they shouldn't get a variance. We want new construction downtown to look like this:

http://www.guide-to-hotels.com/images/raw-pics/new-york/54351/2082950.jpg

not like this:

http://blog.lampartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2_parkinglot_walmartstores.jpg

^ this!

Add 12 million people to the metro and we will have lots of those.

I hope the financing for this deal completely falls through and somehow the designs get caught in the wind and sucked into a lawn mower, never to be seen again.

Add 12 million people to the metro and we will have lots of those.

We don't need lots of them. But there's nothing wrong with having some of them.

Okay, 1 million will help. ;)

Okay, 1 million will help. ;)

We already have a million, but population has nothing to do with good design. I have seen small towns with just a few thousand people that have scores of well designed buildings and lively sidewalks.

We already have a million, but population has nothing to do with good design. I have seen small towns with just a few thousand people that have scores of well designed buildings and lively sidewalks.

I think Des Moines is one of those.

And by the same token, Los Angeles proper has close to 10 million and 17 million in Greater LA. Downtown LA is improving, but most feels like it is on life support with large swaths of downtown far from Walkable (capital W intended). Similar stories can be told about Atlanta, Houston and others. Population has little to do with whether or not a city has a Walkable downtown. Walkability and lively street activity are more accurate barometers of a city's values than of its population.

By the way, I might just start capitalizing "Walkable" on here. Too many confuse the term, thinking it means a place where people CAN walk rather than a place where they WANT to walk. If all it takes is a sidewalk, Northwest Expressway is largely walkable. We need downtown to be Walkable.

Nm

And by the same token, Los Angeles proper has close to 10 million and 17 million in Greater LA. Downtown LA is improving, but most feels like it is on life support with large swaths of downtown far from Walkable (capital W intended). Similar stories can be told about Atlanta, Houston and others. Population has little to do with whether or not a city has a Walkable downtown. Walkability and lively street activity are more accurate barometers of a city's values than of its population.

By the way, I might just start capitalizing "Walkable" on here. Too many confuse the term, thinking it means a place where people CAN walk rather than a place where they WANT to walk. If all it takes is a sidewalk, Northwest Expressway is largely walkable. We need downtown to be Walkable.

Somehow the conversation morphed into 'walkability'. It started with a picture of a real hotel in a city that probably has a great population and more corporate presence than OKC. Derail... Oh and I want to go skydiving again...

This belongs in Midwest City or in Yukon. Not in downtown OKC.

Only good thing about this is its not on the canal and Bass Pro already cuts it off from the rest of Bricktown so it won't have an effect one way or another on the overall feel of the district.

You have to decide what type of downtown lifestyle you want because the downtown area is only a means to that lifestyle. If you want a compact downtown where walking, biking, and mass transit are part of the transportation network then you have to build in a way that makes those viable. If you want a place dominated by cars then you build that way. The thing is - you CAN"T do both effectively. No city in the history of the world has done that and there are lots of reasons why.

If the downtown stewards want a Walkable area this project has to be denied until they fix site plan. If they want an area dominated by cars then they should approve this site plan.

There's really nothing else in that part of lower bricktown that is built to the street with parking out back. The hotel appears to pretty much be the eastern boundary of LBT, with most of the immediately adjacent space built out or under plans. Does it really matter at this point if it isn't built to the street and urban? Nothing else in its general vicinity is, nor likely will it ever be.

There's really nothing else in that part of lower bricktown that is built to the street with parking out back. The hotel appears to pretty much be the eastern boundary of LBT, with most of the immediately adjacent space built out or under plans. Does it really matter at this point if it isn't built to the street and urban? Nothing else in its general vicinity is, nor likely will it ever be.

Need to start somewhere. The next development will say, "well the new hotel isn't urban, why should mine be?"

What are you talking about Kevin? There is another hotel planned directly across the street from this one plus the East Bricktown Project is less than 600 feet away, and I predict that whatever that operation is behind the gas station will be gone within 5 years, and then we still have the giant parking lot at Bricktown Events Center which will eventually be developed.

It was not long ago that nothing in Deep Deuce was built to an urban standard either. Imagine if The Hill developers said, "You know, we are on the fringe of the district do I think single family homes should work fine here." Sadly, we have people who would actually support that.

People on here act like OKC is their Sim City.

People on here act like OKC is their Sim City.

Funny you should say that. You ever tried to build a walkable mixed-use neighborhood in SimCity? You can't. That development style doesn't exist in the game.

Funny you should say that. You ever tried to build a walkable mixed-use neighborhood in SimCity? You can't. That development style doesn't exist in the game.
My friend, that why there are mods out there. I've built tons mixed used walkable neighborhoods with a light-rail going through and an actual McDonalds and other brand name restaurants. ;)

Long-time reader, first-time poster. Thanks for the informative posts from everyone.

I probably ought to get my 'forum feet' wet in a less contentious thread, but as someone who loves OKC (born and raised) but has lived all over...I really cannot imagine this type of development just blocks within the CBD being built in ANY other large city. Taking away the roof's gables in a warehouse district makes sense. This big parking lot fronting a new development just boggles my mind. I agree with the posts about making WALKABILITY the cornerstone of our growing city. It's a topic that has every right to be part of the discussion.

1. The developer knew or should have known about the easements he claims hinder his development.
2. I applaud the developers for pursuing investment in Bricktown and hope they do not throw in the towel.
3. This project should be either rejected or forced to put the parking lot behind the hotel. He can't be expected to build a parking garage tho. apples to oranges.

What are you talking about Kevin? There is another hotel planned directly across the street from this one plus the East Bricktown Project is less than 600 feet away, and I predict that whatever that operation is behind the gas station will be gone within 5 years, and then we still have the giant parking lot at Bricktown Events Center which will eventually be developed.

It was not long ago that nothing in Deep Deuce was built to an urban standard either. Imagine if The Hill developers said, "You know, we are on the fringe of the district do I think single family homes should work fine here." Sadly, we have people who would actually support that.

directly across the street is a gas station then to the north a little bit is an auto body shop ..

Here's my questions: If ODOT is completely unwilling to give up the easement due to a future ramp/bridge/flyover, why even have that space up for grabs for development? All of ODOT's plans have changed in the last several years so why limit what can happen on the space? Also, what is the box on the west side of the plat? Is that a tornado siren? Can it be moved?

directly across the street is a gas station then to the north a little bit is an auto body shop ..

Okay... Tell us more about the location of other gas stations and body shops.

Too many confuse the term, thinking it means a place where people CAN walk rather than a place where they WANT to walk. If all it takes is a sidewalk, Northwest Expressway is largely walkable. We need downtown to be Walkable.

YES x100

We are at the point in time in our city's growth cycle where development for the sake of taller buildings (or even quick infill of 3-5 story buildings with less eye towards design) will do little except make us like every other western American city...vehicle-centric and appealing from the highway.

Not long ago I hoped for more tall buildings and infill because they're cool to look at and seem to show everyone that a city is moving forward. Now, I would rather the street interaction in CBD and Bricktown be conducive to actual human beings (we can have both!)...but we have to fight for good design, and Walkability is key.

You have to decide what type of downtown lifestyle you want because the downtown area is only a means to that lifestyle. If you want a compact downtown where walking, biking, and mass transit are part of the transportation network then you have to build in a way that makes those viable. If you want a place dominated by cars then you build that way. The thing is - you CAN"T do both effectively. No city in the history of the world has done that and there are lots of reasons why.

If the downtown stewards want a Walkable area this project has to be denied until they fix site plan. If they want an area dominated by cars then they should approve this site plan.

100% correct. It appears developers downtown are still very car-centric in their proposals. Just take a look at upper Bricktown and the sea of parking directly on the canal. I know everybody wants a grocery store downtown but we have to be careful with what is wished for. That grocery store could end up being a typical giant Wal-Mart Supercenter.

It's going to take ordinances and stricter building codes being implemented downtown in order to force developers to consider Walkability.

JTF, can you repost the images you once came up with for how you thought Lower Bricktown should have been developed with the bridge crossings and different site plans? I think it was that you came up with them anyway...

As for what I was talking about, the entirety of lower BT is as suburban as it can be. The spaces near this project are either not urban, or are under plans to become something, and no indication of being ultra urban that I've heard about. Once an area is a lost cause, it perhaps ought to be a consistent lost cause. It's not Bricktown. When nada else is built to the street anywhere close to a site, to say a site ought to be scrapped unless comes right to the sidewalk and no visible parking, it looks like a pointless fight.

I'm aware the apartments are not built, nor the nearby motel. Anybody really wanting to lay down bets those projects are going to look mondo-urban considering where they are going and what has gone before them? Much like accepting the impending loss of Stage Center, I've simply elected to accept that lower BT is what it is, and isn't likely to change its character beyond adding some residential and a few more mid-point suburban motel rooms.

As for what I was talking about, the entirety of lower BT is as suburban as it can be. The spaces near this project are either not urban, or are under plans to become something, and no indication of being ultra urban that I've heard about. Once an area is a lost cause, it perhaps ought to be a consistent lost cause. It's not Bricktown. When nada else is built to the street anywhere close to a site, to say a site ought to be scrapped unless comes right to the sidewalk and no visible parking, it looks like a pointless fight.

I'm aware the apartments are not built, nor the nearby motel. Anybody really wanting to lay down bets those projects are going to look mondo-urban considering where they are going and what has gone before them? Much like accepting the impending loss of Stage Center, I've simply elected to accept that lower BT is what it is, and isn't likely to change its character beyond adding some residential and a few more mid-point suburban motel rooms.

you realize that this project and site is not in lower bricktown

Always an excuse Boulder. Meanwhile in Bricktown...

how is that an excuse .. he was talking about this project and lower bricktown .... well this project is not in lower bricktown .. it is in bricktown "proper" for purposes of design review ..

and most of what i post is called reality

While I do realize Reno is the actual, line, I tend to use California in my own mind. There is so little between Reno and Cali of import beyond the ballpark itself, except for the sea of parking, it makes more sense to me. But yeah, I could of been more clear about why it's easier for me to write off the project than lose sleep over it. Thanks for the prod.

No, it is a passive aggressive attack on the dreams of a community. You say "reality" and yet I've provided you plenty of evidence that what we desire, is actually common in the world -- even the US.

If you've not actually left OKC, that's okay. But don't spend your day tromping on the values of others. This city, at least in word, wants to become more walkable and pedestrian freindly. That's the goal of the council, the mayor, neighborhoods, and plenty of people.

What you post isn't called reality, it's called the past. And we're done with it.

Forward.

i will bet you that this hotel gets built with the current site plan ..... so what exactly is the "past" and what is reality??

While I do realize Reno is the actual, line, I tend to use California in my own mind. There is so little between Reno and Cali of import beyond the ballpark itself, except for the sea of parking, it makes more sense to me. But yeah, I could of been more clear about why it's easier for me to write off the project than lose sleep over it. Thanks for the prod.

i pretty much agree with you this site is clearly on the fringe of bricktown sits next to a raised interstate across the street from a gas station/body shop is north and south of sites that will never be developed ... next to train tracks and has 2 easements running across it ......

i pretty much agree with you this site is clearly on the fringe of bricktown sits next to a raised interstate across the street from a gas station/body shop is north and south of sites that will never be developed ... next to train tracks and has 2 easements running across it ......

Downtown is not static. The gas station and body shop might not always be there. Those sites to the north might not always be undeveloped.

Build a low quality development such as this, and yes, there will be no reason to bring other land up to a higher use. Build a quality development and it will attract more quality development and raise property values.

Guess we'll settle for a mediocre suburban hotel to set the standard for this section of downtown.

Does it really matter at this point if it isn't built to the street and urban? Nothing else in its general vicinity is, nor likely will it ever be.

The only thing that would guarantee that nothing else in the vicinity will be urban is to approve stuff that isn't urban. And the thing is, putting the parking in the back does not affect the feasibility of the project. All it does is help insure that the future development of bricktown isn't more junky stuff that just follows suit.

Seriously, it is no big loss if this is not built, so I think they should make them do it the best way possible. If it doesn't get built, then so what? We'd just have lower supply for the demand, possibly justifying, say... a much nicer and bigger convention hotel?

In the end, if it is under bricktown's jurisdiction, it should be built with the same standards as any hotel built under that same jurisdiction, whether it's right in the middle or on the edge.

JTF, can you repost the images you once came up with for how you thought Lower Bricktown should have been developed with the bridge crossings and different site plans? I think it was that you came up with them anyway...

Red are buildings and yellow is structured parking. First floor would be retail/services. Second floor and up would be residential/office.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/lbretro-fit-1.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/lbretro-fit.jpg

The only thing that would guarantee that nothing else in the vicinity will be urban is to approve stuff that isn't urban. And the thing is, putting the parking in the back does not affect the feasibility of the project. All it does is help insure that the future development of bricktown isn't more junky stuff that just follows suit.

Seriously, it is no big loss if this is not built, so I think they should make them do it the best way possible. If it doesn't get built, then so what? We'd just have lower supply for the demand, possibly justifying, say... a much nicer and bigger convention hotel?

In the end, if it is under bricktown's jurisdiction, it should be built with the same standards as any hotel built under that same jurisdiction, whether it's right in the middle or on the edge.

because of the easements it is not possible to put the parking in the back

because of the easements it is not possible to put the parking in the back

Sounds like a hotel shouldn't go there at all, then.

because of the easements it is not possible to put the parking in the back

This is repeatedly stated, but tell me specifically why it is not possible to rearrange the parking for behind the hotel other than "there are easements"?

Once again - it is sooooo simple. Just move the easement. It is just some buried concrete boxes with drainage water moving through them from back in the day when a railroad track went through the area.

JTF, I love your urban design for Lower Bricktown. One difference is I would keep the existing fountain as we don't have enough urban art/features in the city. Otherwise, how can you become a member of OKC's DOWNTOWN planning division? >?

Once again - it is sooooo simple. Just move the easement. It is just some buried concrete boxes with drainage water moving through them from back in the day when a railroad track went through the area.

the railroad and odot don't want to move their easements ..

Sounds like a hotel shouldn't go there at all, then.

so the property owner should not be allowed to build anything??

JTF, I love your urban design for Lower Bricktown. One difference is I would keep the existing fountain as we don't have enough urban art/features in the city. Otherwise, how can you become a member of OKC's DOWNTOWN planning division? >?

Everyone has a role to play. Mine is loud mouth internet agitator.

so the property owner should not be allowed to build anything??

The owner(s) can build anything they want that complies with the standards of the district. That's what the standards are for.



the railroad and odot don't want to move their easements ..

OK, and maybe Bricktown doesn't want another junk hotel with a huge surface lot fronting it.

Sounds like maybe a hotel shouldn't go there at all.

I always thought allowing Bass Pro to plop down a standard big box was a huge mistake and thus set the subpar standard for the rest of lower Bricktown. I really like what OKC has done with Bricktown, but does there have to be parking lots right up next to the canal? Bricktown is nice but it had the opportunity to be something truly great and that was squandered because developers refused to think 'urban' and the city let it happen. I hope the same mistake isn't made on the new Boulevard.

One of the more frustrating things about watching small and medium-sized cities' development in this part of the country (OKC isn't alone in this) is that people beyond a select few don't seem to grasp the concept of urban. Everything no matter what has to be built with the automobile in mind first and foremost. There is an easy way to solve this problem. Build developments next to the street with parking behind it. That way there can be ample parking without sacrificing Walkability and ultimately character.

because of the easements it is not possible to put the parking in the back

Then how can you put a hotel there?

I will make a bet. Any amount of money. I take all comers. I bet that if it is possible to put this hotel plan on that land, then it is also possible to put a similarly sized hotel which meets urban design standards, on this same piece of land, with adjacent surface parking, without offending the easement gods.

Come get some.

As for what I was talking about, the entirety of lower BT is as suburban as it can be. The spaces near this project are either not urban, or are under plans to become something, and no indication of being ultra urban that I've heard about. Once an area is a lost cause, it perhaps ought to be a consistent lost cause. It's not Bricktown. When nada else is built to the street anywhere close to a site, to say a site ought to be scrapped unless comes right to the sidewalk and no visible parking, it looks like a pointless fight.

I'm aware the apartments are not built, nor the nearby motel. Anybody really wanting to lay down bets those projects are going to look mondo-urban considering where they are going and what has gone before them? Much like accepting the impending loss of Stage Center, I've simply elected to accept that lower BT is what it is, and isn't likely to change its character beyond adding some residential and a few more mid-point suburban motel rooms.

I do get were you're coming from, and there are some instances of lost causes. However, I am not satisfied with writing this area off. This, even if somewhat on the fringes of the district, is still in the sphere our city's densest cultural center. I would presume that less than ten years ago many would have labeled now flourishing areas of Bricktown 'lost causes'. In this case, no, I'm not buying it. Bricktown is meant to be some of the best our city has to offer, and I am not inclined to believe that we are anywhere close to being done. As other posters have made clear, we have far too many other areas in this city where a hotel which is planned like this would fit in just great. Just not in Bricktown.

As for what I was talking about, the entirety of lower BT is as suburban as it can be. The spaces near this project are either not urban, or are under plans to become something, and no indication of being ultra urban that I've heard about. Once an area is a lost cause, it perhaps ought to be a consistent lost cause. It's not Bricktown. When nada else is built to the street anywhere close to a site, to say a site ought to be scrapped unless comes right to the sidewalk and no visible parking, it looks like a pointless fight.

I'm aware the apartments are not built, nor the nearby motel. Anybody really wanting to lay down bets those projects are going to look mondo-urban considering where they are going and what has gone before them? Much like accepting the impending loss of Stage Center, I've simply elected to accept that lower BT is what it is, and isn't likely to change its character beyond adding some residential and a few more mid-point suburban motel rooms.

This totally echos the discussion during lower bricktown's development. Basically, many just said "well, anything is fine as long as it is something" and we all know how that turned out. I think the point myself and some others are trying to make is that the time is right now, with this project, to end the expansion of lower bricktown type development in downtown and set the stage for bricktown to expand to the east in a much more complimentary way to bricktown proper with more consideration for urban sensibility and walkability. The reality is that developments like this should't happen in downtown at all, ever, even if there is currently nothing adjacent to it.

This project does has something in front of the Board of Adjustment, but I can't see the details of the type of variance they are seeking.

So, this is not just a matter of design review and the City clearly has the latitude to deny whatever request they are making.

Lower Bricktown could still be fixed, but it's going to require years and a lot of new development. It will never be perfect, but I think it can still be a lot better than it is now. So let's not give up on it and shrug our shoulders.

This project does has something in front of the Board of Adjustment, but I can't see the details of the type of variance they are seeking.

So, this is not just a matter of design review and the City clearly has the latitude to deny whatever request they are making.

as with all BOA cases they don't have total "latitude" if the application meet the requirements for a variance or meets the same requirements that that caused a variance to be granted in the past then if they deny this case the applicant would have a great chance to win in court

as with all BOA cases they don't have total "latitude" if the application meet the requirements for a variance or meets the same requirements that that caused a variance to be granted in the past then if they deny this case the applicant would have a great chance to win in court

Which is a good lesson in why not to grant variances based on unwarranted desperation. Crap begets crap.


Lower Bricktown could still be fixed, but it's going to require years and a lot of new development. It will never be perfect, but I think it can still be a lot better than it is now. So let's not give up on it and shrug our shoulders.

Anything is possible, but all we can do is focus on what is before us right now. Before we can think of undoing lower bricktown, the best thing to do for now would be to make sure no more of it gets built. This is a good place to start.

III. STATUTORY STANDARDS

In order for a variance to be granted in accordance with State Statute requirements, the
applicant must prove:
(a) The application of the Ordinance to the particular piece of property would create
an unnecessary hardship;

(b) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved;

(c) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes and intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan; and

(d) The variance, if granted, would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the
unnecessary hardship.

III. STATUTORY STANDARDS

In order for a variance to be granted in accordance with State Statute requirements, the
applicant must prove:
(a) The application of the Ordinance to the particular piece of property would create
an unnecessary hardship;

(b) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved;

(c) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes and intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan; and

(d) The variance, if granted, would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the
unnecessary hardship.

Lol. Lots of legal leeway in that statute. "Unnecessary hardship", "impair the purposes and intent", "minimum necessary to alleviate". Basically, it is statutorily up to those presiding over the case.

Item C alone sends any variance down to defeat. This land was specifically included in the Bricktown overlay district for the very reason to protect the interest of the area.

Is there a master plan for Bricktown? Or East Bricktown? If there was, and it showed the vision for this area being more urban, would it be more difficult for something this non-urban to go in? If there is not one, how quickly could we create one? What entity would be responsible for that? Take the dues from that entity and hire a consultant to develop a master plan for East Bricktown (if there isn't already one), accounting for all the planned projects in the area (hotels, apartments, new wormy dog, etc) and designed in an urban way and have that adopted as a master plan for the area to prevent the upcoming projects from going non-urban in design, if not also this one... any of this doable and/or worthwhile to do?

Is there a master plan for Bricktown? Or East Bricktown? If there was, and it showed the vision for this area being more urban, would it be more difficult for something this non-urban to go in? If there is not one, how quickly could we create one? What entity would be responsible for that? Take the dues from that entity and hire a consultant to develop a master plan for East Bricktown (if there isn't already one), accounting for all the planned projects in the area (hotels, apartments, new wormy dog, etc) and designed in an urban way and have that adopted as a master plan for the area to prevent the upcoming projects from going non-urban in design, if not also this one... any of this doable and/or worthwhile to do?

I guess my logic here is that the Boathouse District is highly master planned. If someone tried to build something there wildly out of context, it would be shot down right?

Long-time reader, first-time poster. Thanks for the informative posts from everyone.

I probably ought to get my 'forum feet' wet in a less contentious thread, but as someone who loves OKC (born and raised) but has lived all over...I really cannot imagine this type of development just blocks within the CBD being built in ANY other large city. Taking away the roof's gables in a warehouse district makes sense. This big parking lot fronting a new development just boggles my mind. I agree with the posts about making WALKABILITY the cornerstone of our growing city. It's a topic that has every right to be part of the discussion.

1. The developer knew or should have known about the easements he claims hinder his development.
2. I applaud the developers for pursuing investment in Bricktown and hope they do not throw in the towel.
3. This project should be either rejected or forced to put the parking lot behind the hotel. He can't be expected to build a parking garage tho. apples to oranges.

These are reasonable stances. Urban design shouldn't force someone to spend more on a project. Parking behind a structure, as long as the structure fronts a street appropriately, doesn't hurt anything. Especially on this site where the rear of the property has no direct frontage.

Is there a master plan for Bricktown? Or East Bricktown? If there was, and it showed the vision for this area being more urban, would it be more difficult for something this non-urban to go in? If there is not one, how quickly could we create one? What entity would be responsible for that? Take the dues from that entity and hire a consultant to develop a master plan for East Bricktown (if there isn't already one), accounting for all the planned projects in the area (hotels, apartments, new wormy dog, etc) and designed in an urban way and have that adopted as a master plan for the area to prevent the upcoming projects from going non-urban in design, if not also this one... any of this doable and/or worthwhile to do?

100% agree. OKC should learn from the mistake of lower Bricktown and put a plan in place to prevent more development like that from going in. If this is to be a big league city, commercial developers need to start thinking big league.

This project does has something in front of the Board of Adjustment, but I can't see the details of the type of variance they are seeking.

So, this is not just a matter of design review and the City clearly has the latitude to deny whatever request they are making.

Variance for the building setback and for the free standing monument sign (5 foot 5 inch) were approved yesterday at the BOA meeting ... Item 4 Case 13717

this project is now free to move forward

Variance for the building setback and for the free standing monument sign (5 foot 5 inch) were approved yesterday at the BOA meeting ... Item 4 Case 13717

this project is now free to move forward



How so? Was the building design already approved?