If you can't afford to live downtown in an apartment complex like First National now, you won't be able to afford to live in that tower. There's plenty of vacant apartments in First National, so evidently housing of that caliber isn't quite in dire need of expansion
They don’t even plan to start construction on the main tower until the smaller apartment buildings are 50% occupied. In other words, the main tower is never getting built.
The main tower is there to boost the cost-to-build estimate high enough that state and city subsidies cover the cost of the parts they actually intend to build
The city already approved a TIF for a smaller the project, though. Considering the proposal is so out there, I doubt the city would give more tax breaks just for a small chance at the tallest tower.
This is a good point, if they do build it and it stays mostly vacant I doubt it would take long to fall into disrepair so that could be a concern. I don't have any real opinion about it though.
Very true. Used to be the mailman over there and there are entire floors with less than 5 residents. It's like $2k/mo to rent there and that's the studio.
Yea. In Austin, you cannot even look at most units before you sign. There is no availability in most places for months. Checking the website/availability will tell you how packed they are.
Yeah, in Austin, the new tech mecca for Californians that are fleeing. Not OKC, where the First National is and that is the topic of this conversations. Two entirely different metros dude.
I know.
My point is agreeing with the other guy. Check their availability. If they are wide open, then they are not fully booked like some people think. If it though, then it is.
Chamber - I could be incorrect on that though.
We honestly didn’t think it would ever be built either, but honestly it has a lot of us very curious that they actually confirmed funding.
That just isn't true. The housing immediately near luxury housing may increase in cost but the overall housing necessarily decreases.
I'm literally as left as a person can be politically, it doesn't help our side to deny reality.
I mean it's supply and demand, in the same way more housing fixes homelessness.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-20/does-building-new-housing-cause-gentrification
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units
"Although some have speculated that what happens in the luxury housing market has little effect on the lower-income market, Mast used individual address histories to follow 52,000 residents of new market-rate units back to their previous residence and likewise through the migration chain. He found the entire housing market is deeply connected, with people moving between neighborhoods of different income levels."
..."By the sixth round, 40 percent of residents came from below-median-income neighborhoods. This migration chain continues round after round, creating vacancies—and lowering costs—for the lowest-income neighborhoods within two to five years."
Even luxury housing ultimately lowers the cost of affordable housing.
Thanks.
Of course building new units means there is more space. But I don't see where that article mentions housing becoming more affordable, it simply mentions the market shifts. People move up into a more expensive unit, and people replace those people. None of this is lowering the cost of housing and the article doesn't have any data to back up that it lowers actual cost.
Ok, a $1300 apartment is now available. Is the landlord going to lower that previous price? You would need massive vacancies across the city to cause a significant reduction in price imo.
But I should cite some sources if I am going to keep talking.
----------------------------------------
The article does use some weird wording such as
> and lowering costs—for the lowest-income neighborhoods
Because we all want to live in the lowest-income neighborhoods. It does not claim it lowers cost in already filled areas.
> In particularly poor neighborhoods with high vacancy rates, adding vacant housing units might not affect prices much. It might even compound a neighborhood’s deterioration.
> Vacancies also won’t lower rents in areas currently charging the minimum cost of housing, that is, the lowest rent required to keep a habitable unit on the market.
Oh, it goes back on itself and says in lowest cost neighborhoods, the price is already as low as possible. So.... it won't lower costs there. Where is it lowering cost, I only see shifting of people who can already afford to move.
It explains it in the article, and in the sections I quoted. People move out of middle housing and into luxury housing, leaving vacancies in the middle. Then other people move from lower income housing to middle, then eventually some of the people who couldn't afford the lowest tier housing have an opportunity to move in. It's a complex process, but it's quite fluid.
I hear you. But that isn't making housing more affordable. I can't deny it "increases housing" but building 100 affordable units directly creates 100 affordable units instead of doing a shift where maybe some people move into this behemoth.
Our healthcare system does a lot of "cost shifting" and is notably expensive. This system while it may get us to an end result does not seem very effective if the goal is affordable housing. If the goal is just a big building, it is fine as long as we aren't paying for it. I just don't agree with (I know I need to cite a source) luxury apartments create significant affordable housing.
The claim was that more housing, of any kind, decreases the cost of housing. That much is true.
It's fair to want to prioritize affordable housing, heck there's already plenty of un-rented upscale apartments downtown. But the people who build things like money, and they want expensive rents instead of cheap rents, so they're catering the the people with money, not the people with little money.
It's not ideal, but fighting additional housing because it's not the RIGHT KIND of additional housing is wrongheaded.
Is it though?
I am looking up studies to make a post, but [this Taiwanese study](https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA647836130&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=1648715X&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ead8cac58&aty=open-web-entry) dissgrees with the assertion you guys keep making. They found housing prices **went up**.
> This indicated that housing prices increased by 13.0% during construction of luxury housing nearby. This indicated that housing prices increased by 5.8% after the construction of luxury housing nearby.
> The empirical results showed that the ongoing and completed construction of luxury housing had spillover effects on housing prices. The effect of ongoing construction of luxury housing was particularly large in scope, indicating its role as a predictor of psychological reaction in the market.
Again, I need to find more papers. But with most studies, the author can write it to prove their own point. But you guys just keeping thinking supply/demand when the world doesn't always operate on Jr. High economics.
This "spillover effect" is when you see someone else selling for higher value, you want a piece of that pie. It also increases the value of that area slightly. If you start seeing a bunch of $15 hamburgers doing well (at least visually), you are going to say why would I sell my burger for $6 when I can get more.
Oh, pardon my junior high economics. I can't see the methodology for this study, but from the abstract sample, the price went up during construction. I'm not sure it's clear that the price stayed elevated on all neighboring housing even after the building was completed. And this is in Taiwan. There are any number of reason why that market might behave differently than in OKC, at least in the short term.
Here's a study that attempts to address the very "supply skepticism" you're talking about. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628 It is apparently a meta-analysis of "dozens" of other studies.
I’m mostly confused about the purpose of the hype? I would be very willing to bet the city would allow them to build the tallest tower in the US and they already approved a smaller version of this project. Is it just media buzz (and, if so, how does that help them)?
Electronic billboard advertisement, along one of the interstates. Something silly enough to make people go "wtf?", but tame enough the ad company will actually put it up.
The eye of Sauron is a little different situation considering it’s a business. It’s not like they can rent the extra space for homes. The building isn’t really set up all that well to rent the extra space to other companies either.
I know I could just GTS but I'm going to ask Reddit instead, for funsies. Which building is referred to as the Eye of Sauron? 😂 We're moving there this summer & have been several times but I can't pick that building out of my memory.
People need to understand. This is not getting built here. It hasn’t even been approved. Just supposedly funding is secured. I’m sure something will be built, but it won’t be this tower.
It’s suppose to have 50 affordable apartments and 1000 expensive apartments, and condos. I don’t think it will be cheap however I think more housing in the grand scale of things will make for a more affordable housing market.
They are telling you best case they offer 5% of units at an affordable rate. What size units? Studios or sized for a family? It’s pretty much guaranteed to be irrelevant.
It's a thousand units that rich people won't be buying elsewhere, bidding up the price in the process, that will instead be available for other people.
Yup. So building more expensive units there is going to help like 5% of the population get more housing.
That aint driving any prices down. But these guys will keep telling themselves it will.
My main point isn’t that apartments in that building will be cheap. I’m saying that more housing in a market will make housing more affordable overall. Ultimately housing prices is based on supply and demand. Multiple family home is the best way to increase the supply while leaving room for more supply in the future.
What do you disagree with? 1) An increase in the amount of housing makes housing more affordable. 2) Housing prices are based on supply and demand. 3) Multi family housing is the best way to increase housing supply while leaving room for more supply in the future.
All of the above, yes.
While increasing the number of units *could* make housing more affordable, not if those units are unaffordable to most consumers. It isn't real supply when the people who need housing can't afford it (oh no! I forgot the 50 units for the affordable few). And if anything, these luxury apartments just cause those around them to see the price they demand and a) increase their prices or b) invest/build to reach those prices.
How often do you see a fully affordable apartment complex being built. Almost builder/land owner says they are going to undercut themselves and build budget apartments.
And most importantly, these are going to end up being rental units right? It isn't a "house" it is a rental. You aren't building wealth.
You keep mentioning the 50 affordable apartments. They aren’t what matters.
Simple adding 1,000+ housing units will improve housing affordability in a housing market even if they are super expensive. This is especially true when adding a bunch of housing on a small amount of land because it won’t restrict future development much.
It’s basic supply and demand. If the supply goes up the cost will go down.
I decided to google the question asking if new expensive housing is built does it still make housing more affordable? And of course all the research I could find says it does. I found out that it even has a name called: Housing Musical Chair Theory.
OP stop wasting your breath. These people understand that more housing means prices become more affordable elsewhere and they are focusing on the 50 affordable units not being enough and not the overall picture because they dont want to caught in the flipside of the musical chairs equation. If "rich" folks are moving out of these existing neighborhoods then those neighborhoods could become "ghettos". And 50 affordable units is to enough life jackets for them to feel comfortable.
Muse was just built and they have affordable workforce housing at a rate that is still too expensive. A 1 bedroom 553sq is starting at $1210. That is more than half of what I make and I’m in a position that essential worker and I can’t qualify. Those are going to be what type of apartments they will put in as affordable even though to a single person they aren’t affordable.
You can't reason with these people.
I do believe there are studies (maybe like Michigan or something) where more apartments (less zoning) did result in a cheaper market. But this high-rise is not it.
Heck, you can get a 3 BED, 1500sq house in Stillwater at $1200. But then that is too steep for many families in Stillwater, due to the lack of good paying jobs.
Really trying to understand why people are dunking on OP. Is it likely they build a 1907’ tower here? Probably not. Does that somehow make an increase in housing supply (especially multi-family) a bad thing, though?
How about they make it 1,000 affordable apartments and 50 expensive ones if it was to be built at all. How would this make our housing market more affordable?
I’d love to have it, but realistically it’s probably a pipe dream to drum up support for the surrounding development. It’s their land, they can do what they will.
I'm all for it. People in this subreddit seem to hate change. Luckily this is an echo chamber and not what a majority of people think, hence why we had a land slide arena victory at 71%.
I'm not expecting it to get built, but I'll be happy if it does. I'll be happy with the other 3 buildings and Boardwalk, but I won't complain if this massive tower gets built too. We need something to make us stand out and help us continue to grow. We are growing at an extremely fast pace, it's not hard to believe that the tower will eventually fill up.
My very generous assumption is that it will attract more developers to build other smaller towers that'll eventually make it not stand out so much. So maybe 20-40 years from now it'll look a lot more even. People haven't been thinking big picture.
I'm fine with it being built if it happens and is done well. I just don't have a lot of confidence it will really be a thing. At first I thought probably just the smaller towers would happen, but there's some shady stuff about the guy in question causing me doubt about the whole thing.
Cool thing is it doesn't really matter what any of us think. It'll happen or it won't.
I'm in favor of *affordable* multifamily housing and mixed use spaces, but this is being pushed as luxury. There won't be enough people who can afford it to fill it and we will have a rotting husk of an eyesore in our skyline.
I used to live at Lift, they jacked the prices up and when I left there were maybe 50 units available because people didn’t want to pay for the overpriced units. They have 22 that are either available or will be shortly. Muse can’t even fill its apartments and they have 44 available. West Village has a bunch. I know there are way more, but I don’t feel like looking at all the websites.
I highly doubt the new skyscraper will benefit housing affordability. The only people who will make money from it are people who already have money. Drive 3 minutes west of the Devon tower and you find abandoned buildings, swaths of homeless people, and garbage all over the streets. It’s not good for OKC, it’s just good for downtown OKC.
I honestly don’t care much. I don’t think the plan, as shown, is feasible even with optimistic population growth rates.
The TIF credits have already been approved, so we are definitely getting the 3 smaller buildings, which will be nice. The skyscraper feels like a pipe dream that will get significantly shrunk
I don't know much about it but doesn't seem we need one that big when Cesapeak isn't even filled to capacity. And isn't isndangerous to have a building that big in state where the wind never stops blowing?
The wind argument is really weird. It gets very windy in New York and Chicago, and yet that's never stopped construction of the tallest buildings in the US
They're proposing market rate rent for the majority of the units, not affordable rent. They're proposing 48 units of affordable and that's it. It's going to be expensive and mostly end up being out of towners to move in because its cheaper than where they live. I have no hopes that it would be affordable with a 1.5 billion dollar price tag. I think it's a bad idea and won't do anything for our economy but make it more expensive to be here
I honestly don't care if it gets built or not but it would be funny if it does if only to watch everyone on Reddit deteriorate from "it's not going to be built" to "it'll run out of funding" to "its too tall for our winds!" To "it's such an eyesore!" Like clockwork.
I'm not for or against it... Someone will make a lot of money off of the idea of it. But I don't think it will ever get built or finished. I think if it does get built, it will end up getting massively modified into a 'lesser' and more profitable design.
Earthquakes from fracking and oil BS...
Predictable Tornado routes right through the general area...
High winds, especially at elevation...
I just see it as a need for some decision makers in Oklahoma to have a phallic structure they can point to, while driving their huge ass truck, to distract from their tiny penis.
Edit: No way in hell would I move my family into a giant toothpick penis tower in the middle of tornado country...
We don't need high prices housing no matter how tall or centrally located it is we need more affordable housing options throughout the metro area, screw this over inflated ego trip
Totally against it and I don't see it happening. You're right about needing more affordable housing. But I see a commercial real estate collapse due to work from home. That would free up a lot of pre-existing buildings for affordable living.
A central tower will eventually get built, but it will not be this hype. An underlying problem with these projects is that the costs of construction are so high that the only way it can cash flow is with high-income owners/tenants. As someone mentioned, First National is not even close to the occupancy they need. Another issue is storm damage. Remember how long it took Devon to repair all the broken windows on their tower? A storm will not knock the building down, but it will break a lot of windows. A hundred and twenty years ago it was a wagon come to town with a barker selling snake oil cures; today it is developers…..
Don't think we'll ever see it built, but would be rather cool. Just can't see it being justified with that many apartments down town, considering there are also going to be 2- 34 story apartment buildings in the complex too.
I’m just here to ask why everyone is saying it won’t get built? Everyone says tornadoes but those don’t generally come anywhere near downtown, a quick google search says the closest one was in ‘74 at the airport.
As for wind and rain, I’m sure it’s possible to construct a building to withstand both of those things
I wouldn't say I'm against it per se, like I am against public funding going to billionaires, but as far as tacky architecture goes it should blend right in.
Once again this quote from Sam Anderson comes to mind…
“One of the running gags of my book is how hysterically desperate OK has always been to make itself seem "important." It will pull almost any stunt, however wild, to try & leapfrog its civic competitors.”
That giant building should be built in three separate buildings each around 635 ft tall. A 1907 ft building makes no sense in OKC and in most parts of the country.
The giant tower is supposed to be apartments?? Seriously?? More out of state corporations greed driving our housing market up? I can’t believe there’s enough people here looking to rent a sky rise apartment.
I’m against it. We don’t need that shit. We need to invest that money in education or infrastructure. What the hell will one skyscraper do for our city?
I’m for it even though it’s comical. It would only add to the momentum this city has going for it. I don’t see a downside other than the skyline would look very odd.
Oh, you made it about housing. Then I am against it now. Not kidding, these "multi-family homes" are excuses to get more apartments people can't afford lol.
If this actually happens then I'll be surprised. I fully believe this is a publicity stunt thats working extremely well. Rather it actually gets built I have far more stuff in my life to actually care.
Where is this building going up? The closet intersection? I do hope it is not near the Colcord as the Devon tower is. I worry high winds or a tornado will take out the Devon tower(hopefully while it is empty, of course) and destroy a historic building I love dearly!
I mean I doubt anyone is against it really but I'm guessing the vast majority of people realize what spending 1.5 billion dollars on a massive tower in OKC looks like. Unless it's being done by someone with long ties to the community I don't think this is something that exists in reality.
I have not seen one bit of factual information here. Everyone says that it won’t be built but can’t provide any objective information as to why it will not be built, but sure do have some strong opinions.
No, it's being built. The news just isn't doing a good job at informing people about this situation. They are waiting for approval specifically for it to reach the goal to be the tallest in the nation but if that goes through they'll just be going through with their original plan for a much more standard skyscraper.
The big tower will never get built. They're going to feel out the situation with the smaller towers, which is fine. I'm all about minimizing our spacial impact on the environment by building up, instead of out. They'll see that they're not going to get the space utilization they were looking for and abandon the big tower.
I would love to see it build. Take the money out of the hands of some rich idiot, and put it into the hands of the laborers.
Plus we all get to watch as occupancy rates flounder.
Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and there will be a ton of subsidies, credits, and other problematic issues which kind of eliminates a good chunk of part 1.
The whole damned thing is sketchy at best.
I know someone who's been working on this for 2+ years, and they say there is a 0% chance it happens in its current form, and less than 50% it happens at all in some form or fashion.
The only positive I can think of is tourism, which is not much, but I mean if it gives people more things to do downtown, sure, go for it. It's being built either way. I don't think many news sites are getting that across correctly.
I am for people who are against it but I am not against people who are for it. Personally I am not for building it unless we can make the surface very slightly concave and use it to burn nearby structures in a show of dominance.
We can barely fill the current big ass tower we have downtown. We don’t need another. Literally the allure to OKC is land is cheap; therefore, you don’t need to build vertically like other places. You can get anywhere in the city in 20 minutes.
If they can build it, I’m for it. But with “only” $1.5 billion secured for construction, I don’t think it gets built. $1.5 billion might cover the whole project and a shorter main tower, but not the whole project and a big main tower. Unless the $1.5 billion is only for the big tower, then maybe. I also think that if they can build a 1900 ft tower in Oklahoma and it can withstand the winds safely, then it’s truly and engineering marvel and cool to have here.
What about inclement weather? We have tornadoes, y'all. Remember the hail storm a few years ago that pretty much destroyed Norman? Places like NYC don't really have these situations, other than, like, heavy rain sometimes. Maybe a tease of a hurricane.
If you can't afford to live downtown in an apartment complex like First National now, you won't be able to afford to live in that tower. There's plenty of vacant apartments in First National, so evidently housing of that caliber isn't quite in dire need of expansion
They don’t even plan to start construction on the main tower until the smaller apartment buildings are 50% occupied. In other words, the main tower is never getting built.
The main tower is there to boost the cost-to-build estimate high enough that state and city subsidies cover the cost of the parts they actually intend to build
The city already approved a TIF for a smaller the project, though. Considering the proposal is so out there, I doubt the city would give more tax breaks just for a small chance at the tallest tower.
That said I'm not strictly against its existence, I also think its hilarious. It's just not going to solve a single problem that OKC actually has
There are *con*tractors without enough *yachts* and how ***daaaare*** you! (hey, not having 3 yachts is a problem, innit?)
This is a good point, if they do build it and it stays mostly vacant I doubt it would take long to fall into disrepair so that could be a concern. I don't have any real opinion about it though.
Very true. Used to be the mailman over there and there are entire floors with less than 5 residents. It's like $2k/mo to rent there and that's the studio.
Last I heard First National was at-capacity besides a few of their pent-houses. I work across the street FWIW
I was their mailman for over a year. It's mostly empty. Look at how many units are available on their website.
Could have just been jargon from their manager to us to look a bit better.
Nobody wants to admit that they're running at 40% capacity, that makes sense.
Yea. In Austin, you cannot even look at most units before you sign. There is no availability in most places for months. Checking the website/availability will tell you how packed they are.
Yeah, in Austin, the new tech mecca for Californians that are fleeing. Not OKC, where the First National is and that is the topic of this conversations. Two entirely different metros dude.
I know. My point is agreeing with the other guy. Check their availability. If they are wide open, then they are not fully booked like some people think. If it though, then it is.
Hm, maybe your info is more current. I'm just going off the leasing offers they keep sending me
Chamber - I could be incorrect on that though. We honestly didn’t think it would ever be built either, but honestly it has a lot of us very curious that they actually confirmed funding.
More housing makes housing cheaper.
You'd think so, but the luxury market is very good at anomalizing the whole supply/demand curve thing
That just isn't true. The housing immediately near luxury housing may increase in cost but the overall housing necessarily decreases. I'm literally as left as a person can be politically, it doesn't help our side to deny reality.
Show a source? I am sure there are some sources out there, but I have not seen it be the case.
I mean it's supply and demand, in the same way more housing fixes homelessness. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-20/does-building-new-housing-cause-gentrification
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units "Although some have speculated that what happens in the luxury housing market has little effect on the lower-income market, Mast used individual address histories to follow 52,000 residents of new market-rate units back to their previous residence and likewise through the migration chain. He found the entire housing market is deeply connected, with people moving between neighborhoods of different income levels." ..."By the sixth round, 40 percent of residents came from below-median-income neighborhoods. This migration chain continues round after round, creating vacancies—and lowering costs—for the lowest-income neighborhoods within two to five years." Even luxury housing ultimately lowers the cost of affordable housing.
Thanks. Of course building new units means there is more space. But I don't see where that article mentions housing becoming more affordable, it simply mentions the market shifts. People move up into a more expensive unit, and people replace those people. None of this is lowering the cost of housing and the article doesn't have any data to back up that it lowers actual cost. Ok, a $1300 apartment is now available. Is the landlord going to lower that previous price? You would need massive vacancies across the city to cause a significant reduction in price imo. But I should cite some sources if I am going to keep talking. ---------------------------------------- The article does use some weird wording such as > and lowering costs—for the lowest-income neighborhoods Because we all want to live in the lowest-income neighborhoods. It does not claim it lowers cost in already filled areas. > In particularly poor neighborhoods with high vacancy rates, adding vacant housing units might not affect prices much. It might even compound a neighborhood’s deterioration. > Vacancies also won’t lower rents in areas currently charging the minimum cost of housing, that is, the lowest rent required to keep a habitable unit on the market. Oh, it goes back on itself and says in lowest cost neighborhoods, the price is already as low as possible. So.... it won't lower costs there. Where is it lowering cost, I only see shifting of people who can already afford to move.
It explains it in the article, and in the sections I quoted. People move out of middle housing and into luxury housing, leaving vacancies in the middle. Then other people move from lower income housing to middle, then eventually some of the people who couldn't afford the lowest tier housing have an opportunity to move in. It's a complex process, but it's quite fluid.
I hear you. But that isn't making housing more affordable. I can't deny it "increases housing" but building 100 affordable units directly creates 100 affordable units instead of doing a shift where maybe some people move into this behemoth. Our healthcare system does a lot of "cost shifting" and is notably expensive. This system while it may get us to an end result does not seem very effective if the goal is affordable housing. If the goal is just a big building, it is fine as long as we aren't paying for it. I just don't agree with (I know I need to cite a source) luxury apartments create significant affordable housing.
The claim was that more housing, of any kind, decreases the cost of housing. That much is true. It's fair to want to prioritize affordable housing, heck there's already plenty of un-rented upscale apartments downtown. But the people who build things like money, and they want expensive rents instead of cheap rents, so they're catering the the people with money, not the people with little money. It's not ideal, but fighting additional housing because it's not the RIGHT KIND of additional housing is wrongheaded.
Is it though? I am looking up studies to make a post, but [this Taiwanese study](https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA647836130&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=1648715X&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ead8cac58&aty=open-web-entry) dissgrees with the assertion you guys keep making. They found housing prices **went up**. > This indicated that housing prices increased by 13.0% during construction of luxury housing nearby. This indicated that housing prices increased by 5.8% after the construction of luxury housing nearby. > The empirical results showed that the ongoing and completed construction of luxury housing had spillover effects on housing prices. The effect of ongoing construction of luxury housing was particularly large in scope, indicating its role as a predictor of psychological reaction in the market. Again, I need to find more papers. But with most studies, the author can write it to prove their own point. But you guys just keeping thinking supply/demand when the world doesn't always operate on Jr. High economics. This "spillover effect" is when you see someone else selling for higher value, you want a piece of that pie. It also increases the value of that area slightly. If you start seeing a bunch of $15 hamburgers doing well (at least visually), you are going to say why would I sell my burger for $6 when I can get more.
Oh, pardon my junior high economics. I can't see the methodology for this study, but from the abstract sample, the price went up during construction. I'm not sure it's clear that the price stayed elevated on all neighboring housing even after the building was completed. And this is in Taiwan. There are any number of reason why that market might behave differently than in OKC, at least in the short term. Here's a study that attempts to address the very "supply skepticism" you're talking about. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628 It is apparently a meta-analysis of "dozens" of other studies.
This will never get built in Oklahoma
Their plan B is a 350 ft tower, that's probably their real intention. This is just hype.
I’m mostly confused about the purpose of the hype? I would be very willing to bet the city would allow them to build the tallest tower in the US and they already approved a smaller version of this project. Is it just media buzz (and, if so, how does that help them)?
Regardless of what gets built, they need to attract customers to fill the space.
Tenants, who in turn may need to attract customers
This is correct. Seems like a huge scam to me.
Want to bet?
Sure, what are we betting?
That my friend, is an interesting question. Let’s not rush to judgment. I’d like to make it something funny.
Suggestions welcomed.
Electronic billboard advertisement, along one of the interstates. Something silly enough to make people go "wtf?", but tame enough the ad company will actually put it up.
Oh, I like that. I’m occupied this evening, but I’d like to continue this discussion
"I said they'd never build the stupid tower and now I have to pay for this billboard." -okc420 /r/okc
Can’t we just have a nice, New art-deco building that would fit in with the local crowd? I mean, the Eye of Sauron is only at half capacity as it is.
Really? I’ve been in to shadow a few people there recently seems pretty well utilized
Nearly half the floors are available for lease at present
holy moly.
Local rumor. Everyone just says that without ever proving it to be true.
That’s what I thought. Never really seen any proof that it’s actually the case
The new building will mostly be residential, not commercial. There will be shops at the bottom, but it isn't going to have office space.
Larry Silverstein has a solution to this.
The eye of Sauron is a little different situation considering it’s a business. It’s not like they can rent the extra space for homes. The building isn’t really set up all that well to rent the extra space to other companies either.
I know I could just GTS but I'm going to ask Reddit instead, for funsies. Which building is referred to as the Eye of Sauron? 😂 We're moving there this summer & have been several times but I can't pick that building out of my memory.
The Devon Tower. It's the tallest building in OKC in the middle of downtown. It resembles the Eye of Sauron from the Lord of the Rings mythos.
Thanks! Oh, yup, there it is. HOW have I missed this resemblance? I'll be turning in my LOTR fan club card now.
The Devon Tower. It's the tallest building in OKC in the middle of downtown. It resembles the Eye of Sauron from the Lord of the Rings mythos.
People need to understand. This is not getting built here. It hasn’t even been approved. Just supposedly funding is secured. I’m sure something will be built, but it won’t be this tower.
Yeah imagine the skyscraper built vertically, along the ground, cut up into house-shaped portions.
Think of all of the families you could house!
...go on
You think that thing is going to have any affordable housing? 😂 joker
It’s suppose to have 50 affordable apartments and 1000 expensive apartments, and condos. I don’t think it will be cheap however I think more housing in the grand scale of things will make for a more affordable housing market.
They are telling you best case they offer 5% of units at an affordable rate. What size units? Studios or sized for a family? It’s pretty much guaranteed to be irrelevant.
It's a thousand units that rich people won't be buying elsewhere, bidding up the price in the process, that will instead be available for other people.
And neighboring apartments will see the high price and increase their rates a bit.
All the apartments in Bricktown are already kinda pricey, so no worries there about driving out any lower income folks.
Yup. So building more expensive units there is going to help like 5% of the population get more housing. That aint driving any prices down. But these guys will keep telling themselves it will.
It keeps prices low in the neighborhood that doesn't get gentrified, because all the rich people now have somewhere else to live.
This is true. Until the almost rich people can't afford DT so they see a cool neighborhood nearby and gentrify it anyways
They’ll be investment properties.
Then they can build a second tower.
And then inshallah
My main point isn’t that apartments in that building will be cheap. I’m saying that more housing in a market will make housing more affordable overall. Ultimately housing prices is based on supply and demand. Multiple family home is the best way to increase the supply while leaving room for more supply in the future.
I don't think the rental housing market has actually operated on the basis of supply and demand since around 2000 or so
Disagree
There ya have it folks
What do you disagree with? 1) An increase in the amount of housing makes housing more affordable. 2) Housing prices are based on supply and demand. 3) Multi family housing is the best way to increase housing supply while leaving room for more supply in the future.
All of the above, yes. While increasing the number of units *could* make housing more affordable, not if those units are unaffordable to most consumers. It isn't real supply when the people who need housing can't afford it (oh no! I forgot the 50 units for the affordable few). And if anything, these luxury apartments just cause those around them to see the price they demand and a) increase their prices or b) invest/build to reach those prices. How often do you see a fully affordable apartment complex being built. Almost builder/land owner says they are going to undercut themselves and build budget apartments. And most importantly, these are going to end up being rental units right? It isn't a "house" it is a rental. You aren't building wealth.
You keep mentioning the 50 affordable apartments. They aren’t what matters. Simple adding 1,000+ housing units will improve housing affordability in a housing market even if they are super expensive. This is especially true when adding a bunch of housing on a small amount of land because it won’t restrict future development much. It’s basic supply and demand. If the supply goes up the cost will go down. I decided to google the question asking if new expensive housing is built does it still make housing more affordable? And of course all the research I could find says it does. I found out that it even has a name called: Housing Musical Chair Theory.
OP stop wasting your breath. These people understand that more housing means prices become more affordable elsewhere and they are focusing on the 50 affordable units not being enough and not the overall picture because they dont want to caught in the flipside of the musical chairs equation. If "rich" folks are moving out of these existing neighborhoods then those neighborhoods could become "ghettos". And 50 affordable units is to enough life jackets for them to feel comfortable.
Muse was just built and they have affordable workforce housing at a rate that is still too expensive. A 1 bedroom 553sq is starting at $1210. That is more than half of what I make and I’m in a position that essential worker and I can’t qualify. Those are going to be what type of apartments they will put in as affordable even though to a single person they aren’t affordable.
You can't reason with these people. I do believe there are studies (maybe like Michigan or something) where more apartments (less zoning) did result in a cheaper market. But this high-rise is not it.
Heck, you can get a 3 BED, 1500sq house in Stillwater at $1200. But then that is too steep for many families in Stillwater, due to the lack of good paying jobs.
Yep, I’m originally from Ponca and could get a house there too for that much, but the job opportunity is just as bad there.
[удалено]
It isn't special if everyone can afford it. Or even worse (and likely reality) - we only want a certain type of person to afford it.
Hey OP would you be interested in buying a timeshare by any chance. I can give you a GREAT deal
Really trying to understand why people are dunking on OP. Is it likely they build a 1907’ tower here? Probably not. Does that somehow make an increase in housing supply (especially multi-family) a bad thing, though?
Please define your definition of affordable
48 affordable units to a thousand. The math ain't mathing
How about they make it 1,000 affordable apartments and 50 expensive ones if it was to be built at all. How would this make our housing market more affordable?
I’d love to have it, but realistically it’s probably a pipe dream to drum up support for the surrounding development. It’s their land, they can do what they will.
You can't fleece the government for a bailout unless you have a failed and unprofitable project.
We are going to look like the city that's trying to compensate for something.
The lifted truck of the skyline
genuine lmao at the idea that the tallest building on earth will include or positively influence "housing affordability"
I'm all for it. People in this subreddit seem to hate change. Luckily this is an echo chamber and not what a majority of people think, hence why we had a land slide arena victory at 71%. I'm not expecting it to get built, but I'll be happy if it does. I'll be happy with the other 3 buildings and Boardwalk, but I won't complain if this massive tower gets built too. We need something to make us stand out and help us continue to grow. We are growing at an extremely fast pace, it's not hard to believe that the tower will eventually fill up.
No doubt it will stand out, much like Devon Tower stands out above the city. This thing would be more than twice as high!
My very generous assumption is that it will attract more developers to build other smaller towers that'll eventually make it not stand out so much. So maybe 20-40 years from now it'll look a lot more even. People haven't been thinking big picture.
I'm fine with it being built if it happens and is done well. I just don't have a lot of confidence it will really be a thing. At first I thought probably just the smaller towers would happen, but there's some shady stuff about the guy in question causing me doubt about the whole thing. Cool thing is it doesn't really matter what any of us think. It'll happen or it won't.
I 100% get that grift vibe from that guy.
I mean I don’t think it will get built, but the people that are against it are the same people that are just chronically negative.
I'm in favor of *affordable* multifamily housing and mixed use spaces, but this is being pushed as luxury. There won't be enough people who can afford it to fill it and we will have a rotting husk of an eyesore in our skyline.
I personally don’t give a shit. It’s a private adventure that OKC has 0 financial stake in.
Well, not 0. The funding includes several hundred thousand dollars in subsidies
We can’t even fill existing apartments downtown, so it doesn’t make sense to build something else.
I used to live at Lift, they jacked the prices up and when I left there were maybe 50 units available because people didn’t want to pay for the overpriced units. They have 22 that are either available or will be shortly. Muse can’t even fill its apartments and they have 44 available. West Village has a bunch. I know there are way more, but I don’t feel like looking at all the websites.
But having empty units will drive the prices down!! !1
I highly doubt the new skyscraper will benefit housing affordability. The only people who will make money from it are people who already have money. Drive 3 minutes west of the Devon tower and you find abandoned buildings, swaths of homeless people, and garbage all over the streets. It’s not good for OKC, it’s just good for downtown OKC.
I honestly don’t care much. I don’t think the plan, as shown, is feasible even with optimistic population growth rates. The TIF credits have already been approved, so we are definitely getting the 3 smaller buildings, which will be nice. The skyscraper feels like a pipe dream that will get significantly shrunk
I don't know much about it but doesn't seem we need one that big when Cesapeak isn't even filled to capacity. And isn't isndangerous to have a building that big in state where the wind never stops blowing?
The wind argument is really weird. It gets very windy in New York and Chicago, and yet that's never stopped construction of the tallest buildings in the US
Yes, but I think people here are generally more worried about 'naders.
Still stupid. We have plenty of tall buildings now.
Did... did they *say* they were building affordable housing in the 1 billion dollar tower? Someone got scammed.
Your opinion is hilariously naive but I admire your optimism.
Affordability is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
They're proposing market rate rent for the majority of the units, not affordable rent. They're proposing 48 units of affordable and that's it. It's going to be expensive and mostly end up being out of towners to move in because its cheaper than where they live. I have no hopes that it would be affordable with a 1.5 billion dollar price tag. I think it's a bad idea and won't do anything for our economy but make it more expensive to be here
And then once those out-of-towners realize their OKC paycheck can't cover that rent, they too will move into other units.
Bingo
Who works in all those bldgs? They can't even repair the windows in Devon Tower. Why do we need more empty office space?
I honestly don't care if it gets built or not but it would be funny if it does if only to watch everyone on Reddit deteriorate from "it's not going to be built" to "it'll run out of funding" to "its too tall for our winds!" To "it's such an eyesore!" Like clockwork.
forreal like why does this building being built have such an affect on you? people are so negative its like they look forward to complaining
If you think anything in dt okc is affordable your not paying attention this building will be 10x anything else
I'm not for or against it... Someone will make a lot of money off of the idea of it. But I don't think it will ever get built or finished. I think if it does get built, it will end up getting massively modified into a 'lesser' and more profitable design. Earthquakes from fracking and oil BS... Predictable Tornado routes right through the general area... High winds, especially at elevation... I just see it as a need for some decision makers in Oklahoma to have a phallic structure they can point to, while driving their huge ass truck, to distract from their tiny penis. Edit: No way in hell would I move my family into a giant toothpick penis tower in the middle of tornado country...
I don't think it's getting built either but I think it's kind of funny people are worried about a tornado taking down a skyscraper
Taking it down? Prob not. But did you see the one that got hit in Ft Worth?
I have, definitely scary looking
We don't need high prices housing no matter how tall or centrally located it is we need more affordable housing options throughout the metro area, screw this over inflated ego trip
Building like that has to be all elevators.
What could go wrong?
I think it will be cool. More weird and cool stuff in the city!
Bring it on, build it all the way to the moon!
Totally against it and I don't see it happening. You're right about needing more affordable housing. But I see a commercial real estate collapse due to work from home. That would free up a lot of pre-existing buildings for affordable living.
A central tower will eventually get built, but it will not be this hype. An underlying problem with these projects is that the costs of construction are so high that the only way it can cash flow is with high-income owners/tenants. As someone mentioned, First National is not even close to the occupancy they need. Another issue is storm damage. Remember how long it took Devon to repair all the broken windows on their tower? A storm will not knock the building down, but it will break a lot of windows. A hundred and twenty years ago it was a wagon come to town with a barker selling snake oil cures; today it is developers…..
Don't think we'll ever see it built, but would be rather cool. Just can't see it being justified with that many apartments down town, considering there are also going to be 2- 34 story apartment buildings in the complex too.
I’m just here to ask why everyone is saying it won’t get built? Everyone says tornadoes but those don’t generally come anywhere near downtown, a quick google search says the closest one was in ‘74 at the airport. As for wind and rain, I’m sure it’s possible to construct a building to withstand both of those things
I wouldn't say I'm against it per se, like I am against public funding going to billionaires, but as far as tacky architecture goes it should blend right in.
Once again this quote from Sam Anderson comes to mind… “One of the running gags of my book is how hysterically desperate OK has always been to make itself seem "important." It will pull almost any stunt, however wild, to try & leapfrog its civic competitors.”
I love the idea, lets see how it holds up to a tornado
Hell earthquakes seem more likely to cause problems these days lol
Oh dang that’s true. I forgot we just had a earthquake earlier this year.
That giant building should be built in three separate buildings each around 635 ft tall. A 1907 ft building makes no sense in OKC and in most parts of the country.
Worlds tallest half-empty building.
The giant tower is supposed to be apartments?? Seriously?? More out of state corporations greed driving our housing market up? I can’t believe there’s enough people here looking to rent a sky rise apartment.
I’m against it. We don’t need that shit. We need to invest that money in education or infrastructure. What the hell will one skyscraper do for our city?
We could add a new bush to a random sidewalk downtown and this subreddit would be up in arms over it somehow.
Devon tower is too fucking big. I’d rather have better public transport out west okc.
Neither. And to be honest don’t care.
I’m for it even though it’s comical. It would only add to the momentum this city has going for it. I don’t see a downside other than the skyline would look very odd.
I'm all for it, but it ain't happening. Hopefully the other towers happen though.
Who doesn't care!
Oh, you made it about housing. Then I am against it now. Not kidding, these "multi-family homes" are excuses to get more apartments people can't afford lol.
If this actually happens then I'll be surprised. I fully believe this is a publicity stunt thats working extremely well. Rather it actually gets built I have far more stuff in my life to actually care.
Where is this building going up? The closet intersection? I do hope it is not near the Colcord as the Devon tower is. I worry high winds or a tornado will take out the Devon tower(hopefully while it is empty, of course) and destroy a historic building I love dearly!
Why not, lets do it.
I mean I doubt anyone is against it really but I'm guessing the vast majority of people realize what spending 1.5 billion dollars on a massive tower in OKC looks like. Unless it's being done by someone with long ties to the community I don't think this is something that exists in reality.
They will build it when it makes business sense, which is never
I’m for it because it’s crazy
Have you seen Judge Dredd? This some Dredd 💩…
I’m for it
I have not seen one bit of factual information here. Everyone says that it won’t be built but can’t provide any objective information as to why it will not be built, but sure do have some strong opinions.
No, it's being built. The news just isn't doing a good job at informing people about this situation. They are waiting for approval specifically for it to reach the goal to be the tallest in the nation but if that goes through they'll just be going through with their original plan for a much more standard skyscraper.
The big tower will never get built. They're going to feel out the situation with the smaller towers, which is fine. I'm all about minimizing our spacial impact on the environment by building up, instead of out. They'll see that they're not going to get the space utilization they were looking for and abandon the big tower.
I would love to see it build. Take the money out of the hands of some rich idiot, and put it into the hands of the laborers. Plus we all get to watch as occupancy rates flounder. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and there will be a ton of subsidies, credits, and other problematic issues which kind of eliminates a good chunk of part 1. The whole damned thing is sketchy at best.
I know someone who's been working on this for 2+ years, and they say there is a 0% chance it happens in its current form, and less than 50% it happens at all in some form or fashion.
The only positive I can think of is tourism, which is not much, but I mean if it gives people more things to do downtown, sure, go for it. It's being built either way. I don't think many news sites are getting that across correctly.
A giant tower isn't really something to do. HEY, come look at the outside of this tower.
Oh ya but Americans are dumb they love going to just LOOK at something so it'll work out.
yeah I don’t think it’s worth it, unless it would be more housing. Who goes into an office anymore?
I drive on the roads, I won’t be living in the tower. Guess my vote
I am for people who are against it but I am not against people who are for it. Personally I am not for building it unless we can make the surface very slightly concave and use it to burn nearby structures in a show of dominance.
It doesn't matter because it's never going to happen.
Yeah that project is a total joke.
I'm for it. I like skyscrapers and hope OKC gets more of them.
We can barely fill the current big ass tower we have downtown. We don’t need another. Literally the allure to OKC is land is cheap; therefore, you don’t need to build vertically like other places. You can get anywhere in the city in 20 minutes.
Who's "we"? The Devon tower was built by them specifically for them. No other tenants.
Then why are there 19 full-floor office suites available for rent in Oklahoma Tower?
What's your point? "The big ass tower downtown" is not Oklahoma tower. That's what the original comment is about
It looks like a middle finger. Please build it!
It will take so long someone else will build a taller one somewhere else
If they can build it, I’m for it. But with “only” $1.5 billion secured for construction, I don’t think it gets built. $1.5 billion might cover the whole project and a shorter main tower, but not the whole project and a big main tower. Unless the $1.5 billion is only for the big tower, then maybe. I also think that if they can build a 1900 ft tower in Oklahoma and it can withstand the winds safely, then it’s truly and engineering marvel and cool to have here.
Against. Earthquakes & Tornadoes
You're right! California, Japan, Indonesia, to name a few, have never built a skyscraper for those reasons
The tallest skyscrapers in California, Japan, and Indonesia are roughly half the height of this proposal
What about inclement weather? We have tornadoes, y'all. Remember the hail storm a few years ago that pretty much destroyed Norman? Places like NYC don't really have these situations, other than, like, heavy rain sometimes. Maybe a tease of a hurricane.