “committee report” and ask – is this written as an honest, fair evaluation of all proposals, or is it skewed toward one developer?

OCURA MERCY RFP REVIEW

Review Committee:                                                                                                                     01 April 2011

Terry Taylor                            Joe Hodges                  Russell Claus

Catherine O’Connor                Robert Goins               David Jones

Robin Roberts-Krieger             Jane Jenkins                Steve Jacobi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Committee member’s advocated principles, observations, and considerations to be applied for the potential redevelopment of the Mercy site are;

The important key elements in the redevelopment of the OCURA Mercy site should be accomplished through thoughtful negotiations that focus on an original, attractive, unique quality project of urban durability and sustainability which enhances and compliments the adjacent neighborhoods and becomes a “cornerstone” for additional Midtown redevelopment.

Architectural design integrity is essential for this “special” site.

A “back door” appearance on any side of the project should be avoided.

The project should have a residential quality appearance, establishing a defined and recognizable image that contributes to the protection of the Heritage Hills and Mesta Park neighborhoods.

Establishing a theme corner at NW 12^th and Walker to encourage the continued retail\commercial redevelopment of Walker from the existing retail node concentrated at Walker and NW 10^th needs to be explored.

Project design\layout should encourage and promote the continued redevelopment of NW 12^th.

“Green” features and amenities should be incorporated throughout the entire project including “rooftop” venues adjacent to NW 12^th.

Vehicular access from NW 13^th is not desirable and should not be permitted.

Use of HUD financing (221(d)4) can be tedious and lengthy, which could slow the commencement of construction.  Unfortunately, based on current market conditions HUD assisted funding appears to be the only source available other than private equity. However, founding a successful sustainable exclusive urban development should be the foremost consideration for this exclusive site.

OCURA MERCY SITE

Review Committee

April 01, 2011     Page 2

The Committee’s following general observations were derived from the Redeveloper’s proposal.

Connection at Midtown (Tanenbaum)

Unit sizes; 475 sf to 980 sf

Monthly rental; $1.18/sf to $1.38/sf

CONS

Suburban apartment appearance

Setback from property line

Compacted common area\space close to units

Parking access from NW 13^th

Low equity investment

Durability and quality concerns due to low construction costs

No “character” on NW 12^th

No commercial component on Walker

PROS

Good density of 268 units (97 units/acre)

Multi floor plans

Good access from parking structure levels to units

Good green landscape usage

Short construction period

Experienced developer with proven success record

The Marquette on Walker Option (Ellard)

Unit sizes; 697 sf to 1,553 sf

Monthly rental; $1.33/sf to $1.40/sf

CONS

Suburban appearance with divided structures

Low density of 150 units (54 units/acre)

Vehicle access from NW 13^th, NW 12^th, Walker and Dewey

Large commercial component on NW 13^th, Walker and NW 12^th

Large Commercial space: 49,450 sf

Redeveloper’s availability to timely execute

PROS

Good “green” elements (LEED)

Pedestrian entrances on all streets

Quality and durable project experience

Recognizes historical importance

Available parking for neighbors; church and school

OCURA MERCY SITE

Review Committee

April 01, 2011    Page 3

Edge at Midtown (Brooks-Henderson)

Unit sizes; 683 sf to 1,442 sf

Monthly rental; $.97/sf to $1.12/sf

CONS

Setback from property line

No commercial component on Walker

Visitor vehicle access from Walker not compatible with pedestrian usage

PROS

Good site plan

Good density of 250 units (91units/acre)

Good exterior elevation variances for historic appearances

Roof top amenities of dog park and community patio

Good parking structure aesthetics

Good location of parking structure with Dewey access

Direct access from parking structure levels to units

Good landscaping

Interacts with NW 12^th

Flexible open living floor plans

Attractive street level unit entrances

Available parking for neighbors; church and school

Experienced with OCURA procedures and established success record

Mercy Site Redevelopment (Wiggin-Huffman)

Unit sizes; 500 sf to 1,500 sf)

Monthly rental; $1.25/sf

CONS

Exterior elevation lacks urban character, very “institutional”.

3 bedroom units; 56

Expensive project: construction, A&E, marketing, etc.

PROS

Good site plan

Quality and urban durability reflected in high project costs

Acceptable density of 200 units (73 units/acre)

Street level interaction on NW 12^th

Direct access from parking structure levels to units

Parking not visible from streets, NW 12^th access

Interacts with pedestrians

Focal point established at Walker/NW 12^th

Good building heights at NW 13^th and increased at NW 12^th

Familiar with OCURA procedures, successful developer

Commercial component on Walker and NW 12^th

Commercial space: 24,000 sf

OCURA MERCY SITE

Review Committee

April 01, 2011     Page 4

Old Mercy Site (J&M Farzaneh)

Unit size; 1,200 sf

Monthly rental; unknown

CONS

Suburban appearance

Low density of 80 to 160 units (29 to 58 units/acre)

Phased development

Garage &/or surface parking, Dewey access

Incomplete proposal

Large commercial component on NW 13^th, NW 12^th, Dewey and Walker

Commercial space: 36,000 sf to 68,000 sf

Summary

The Committee thought none of the submittals were “perfect” and encourages the Authority to exercise rigorous supervision and control over the final design of the project and subsequent development.

The Committee acknowledges is it difficult to determine the “true numbers and design quality characteristics” based on preliminary concepts.  The overall strength of the proposal, related experience of the developer, general vision of the redevelopment project, ability to perform in a reasonable time frame, and preliminary fiscal resources described in the proposal can be important criteria in arriving at conclusions.

The Committee members would also like to acknowledge their appreciation and opportunity for being invited to serve on the OCURA review committee.  Should any additional information or assistance be desired, the Committee will be happy to respond.

Bert Belanger

When I first began to pursue this series of Downtown OKC 2020 guest blog posts, I wanted to feature as diverse an audience as possible. The timing of the post displays is pretty much following their arrival in my email box. But truthfully, I couldn’t have timed it better if I had done the scheduling by some master design.

 The first post, by Casey Cornett, is a refreshing bit of optimism not by a young voice not jaded yet by the reality of rough-and-tumble politics and development. The second post, by Dennis Wells, is more analytical but also a fairly optimistic look at what’s ahead and what can be accomplished. Today’s post by Bert Belanger, in contrast, is a brutally honest take (influenced by his life experience and involvement downtown) of the problems that dog us today, potential obstacles to moving forward, and a list of how he thinks we can best progress as a city.

 Bert Belanger does not come from an independently wealthy background – his stake in the game was earned by his early involvement (he’s a lawyer doing development) with tax credits in the Paseo and pursuit of Tax Increment Funding for projects in the Flat Iron area (what he and partners early on referred to as The Triangle).

Bert has his share of admirers and critics, but I’ve not heard anyone dismiss his legal instincts and intellect. I suspect this post may anger some and I neither endorse or dimiss what he says – it’s a voice, however, that I think should be heard. – Steve Lackmeyer

 

 

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.

The original plans – click on image to enlarge

From time to time I hear grumbling about the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority and whether it really holds developers to the plans that get them selected against other competitors.

What’s wonderful about The Oklahoman’s archives is we can see for ourselves whether there is any validity to this complaint.

Today we start this new series with a look at developer Mike Henderson’s original designs and compare them to what was built. I pick Legacy at Arts Central because it by far the one most mentioned by critics.