Ok, I'm not an architect and to be honest with you I had to look up "fenestration" so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Just in case anyone else doesn't know what it means

fen·es·tra·tion (fn-strshn)
n.
1. The design and placement of windows in a building.
2. An opening in the surface of a structure, as in a membrane

I think the design of the building was excellent. I saw this article in the paper at 6a.m. this morning and it didn't make much sense. I'll try to pick apart the article and maybe some of you can help me understand the parts I was too tired to understand or to ignorant to concieve.

1....."Montgomery also wrote the building's 240-foot-high glass curtain walls conflict with the requirements that downtown building facades include "vertical breaks.” She advised a proposed digital sign at the entrance also violates city zoning.

Since when was this building 240' tall? The plans I saw were of a 3 maybe 4 story building. I'm guessing she meant "horizontal" And the digital sign....can't we change the zoning there....doesn't the new Ford center design also include a video board?

2....."vertical breaks" ? how is this differnet than any other glass building ala leadership sq. which I believe is in downtown.

3..."The project is not in context with the surrounding area in that it does not provide any unifying elements such as similar building materials, fenestration patterns, vertical character or siting,” Montgomery wrote.

If this measure of context were upheld wouldn't all new buildings in OKC look like something from the 1930's. Again does leadership sq look anything like FNB. Siting is going to be a problem with this property, I think they did well with the design and placement.

4.....The chamber headquarters is the first new Central Business District construction to be considered by the Downtown Design Review Committee since it was formed almost two years ago.

Nothing to pick apart here, but you'd think after two years they might actually want to approve something

5....."The only big issue we have is the setback,” Montgomery said. "That's something we can't modify or exempt. The ordinance was written with the downtown fabric in mind — that a building be at street level and pushed to the streets so that there is interaction between pedestrians and buildings. It's supposed to be typical of our downtown area.”

How is this different than Devons plan as far as setback? Do we really want a downtown where every building is humping the street? After all this is on the eastern edge of downtown, I'd think a little leeway would be ok there. This building is supposed to represent and impress the visitors to OKC. I'd personally rather walk through a garden setting with benches and a video board then be dropped off at the curb in front of the door.

Are trees and park space so bad? Its not like we have an overabundance of park space and green trees downtown. I think the setback actually improves the "site line" to the other buildings and gives a breath of fresh air to the east side of the cbd. If we build every thing to be "typical" of our downtown wouldn't it all look the same?

I know this is a grumpy rant, but I really like the look of the design I've seen and don't understand why it has to conform with everything ever built.

Amen westsidesooner. If conforming to existing building materials, not allowing for park space, and requiring vertical breaks is how dowtown is going to be governed then the new Devon building has a 0% chance of ever being approved. The rules need to be changed - and quick.

I mostly agree, although I don't think it should have a circle drive in front, which it apparently does.

I pretty much diasgree with everything he denied. I think it's great that it doesn't match everything else because nothing that matches is ever going to be built there. That kind of crap is what keeps development from happening. Someone needs to get off their high horse and stop flexing their power muscles. If nothing else, we get the city council to change the ordiances or get variances to the thing gets built. Screw Montgomery.

What if we created a traffic circle there similar to NYC's Columbus Circle, that allowed for better traffic flow between 3rd, 4th, Gaylord, & Broadway?

Wow! I can't believe someone at the city has the nerve to take on the establishment. He deserves kudos for that alone. That said, doesn't he know how things work in this town? I'll be shocked if he's employed there six months from now.

I think it's a she.

I think it's a she. I think so too, not that it matters to me. But am I the only one who didn't know what fenestration was?

She isn't the only person who is upset about the Chamber's design. So was Anthony McDermid, among others, and I do respect his opinion a great deal on urban development.

The issue was that there were other, more urban proposals that the Chamber did not move forward with. Those proposals would have allowed for some mixed use development with the Chamber HQ, hidden parking, straightening of EK Gaylord and Broadway, reconnection of 3rd Street, still a streetsize plaza on Broadway, and an additional lot that would remain vacant for a whole other development.

The Chamber's design is great, cutting edge and really stunning, but now that I've seen the other alternative site plan (which is in the Gazette from last week if you're interested) I would rather see them go with that. I now feel that the Chamber's building would look great on the new lowrise office corridor of Memorial Avenue.

Shane do you think you could scan that image of the other design from the Gazette? I forgot to pick one up and now there's a new issue out.

I don't think you can blame the person that reviewed the plans to ensure they meet current zoning requirements. The requirements need to be changed, not ignored. BTW - a large traffic circle would be cool. An Arch or a fountain in the middle would be nice also.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/columbus_circle/columbus_circle.jpg

Ahhh....Columbus square.

And yes. Scottye is a she.

I'm glad we have mechanisms in place to provide standards, hold developers/owners accountable, and to raise questions where appropriate.

At least it opens a dialog and encourages input... Hopefully there is also a process to resolve such concerns in such a way that development isn't unduly delayed.

Memorial...no. Why would you isolate a CoC way up on the northside? It would be out of the way for everyone BUT northsiders. Downtown is central to all sides.

I agree we need zoning and ordinances to make sure we don't have any crazy crap. But they are aruging things that don't make sense. Broadway is NOT the core. Automobile Alley is NOT a CBD. We're not talking skyscrapers on this road, we're talking less than 5 stories anywhere. And considering the CoC is partly responsible for attracing so much of the business we have, one would think the city would be proactive in supporting them. We have a very large and successful CoC compared to cities much larger than ours. It's a testament to what they do...so we shoudln't be making life more difficult for them than it needs to be.

Here are two articles from the Gazette that are interesting:

City officials say Chamber building debate is traffic vs. pedestrians | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/2579/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Officials remove some decision makers from Chamber building approval process | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/2551/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Making E.K Gaylord deadend into 4th St might be the dumbest idea ever proposed in downtown OKC - and we have a long history of dumb ideas.

I was in downtown Philadelphia tonight. I haven't been to a large urban CBD in some time. WOW! we walked from the Oceanair Restaurant downtown for appoximately half a mile, the sidewalks were full of people restaurants, retail, etc.... one after the other it went on and on in all directions.

I look at old photos of OKC CBD back in the day when it was a thriving urban area and think about the decisons made by urban renewal, city leaders, etc... all in the name of progress???? What a shame and crime to destroy all of those great buildings which created this Urban Fabric......

With that being said, I like the Chamber design, but only as a suburban office building or suburban corporate headquarters. I also like the devon tower design, but it doesn't create that urban edge fronting Sheridan which was lost to urban renewal. can we ever recreate what we once had? Probably not with C2S spreading the CBD out further.......our CBD will continue its suburban sprawl.

I am not a fan of the Chamber building either but moving EK Gaylord is a bad idea. Nothing under 20 stories should go on that corner.

With that being said, I like the Chamber design, but only as a suburban office building or suburban corporate headquarters. I also like the devon tower design, but it doesn't create that urban edge fronting Sheridan which was lost to urban renewal. can we ever recreate what we once had? Probably not with C2S spreading the CBD out further.......our CBD will continue its suburban sprawl.

That will come back but only once significant residential takes over the CBD. Most of the historic Class C space should go residential. Once you have all those people, the retail will fill in the ground floor spaces.

Ahhh....Columbus square.

And yes. Scottye is a she.


EDIT: Circle...not square. Wrong renaissance shape.

Anthony McDermid's thoughts, from Steve's blog:


Anthony McDermid asked me to post the comments he made at today’s Downtown Design Review Committee concerning plans for a new Greater Oklahoma City Chamber headquarters:

My name is Anthony McDermid – Principal of TAParchitecture at 415 N BROADWAY AVENUE.

I stand before you today as someone who has advocated for downtown Oklahoma City since starting my business downtown 20 years ago when it was a pioneering thing to do.I bought 415 N BROADWAY AVE in the uncertain times after the Murrah bombing and it has been TAParchitecture’s home for the last ten years. I have lived downtown for almost two years. I am past president of AIACOC and City Rescue Mission and current Chairman of the OCFA. I served on this Board for over a year.

Let me say first that I am not opposed to the Chamber

Building on the proposed site or the architecture of the building. On the contrary as an active Chamber member and an adjacent property owner there will be many benefits of convenience and increased property value.

I am not here to criticize the architecture but I am here to advocate for two things:

a. SAVING A PARK and b. URBAN DEVELOPMENT in Oklahoma City’s core.

a. SAVING A PARK

The proposed site is the only grassed open space in Downtown Oklahoma City. There are of course several hardscaped spaces downtown including some with water features. Kerr and Couch Parks – BoK plaza – Leadership plaza – Murrah

Park but NO flat open grass space that can be used for a multitude of events such as:

Staging the Finish of the Oklahoma City Marathon – 16,000 runners and their families and friends.

DeadCentre’s screening under the stars.

The YMCA’s children’s Summer Camps.

A grassy place to spread a blanket on the Fourth of July and a place to view Opening Night fireworks .

It’s a gathering place for the Martin Luther King Parade and the new Halloween Parade.

A grassy lunchtime walk to the Y for its numerous downtown members.

And it is used for numerous other unstructured spontaneous unremarkable al fresco activities that happen in open grassy City parks for ALL citizens, local residents and visitors, young and old, short and tall.

For more reading on the subject I would refer you to one of the Mayors’ Roundtable speakers Fred Kent with the Project for Public Spaces who advocates for useable public space and the value those spaces bring to a City.

As one of the authors of the Core to Shore plan I see how Oklahoma City is embracing the concept of open space and parks that redefine our City. These will come at great but worthwhile expense – here is an opportunity to save one that exists.

b. URBAN DEVELOPMENT in OKC’s core.

The proposed building is 50,000sf and it sits on a site of over 3 acres. The proposed development includes 100 surface parking spaces – approximately ½ the site – and has a building footprint of approximately 12,000sf.

One block away on “the other side of the tracks” and under construction there is a four stories mixed development of residential and office. It is the same height as the Chamber proposal almost twice the size, has the same number of parking spaces and sits on less than one acre. Remember this [the Chamber] site is 3 acres.

I will cut to the chase:

I have advocated to Chamber leadership as I am advocating before you today that the building move east on the site oriented north/south over structured parking. The balance of the site – equal to the area currently owned by OCURA could be deeded back to the City – from whence it came – to become dedicated City

Park.

The advantages would be:

1. To preserve a park by creating a large contiguous and useful area west of the building.

2. Conform to the spirit and rules of the new zoning ordinance by the structure touching



third street at the south,fourth street at the north, dedicated park to the west, and eliminate surface parking.

3. Offer better views of the Oklahoman

Building and the

Pioneer

Building and the YMCA from surrounding streets.

I have made these observations to Chamber leadership and got the following rebuttals:

Structured parking is too expensive. The cost of adding structured parking would be approximately $2m. The project is $18m for 50,000sf and has the highest psf cost of any building being constructed in downtown OKC.

It will move the building closer to train noise. Architects learn in acoustics 101 that the only resistance to high powered low frequency noise energy is MASS not glass.

We have a park in the design. The proposal is a hardscaped/driveway with a water feature that is grade separated from two softscapes either side. It is a front yard not a park.

Wrapping up - I am disappointed that our City process for approval of major projects has not become more public and that we are looking at a design for the first time that is complete with furniture.

Many within this community would like to see a more open review process earlier in the concept development as we have seen with Core to Shore and Devon where important issues can be aired early.

We need site plan review early in the design process where improvements or modifications can be made without costing significant dollars or time.

Additional thoughts or quotes:

“This is a very modest sized office project on a 3 acre site. It has all the hallmarks of a suburban project – 5 floors, surface parking, landscaped setbacks. The footprint sets back from the line of a road most planners and urban designers would prefer to see modified or eliminated and the formal entrance was part of a larger element that has since been abandoned and presumably no longer relevant. The biggest negative is the loss of open space that could be achieved by building structured parking underneath the building and between the building and tracks as you would see in an urban project built on highly valued land. This site has a current market value of approximately $4m.

This project had the opportunity to create an urban space that could be enjoyed for the generations who follow us and is now lost for the life of this building. It is worth noting that the two gentlemen who spoke in favor of a more urban project and a park were both from the next generation of leadership, both live downtown and both very educated in urban design and development. I especially enjoyed the perspective of Grant Humphries who was not ready to accept the continuing existence of the much maligned E K Gaylord and its bend in the road and could see a future with a grand park space in place of a bend. His vision would reinstate Broadway as the major street in and out of Downtown. Unfortunately the decision made by this generation of leaders precludes that from happening.”

“This is the second time I have publicly criticized a project I thought was not conceived in the best interests of the City and its citizens. The first was the Galleria parking garage project and closing the



Main Street connection between east and west downtown. Just a few short years later the Devon HQ project will totally reconfigure that garage and my how it begs for that Main Street connection to knit it into the downtown grid. Interesting to note that these projects have the same players calling the shots in the same way it has always been done in this town. If you want to read about it let me recommend Jack Money and Steve Lackmeyer’s “Second Time Around.” It is intellectually amusing to consider the irony of past sins, these two projects, and the players who made them happen but I assure you there is absolutely no satisfaction in saying “I told you so” when the quality of this city’s future is at stake.”

He's right on.

Making E.K Gaylord deadend into 4th St might be the dumbest idea ever proposed in downtown OKC - and we have a long history of dumb ideas.

The (totaly directed outcome) traffic study used by the City to support leaving the Broadway/E.K. Gaylord intersection was done by traffic engineers . . . traffic engineers are what brought us years and years of lame brained one way streets by way of another outcome directed traffic stydy from the 80's. Now the traffic engineers in their wisdom have now created the present configuration of North Robinson which goes from two way to one way, back to two way and then . . . . you guessed it back to one way before it becomes . . . yes, two way again. This all takes place in a little over a mile . . . are you kidding me? Sell tickets, it's a demolition derby.

Boy I sure love those traffic engineers . . . more traffic engineering please!

And, sorry Kerry, the proposed change to EK Gaylord wouldn't make one bit of difference in the flow of traffic downtown and BTW, dead-end means just that . . . dead end . . . no way out. The proposal was to create a three way intersection not a dead-end. It also eliminated the five way intersection that's there now.

TODG - Shields/EK Gaylord/Broadway is the only road that travels from the south said of downtown to the north side. If EK Gaylord is made straight then it will create the same kind of traffic nightmare that you described on Robinson. Just to get through downtown every car will have to make at least one left turn and one right turn. Tell me how that will be pedestrian friendly.

People all over the world cross wider streets than EK Gaylord and if it is such a huge problem put a very stylish pedestrian overpass there, or do what Stockton, CA does. In Stockton pedestrians can't cross during green lights. During each light cycle all of the lights turn red and pedestrians can then cross the road at any angle they want without fear of being hit by anyone. The entire intersection becomes one huge crosswalk.

As for the building itself, I agree that the building should be built atop structured parking. Just the idea of a surface parking lot downtown makes me cringe. For that proposal to come from the Chamber of Commerce is even more crazy. Of all that people that should be taking the extra step it should be them. If the building cost is so high due to some of the environmental designs within the building then maybe they should scale back on those and create a more livable outside environment. A 10 story building on 1 acre makes much more sense than a 5 stories building on 3 acres.

TODG - Shields/EK Gaylord/Broadway is the only road that travels from the south said of downtown to the north side. If EK Gaylord is made straight then it will create the same kind of traffic nightmare that you described on Robinson. Just to get through downtown every car will have to make at least one left turn and one right turn. Tell me how that will be pedestrian friendly. . . .


There are numerous changes that should be made to many of OKC's downtown and suburban streets and intersections to make them more pedestrian friendly, and the list is way to long to start here, but that was not the issue. The issue was changing one particular intersection, but more importantly, retaining an urban green space and requiring a new building to conform to the well thought out, recently established downtown design guidelines.

The suggestion that changing the way EKG Blvd. interacts with the existing street grid from a five way intersection to a three way intersection would create a traffic nightmare is simply absurd on the face of it. I appreciate that you have an opinion on this issue, but that's all it is and of course you are welcome to throw it out there. But please hold off on the hysteria . . . traffic nightmare?

BTW, there are several streets that run through downtown, unfortunately, they have all been "engineered" to the point that they are terribly unfrindly to pedestrians and confusing to motorists.

Also, I didn't suggest that there was some sort of traffic "nightmare" on Robinson, I was only pointing out the disconnect between the thinking of "traffic engineers" and what common sense would dictate. Not being an engineer, my experience and resultant observations only come from six decades of walking, driving, jogging and standing around on OKC's downtown streets and sidewalks at all hours of the day and night. My general observation is that none of the engineering of those streets during those six decades has improved them in any form or fashion and in most instances has made them less user frindly to the motorists that drive on them and the pedestrians that must cross them.

Now the traffic engineers in their wisdom have now created the present configuration of North Robinson which goes from two way to one way, back to two way and then . . . . you guessed it back to one way before it becomes . . . yes, two way again. This all takes place in a little over a mile . . . are you kidding me? Sell tickets, it's a demolition derby.

Amen.

Here is the deal, because of the Myriad (and now the Ford Center) and the Galleria parking deck, the east side of OKC only has one through road to go north on. Closing that road at 4th would only repeat the mistake that was made by closing a block of both Main St and Broadway years ago. That isn't an opinion, that is fact. If you want to eliminate the 5 point intersetion then close Broadway on the south end of the intersection. Or you could simply turn all of the lights red for 30 seconds and allow people to cross the entire intersection at once from side to side or corner to corner. I don't see why this has to be some super complicated effort when all it takes is a technician with a philips screw driver.

. . . . If you want to eliminate the 5 point intersetion then close Broadway on the south end of the intersection.

That would actually create a "deadend" and then both of our traditional downtown core division streets, Main and Broadway, would no longer be through streets. Why would we want to do that?


Or you could simply turn all of the lights red for 30 seconds and allow people to cross the entire intersection at once from side to side or corner to corner. . .

This scheme was tried in OKC several years ago. Diagonal crosswalks were added to several downtown intersections and a pedestrian only crossing period was added to the light control timers. The same approach, obviously dreamed up by traffic engineers, was tried in several other cities around the country . . . total failure on all counts. Those who don't know or fail to learn from history are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Let's not revisit that already tried and failed idea.

That would actually create a "deadend" and then both of our traditional downtown core division streets, Main and Broadway, would no longer be through streets. Why would we want to do that?


Main Street and Broadway don't go through now. That is the problem. Broadway ends at the Myriad and doesn't pick up again until the south side of I-40. Main Street stops at the Galleria parking deck. There is only one two-way street left through downtown OKC and that is EK Gaylord. Maybe traffic engineers are only correct 10% of the time but this falls in that 10%.

Has the design for this project been approved? Hopefully they will go with something more dense for that site. I like the design just not the height of the building (should be taller) and the surface parking (should be underground or structured). I also think they should do some kind of retail space at street level, even if just at the corner of 4th and Broadway. And I think E.K. Gaylord should stay how it is, it will make a great LRT route one of these days.

Chamber building would likely obscure downtown park space
Journal Record
September 19, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – Anthony McDermid can live with looking out his office window at a four-story football-shaped glass building. He just hoped the developers would punt that football a bit farther to the east and open up some park space.

But despite concerns from McDermid, and others, particularly over what could be the loss of downtown’s last large green space, the project to build a new $18 million building for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber is on track to move ahead.

In June, the chamber announced plans for the building at the mostly vacant southeast corner of Northwest Fourth Street and E.K. Gaylord Avenue. There is one parking lot on the site.

The land is about 3 acres and owned by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority and the Oklahoma Publishing Co. OPUBCO has donated its 1.83 acres for the project.

McDermid, principal at TAParchitecture, at 415 N. Broadway Ave., will be one of the proposed building’s closest neighbors. He said the placement of the building will not allow for a contiguous park space that is now used for events throughout the year.

Some of the groups that use the park are the DeadCenter Film Festival, the Oklahoma City Memorial Marathon, and the YMCA for children’s activities during the summer. McDermid said the park is also used by many other people throughout the year.“It’s used for numerous other unstructured, spontaneous, unremarkable outdoor activities,” McDermid said.

On Thursday, McDermid, who recently resigned from the Downtown Design Review Committee, watched as the committee squashed his concerns with the approval of several measures, some with conditions, for the chamber to build the new 50,000-square-foot headquarters.

The committee’s staff recommendation included denying several aspects of the plan, most notably the placement of the building on the site, and a large media sign on the exterior of the building. Several of those issues will have to be addressed and possibly tweaked, and others will require review by the city Board of Adjustment. Despite several conditions, the committee voted on several parts of the project to keep it moving forward.

Roy Williams, president and CEO of the chamber, said he was pleased with the outcome. “The committee responded how we were hoping that they would respond,” he said. “We understand that we have to go through more processes through the adjustments and go ask for variances. We fully anticipated that.”

Clay Bennett addressed the committee on behalf of the building committee for the chamber and explained the reasons for the new building.“The chamber has grown exponentially over the last five years,” he said. “Probably the most dramatic growth in the history of the organization.” Bennett further said the chamber wants the building to have an iconic look, and to be a front door to downtown and connect areas like the Flatiron and Automobile Alley to the central business district.

“We think this, from a functional standpoint, is going to really allow the chamber to continue to expand, continue the promise of the economic development activity of this community, and bring additional business,” Bennett said. “We think it fits that very well.”

Williams said the building will take about 15 months to construct and he hopes work can begin late this year or early next year. Real estate developer Grant Humphreys echoed McDermid’s remarks that the building should sit on the east side of the site to open up more green space for public activities.“For too long we’ve lived with the consequences of the poor design decisions of 30 or 40 years ago,” Humphreys said. “If the building was moved to the east it could still allow for a transformation on this site.”

Parking was another concern. Plans call for surface parking for about 115 cars. McDermid said he would have preferred to have seen some sort of parking structure. Williams said the chamber does not have a great need for parking, or the money to construct a parking structure. “We’re a nonprofit organization,” Williams said. “Where do we get the money?”

McDermid said he is not opposed to the building, but was disappointed that a greater focus will not be on the green space, with the ultimate placement of the building. Despite the decisions that will likely not take McDermid’s suggestions into consideration, he said he will remain a strong advocate for downtown, despite the committee’s actions.“It was predictable,” he said. “But in all good conscience I couldn’t let the process move forward without expressing my concerns about a very precious urban site.”

http://www.journalrecord.com/_images/articles/t_labskc-chamber%20building_MS%20WEBSITE.jpg

Anthony McDermid addresses the Downtown Design Review Committee on Thursday over his concerns for a proposed building for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber as Clay Bennett and Roy Williams look on. Bennett presented the plan to the committee on behalf of the chamber. (Photo by Maike Sabolich)
----------------------------------------------------------

Clay Bennett or Roy Williams don't look happy about the opposition in the pic

Main Street and Broadway don't go through now. That is the problem. Broadway ends at the Myriad and doesn't pick up again until the south side of I-40. Main Street stops at the Galleria parking deck. There is only one two-way street left through downtown OKC and that is EK Gaylord. Maybe traffic engineers are only correct 10% of the time but this falls in that 10%.

Actually EKG terminates at the five way intersection with Broadway, but that's just splitting hairs; and there is no reason that Robinson, Hudson & Walker couldn't be converted back to 100% two way, though they are a lame combination now, so point taken Kerry . . . Care to make any further comments on the pedestrian crosswalk suggestion or that the siting of the building as approved totally violates the City's own design guidelines not to mention common (urban planning and design) sense?

The Chamber says that don't have a great need for parking but they are putting in 115 surface parking spaces. That sounds like a need for parking. I think should have to put in garage. Make it 300 spaces and sell the extra spaces.

As for building location - I agree 100% that they are not making the best use of that site. If a crosswalk plan was tried in the past that is similar to what I suggested there isn't much point in trying it again. However, a cool looking pedestrain walkway could look pretty neat. It could orginate on all of the corners and meet on a deck built directly over the intersection. It would like like a giant spider standing over the intersection. Heck put some grass, trees in planters, and a few benches and OKC would have an elevated park.

It will be interesting to see what changes are made. I echoe McDermid's pleas that the building include some sort of green space along Broadway creating a plaza with the Oklahoman building at the north end, the Chamber building to the east, TAP and a future building at the corner to the west, and a great future site to the south. That way the surface lot is hidden from view sandwiched between the building and the elevated railroad.

Question, why can't 3rd just come through EKG with a light and through Broadway with another light? That is a good way of connecting all the developments around Deep Deuce to the rest of downtown and improves the pedestrian-friendliness of that area.

. . . Question, why can't 3rd just come through EKG with a light and through Broadway with another light? That is a good way of connecting all the developments around Deep Deuce to the rest of downtown and improves the pedestrian-friendliness of that area.

That's one good reason to terminate EKG at 3rd and ditch the curve, because Broadway is only a few steps west of EKG near that five way intersection. But, alas . . . thoughtful design winds up in the ash can again.

Here is an idea - Close Broadway from Park to EKG and turn it into a pedestrian mall and trolley plaza.

There's not really anything along that stretch for pedestrians to see/do/walk to. It's a lot of blank concrete walls.

See OKCBusiness - Oklahoma City Business News (http://www.okcbusiness.com/article.asp?aID=03606415.7290918.595270.3221661.63 51674.856&aID2=45781)


Oklahoma City’s Downtown Design Review Committee approves chamber building

OKCBusiness Staff
9/18/2008

Oklahoma City’s Downtown Design Review Committee, with fewer than half of the members voting, approved the proposal for a new Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce.

The committee requested variances for the many guidelines the building, to be located at E.K. Gaylord and Fourth Street., violates.

The design calls for a reflective-glass, oval-shaped building that will bisect a vacant plot at the site, which some had hoped might be partly used for a park.

In June, the chamber leadership revealed their plans for the new building. The Chamber has been located in the Harold C. Brand Building since 1994.

Only three members voted for the project, with one abstaining, one not present, and two having recently resigned after being notified by the city they were possibly violating a state conflict-of-interest law.

The motion was carried by all three voting members, but with the stipulation that the chamber now go to the city’s Board of Adjustment to seek permission to build outside the downtown guidelines.

It looks like the Chamber building will get built as designed, and that is to bad. I would have liked to seen something taller, with structured parking, and closer to the street. On the plus side it does take up some of the vacant land downtown. That would have made a good site for a highrise residential tower but a 5 story building is better than nothing. A large surface parking lot in the heart of downtown will look stupid though.

Well the park is lost forever, but at least there's potential that other development could take the place of the surface parking at some point.

SHAME on the Chamber, I say, for setting such a bad example. They should be doing the exact opposite. I feel like writing a nasty letter.

Here is an idea - Close Broadway from Park to EKG and turn it into a pedestrian mall and trolley plaza.

It will be a long wait for the trolley Kerry.

But speaking of trolley plazas, there is a several block long transportation mall in Minneapolis that is incredible. It is a multi-lane street that is (I believe) limited to public transporation traffic. The sidewalks are at least 25 feet wide to allow for lots of outdoor dining in front of the numerous restaurants and most of the surrounding buildings are mixed use. I believe it was part of the original city plan or was part of a major urban re-do many years ago.

Oklahoma City’s Downtown Design Review Committee approves chamber building
OKCBusiness Staff
9/18/2008

Oklahoma City’s Downtown Design Review Committee, with fewer than half of the members voting, approved the proposal for a new Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce.

The committee requested variances for the many guidelines the building, to be located at E.K. Gaylord and Fourth Street., violates.

The design calls for a reflective-glass, oval-shaped building that will bisect a vacant plot at the site, which some had hoped might be partly used for a park.

In June, the chamber leadership revealed their plans for the new building. The Chamber has been located in the Harold C. Brand Building since 1994.

Only three members voted for the project, with one abstaining, one not present, and two having recently resigned after being notified by the city they were possibly violating a state conflict-of-interest law.

The motion was carried by all three voting members, but with the stipulation that the chamber now go to the city’s Board of Adjustment to seek permission to build outside the downtown guidelines.

Good. So we can move on progressively without keeping our head in the dirt. I appreciate that these guys were doing their job to ensure that everyone followed proper zoning and ordinances, but I think some of them were also just trying to be difficult. It's one thing to discuss the issues, it's another to act like you don't want the project to go forward. Maybe I'm not feeling the intent of Ms. Montgomery's statements, but it never sounded as though she was saying, "These are the problems we see, so let's see what we can do", but instead "These are all problems that we don't want fixed, you just need to redesign the whole thing".

OKC Chamber one step closer to new building
by Kelley Chambers
The Journal Record November 7, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – Little stands in the way of a new building for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber after approval Thursday on one of two controversial aspects of the building and the site.

In June, Larry Nichols, chamber chairman, announced plans for an $18 million building on about three grassy acres at the southeast corner of Northwest Fourth Street and E. K. Gaylord Boulevard.The plan went before the Downtown Design Review Committee in September, where it met opposition from committee members and the public.

The placement of the building on the site and a large media sign facing southwest were both issues that were referred to the Board of Adjustment.

“It’s noted that we don’t comply with the downtown design ordinance,” said John Michael Williams, who spoke to the board on behalf of the chamber. “We wouldn’t be here if we did comply with the downtown design ordinance.”

After looking at requests for variances for a setback for the building, and installation of a lit media board, the Board of Adjustment approved the setback and put off a decision on the sign indefinitely.

Anthony McDermid, principal at TAParchitecture, is one of the site’s closest neighbors. He attended the September meeting and Thursday’s meeting to express his concerns about the project.

The items of most concern to McDermid were the placement of the building at an angle rather than running north and south where it would bump up against Northwest Third and Northwest Fourth streets, and the surface parking that will consume most of the green space.

“This project makes absolutely no attempt to conform to the ordinance,” he said. “Had it done so I think it would have appeared to be a completely different project.”

Undeterred by opposition from McDermid and others, chamber representatives said the setback is needed to afford a view of the old Oklahoma Publishing Co. building.

Almost two acres of the land is owned by OPUBCO, and Oklahoman Publisher David Thompson, the chamber’s chairman elect, and was at Thursday’s meeting.

Roy Williams, president and CEO of the chamber, said the sign will not be used for advertising – a concern expressed by board members – but would likely show pictures of Oklahoma City, provide information on events, and could be used for showing movies for public events.

“The intent is to really make it work with the surroundings in the neighborhood and not be something that’s gaudy, but something that people would want to look at,” Roy Williams said.

The continuance on the sign will allow chamber officials to clearly define what the sign will and will not be used for.

After the meeting McDermid said he was disappointed with the outcome.
“This was a chance for the chamber to show good principles of urban design and they chose not to,” he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDermid has a lot of valid points about urban design. FYI...I talked to some anonymous insiders yesterday who said the project is being scaled back and cut down certain things to reduce costs. I also heard Bennett wants this thing push through design variances ASAP too. Just shows the good ole boy network is still alive. Bennett gets us an NBA team, in turn we cut corners and lax downtown design rules for him on a new building he wants on a prime piece of downtown land.

Why would Bennett care about the design of the building? I realize it's OPUBCO land, but is he THAT closely affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce? Is he that into design? I've seen very little evidence that's a major interest of his. I'm not precisely sure why the Chamber is so set on a design people are having trouble accepting, either, unless it's because they've already paid for the design and don't want to go back to the drawing board. I would think if people like Anthony McDermid are opposed, that means we should think long and hard about whether this is the right thing to do.

It kind of sucks that the "face of OKC business" attempts to violate standards designed to give downtown an urban feel. They should have been held to higher standard, not a lower standard. Keep the video board and lose the surface parking. Oh well, I guess we get what we get. At least another building is going up.

"Why would Bennett care about the design of the building?"

Bennett has a lot invested in the city. AKA The Thunder, and he just wants the best for the city.

"Why would Bennett care about the design of the building?"

Bennett has a lot invested in the city. AKA The Thunder, and he just wants the best for the city.

Because he basically donated the land for this is the main reason, AND the OPUBCO original building is across the street and the family wants to preserve "the view" from their vacant building. lasomeday, his vision for this building has nothing to do with "what's best for the city."

I believe he's referring to the fact that Bennett has been in charge of this project for the Chamber.

I have no problem with the video board, and I actually agree that the EK Gaylord building shouldn't be blocked, but I'm strongly opposed to the surface parking and I don't like the circle drive in front. At least that could be eventually replaced with garages and other development, but the park will be gone forever. Why not put the building further back from the street and keep the park area in front of it? Not much point in showing movies on that board when only a small crowd can gather in front of it.

the family wants to preserve "the view" from their vacant building.


It's not the view from, it's the view of. And it's not vacant.

Is the chamber of commerce a private entity?

It's not the view from, it's the view of. And it's not vacant.

Actually it's the view from and of, both are what they are adimate about preserving.

I think that's legitimate. But they should just put the building further back and leave the park, and have underground parking.

"Why would Bennett care about the design of the building?"

Bennett has a lot invested in the city. AKA The Thunder, and he just wants the best for the city.The City IMO, has even more invested in Bennett. Beside the City you may remember the State has a little skin in the game as well, lets not forget that. Bennett wants what is best for Bennett. I guess since he so graciously brought us the Thunder letting him have his way, as he makes his own rules, is just part of the price we must pay for being a Big League City. By the way. You must have great seats.

Let's argue semantics some more. Geez, if anything these boneheads should have argued about the urbanness of the design and possibly made them revise the design or spend more time discussing it at least and not given them the free pass. Let's argue about the LED sign that will promote our city and be a venue for our film festival instead.

Chamber wants large LED sign, promises no advertising
Journal Record
November 12, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber plans to build a new headquarters and wants a 30-foot-by-55-foot external LED media sign to be part of that design. But the chamber has encountered several hurdles in the approval process for the proposed sign. The major concern expressed by members of two downtown entities is that the sign cannot be used for advertising. In June plans were announced for the $18 million building on a site at the southeast corner of Northwest Fourth Street and E.K. Gaylord Boulevard.

The plan went before the Downtown Design Review Committee in September and one of two items referred to the Board of Adjustment was for a variance for what the chamber has defined as a large media sign.

“Our intent is to use it to help sell people on Oklahoma City and also to help sell Oklahoma City people on Oklahoma,” Roy Williams, president and CEO of the chamber, told the board. However, concerns still continued to be raised over the use of the lighted sign for advertising.

John Michael Williams, an attorney representing the chamber, said the chamber will not sell advertising to display on the sign.“This is intended to be an informational medium,” he said. “You cannot buy advertising.”But questions still persisted as to what constitutes an advertisement, especially if the board features materials on local sports teams or events sponsored by corporations.“If we’re advertising an event, aren’t we advertising for someone to make some money off of it?,” said Steven Dobbs, chairman of the board of adjustment. “It’s commercial advertising and that’s what we’ve been very careful to preserve in the city’s appearance.”

Cliff Dougherty, an attorney with McAfee & Taft, said advertising at its core is to promote goods or services for someone, a company, or an organization. He said that in the course of running community events the sign will likely mention local companies or sports teams that sponsor events, even though no money has changed hands. “If the purpose of the billboard is to provide information, that’s probably OK,” he said. “But if it’s used to directly promote the goods and services of other organizations, then that’s probably what they’re trying to avoid.”

Jim Avery, an advertising professor at the University of Oklahoma, said virtually anything on a sign that promotes an organization is an ad.He said that creates a gray area between advertising and information where those involved can end up arguing semantics. “Where is the line between those people who should pay, and those with broad enough appeal for a distribution of information?” he asked. For example, a sign can encourage people to vote or give blood, Avery said. But once the message works to sway people one way or the other, it enters the territory of advertising.“Once they tell us what to do, it’s advertising,” he said. “If you’re telling people to vote, that’s fine, if you tell people how to vote, that’s different.”

After the two reviews the chamber asked the board of adjustment for an indefinite continuance to complete details for the sign and define its exact function.Dobbs said downtown entities must be conscious of what is allowed in animated signs and proceed with caution so that downtown is not eventually overrun with large animated signs littered with ads.

“I can’t remember the last time we approved a sign like you’re proposing,” he told chamber representatives. “Once we open the door, it’s open.”

After the two reviews the chamber asked the board of adjustment for an indefinite continuance to complete details for the sign and define its exact function.Dobbs said downtown entities must be conscious of what is allowed in animated signs and proceed with caution so that downtown is not eventually overrun with large animated signs littered with ads.

“I can’t remember the last time we approved a sign like you’re proposing,” he told chamber representatives. “Once we open the door, it’s open.”


It's called Times Square...and its world famous.

Cuatro, just to clarify, that's not my quote but the article. I agree with what you're saying. These blokes just don't get it. I'm one of our biggest eternal optimists, but it's stuff like this that amaze me how much farther we still have to go.

my thoughts exactly! What is the city scared of? would we rather have the peeling billboards or new LED displays? I would choose the displays hands down, the fact of the matter is the opposition to this sign is just one more 'sign' that the people who are setting policy are not thinking clearly. Look at Tokyo, New York, heck even parts of London, they have managed to exist a heck of a lot longer, while keeping the cities and architecture in tact, while still progressing forward with new forms of mass communication. Look at these new developments in New York: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/business/media/17adco.html

What if that idea came up before the DRC? I can hear them saying that "we have never done things this way" ect... face it, what OKC 70's didn't work, it wasn't until we tried to break the mold, do things differently (MAPS) that we got anywhere, lets not take that for granted, lets keep moving forward, don't make what we have now the new norm, if we do, in ten for fifteen year we will be where we were 20 years ago, we must keep pushing the limits, being innovative.

OKC has successfully fought billboards for years, and now the Chamber proposes a 1,650 square foot board that will be almost four stories high, with the goal to "sell people on Oklahoma City." This board will benefit only those who are physically standing in front of it, and provide them with a 10-second message (nobody stands around reading a billboard). The Chamber obviously didn't think this one all the way through before running to the board of adjustment.

Chamber: If you want to inform people about what's going on around town, start with your Web site - it really is awful.

OKCTalker, keep in mind the Chamber has visitors constantly each day, including national and international dignitaries and prospective new businesses. People will watch it. Also the DeadCENTER film festival would use it for a screening sight each June as well. There is also the possibility of holding outdoor public movie screenings here all year round.