Wow. That's a LOT of surface parking. Oh well, still a class act proposal. I am surprised it isn't going to be structured parking, which isn't even that big of a deal..it's pretty run of the mill for downtown hotels. Oh well, still a 4.7 stars out of 5 kind of proposal.

"wxyz bar"? Um, that's their placeholder name...

Wow. That's a LOT of surface parking. Oh well, still a class act proposal. I am surprised it isn't going to be structured parking, which isn't even that big of a deal..it's pretty run of the mill for downtown hotels. Oh well, still a 4.7 stars out of 5 kind of proposal.

That's what I was thinking. We've stayed at hotels that offer you only a parking garage down the street as an option. I wonder why they feel the need to offer 60 more spaces than rooms, especially considering the fact that not everyone staying downtown is going to rent a car or drive up and there is easily accessible parking under the Walnut Bridge.

Well, downtown hotels with garages attached: Hampton Inn, Courtyard by Marriott (if they can do it, I'm sure Jim Thompson could), Sheraton. Downtown hotels with deals with other garages: Skirvin, Renaissance, Colcord, etc. Only the Residence Inn and the Aloft will have surface parking.

Unless someone is about to correct me..

It's kind of sad but does anyone else notice how renderings for stuff in OKC always show tons of pedestrians lingering around, and then when they're built, er, not so many pedestrians?

It's kind of sad but does anyone else notice how renderings for stuff in OKC always show tons of pedestrians lingering around, and then when they're built, er, not so many pedestrians?

People have to have places to walk to. I walk past the site of the new hotel at least two or three times a day when I walk my dogs or walk into Bricktown. There are other people doing the same. I see a few people walking to work downtown every day. There aren't lots of pedestrians, but there are already some and it will get better as there are more places to live in the area and more destinations. I hope the hotel will dramatically affect foot traffic in the area.

"wxyz bar"? Um, that's their placeholder name...
Nope that is indeed the name of the bar. When I stayed at the Denver Aloft I met a smokin hot Polish bartender there. I hopes she moves to OKC when this one opens...

That's what I was thinking. We've stayed at hotels that offer you only a parking garage down the street as an option.

You'd be surprised. People (even coming from the coasts) often whine about having to park across the street from the Colcord.

A hotel like this will also have a lot of employees. Three restaurants, retail shops, and guest services employees will need a place to park as well.

One thing not mentioned in the NewsOK article is that there will be a sidewalk café in the front. That's very cool.....very urban. I read that here. (http://okc.biz/article/06-17-2010/aLoft_hotel_proposed_for_Oklahoma_City_area.aspx)

Sidewalk cafes should be very feasible for a large part of the year. With shading for the hottest times of the summer and outdoor heating for spring and fall, probably 8 - 9 months of the year.

Is there a magical number of total rooms in the OKC area that OKC can have before it becomes oversaturated?

Someone already answered, so I withdraw mine

It's kind of sad but does anyone else notice how renderings for stuff in OKC always show tons of pedestrians lingering around, and then when they're built, er, not so many pedestrians?

:LolLolLol

And when they take the pictures for the brochures and postcards they rarely show any people at all...

posted this in the other thread but is appropriate

Doug has a history of Mr. Finley and the Finley Building. Not suggesting that the building be saved but hopefully at least a plaque or acknowledgment is planned with the new development.

Google Image Result for http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/finley_4_14_2009_01.jpg (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/finley_4_14_2009_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dougloudenback.com/maps/vintage_finley.htm&usg=__ZtZvi7ountjipVfpAPW0-k8IfMY=&h=504&w=1024&sz=245&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=R_T1LV8VFZb5WM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Finley%2BBuilding%2522%26um%3D1% 26hl%3Den%26client%3Dmozilla%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg. mozilla:en-US:unofficial%26tbs%3Disch:1)

That's what I was thinking. We've stayed at hotels that offer you only a parking garage down the street as an option. I wonder why they feel the need to offer 60 more spaces than rooms, especially considering the fact that not everyone staying downtown is going to rent a car or drive up and there is easily accessible parking under the Walnut Bridge.

There needs to be parking for the restaurant, bar, and meeting rooms. The meeting rooms are mostly used by people that live and work in OKC, not by people staying at the hotel.

As for giving stars - if you don't offer a parking garage in an urban environment then you lose one star right off the top. The best they can do is 4 out of 5 stars.

The saving grace for the surface parking issue is that when the property becomes more valuable/desireable for actual development, it's no big matter to build on it.

The saving grace for the surface parking issue is that when the property becomes more valuable/desireable for actual development, it's no big matter to build on it.

Unless it's Bricktown - then the surface parking never ends.

I'm happy to read that it would be on the back of the hotel, so thanks for posting the above article.

What will be the back of this hotel? Will the front face bricktown and the back will be towards the park or vice versa? Or is the front on Walnut?

Looks like it fronts Walnut.

in that rendering the cars are on 2nd street. you can see deep deuce down the steet. this vantage point is from the nw corner of oklahoma and 2nd looking southeast

in that rendering the cars are on 2nd street. you can see deep deuce down the steet. this vantage point is from the nw corner of oklahoma and 2nd looking southeast

I was thinking that was the orientation as well. Looks like it fronts 2nd. And if this is actually how it is built perhaps that building in the far left of rendering is the Finley building. Maybe it will be kept for the 12,000 sq ft of retail.

I was thinking that was the orientation as well. Looks like it fronts 2nd. And if this is actually how it is built perhaps that building in the far left of rendering is the Finley building. Maybe it will be kept for the 12,000 sq ft of retail.

If that is the case, although structured parking would be far better, the parking would be between the hotel and the rail line that runs behind the property.

That said I have to admit that based on the rendering it is hard to orient its location relative to the bridge and knowing that the Finley building is on the SW corner of 2nd and Walnut with the long side facing 2nd street. It seems to make most sense that we are looking at the South side of 2nd Street and the intersection of Walnut is at the far side. Although if I were the developer I would want to make the most of the Corner of the hotel and define that corner with my Hotel for greatest presence and visibility.

yup I think you nailed it the intersection is to the left side of the hotel with Walnut between the hotel and the Deep Deuce apts.

The parking situation is kind of reminiscent of NoDo in Omaha where they've built a mixed-use neighborhood like Maywood Park around the new Qwest Center but they have huge surface parking lots still because they've decided to address parking garages later.

It seems like there is always something negative brought out and made a big deal of when something positive and good happens for this city. I swear, the constant negativity is what will do this city in...nothing will ever be good enough for our beloved citizens.

Take a step back, forget the parking, and enjoy the positive news.

It seems like there is always something negative brought out and made a big deal of when something positive and good happens for this city. I swear, the constant negativity is what will do this city in...nothing will ever be good enough for our beloved citizens.

Take a step back, forget the parking, and enjoy the positive news.

Exactly! i can just hear the debate a year ago... "wow why dont we have an aloft hotel or something similar. We are never going to get anywhere until we start really developing deep deuce and making it more dense. Dallas has an aloft... we need to get one too.. blah, blah, blah."
Now we get a new hotel that isnt a generic red roof inn or something, and of course people are going to bitch about it. Pretty sad.

If you look at the tree wells adjacent to the sidewalks, aside from the fact that two of them seem to be missing trees for some reason in the rendering, it looks to me as if the hotel faces north and is sited on the south side of second, with Walnut to your left in the drawing. Also, the fact that the building is rectangular and knowing where the property line is (new stick with pink flag on it in place), it's most logical that it is oriented that way.

I don't know who stepped on your nerves but no one on here has "b#@ched" about the Aloft, rather a constructive discussion on how great it is and their approach to parking strategy is all.

I think that you are being overly sensitive and that anyone who has a design background has been trained to critique all aspects of a design solution as a way to guage the merits and success of that design. That is what designers do with their own designs as well as others.

It is not to offend anyone but rather to constantly keep ourselves sharp and cognizant of what is best for a given area.

I think I can safely say that most on this forum are thrilled for not only the brand, its location, and its design as articulated thus far.

I have not found any comments that are negative but just observational. We are not going to go and get our pitchforks out of the shed and light our torches over something so trivial.

It is a fact that surface parking lots all over bricktown, deep deuce and the rest of the city are everywhere contribute to the "urban wasteland" viewpoint that one can take. I applaud any well done development that is going to increase density and contribute to the vitality of our urban areas.

In this case the surface parking is less of an issue because it is behind the building and not visible from the streetscape and is backed up by the train tracks.

Would structured parking been a better in my opinion? Sure. Am I complaining? No. It was just a comment for discussion as our goal should be to increase the infill projects and replace the surface lots with structured parking that can be shrouded with street facing retail and or residential buildings so that the parking needs of the area are still met but the unsightly and damaging surface lots will be replaced by something far more effective.

While I agree that often negativity creeps in on anything positive (see the Mayor's Convention thread), the criticism here of the parking has been very mild and far outweighed by the excitement about this project.

I'm pretty confident the front of the hotel faces Walnut and the back of it faces the CBD

It seems like there is always something negative brought out and made a big deal of when something positive and good happens for this city. I swear, the constant negativity is what will do this city in...nothing will ever be good enough for our beloved citizens.

Take a step back, forget the parking, and enjoy the positive news.

Wrong. This city has always worked exactly as you suggest, and it's brought generations of failure.

This is not Losertown anymore. This is a happening, up and coming city. In cities like that we don't settle for the lowest common denominator. We demand as much as we can to improve the livability, walkability, aesthetics, functionality, etc. as we can.

Before, we were told: "Shut up. At least Bass Pro is getting retail downtown," and "Shut up: at least we're getting a canal, whether or not it's going to be a functioning retail district." Etc. Etc.

This city is a crazyquilt of bad planning decisions that represent wholesale acquiescences to developers and property owners. We don't do things like that anymore.

And by the way, 1) It's an awesome development, and 2) It's entirely appropriate to discuss the addition of another massive surface parking area in a dense (or something we wish were dense) urban area. It's certainly something that the Urban Design Committee will be discussing with the developer.

I'm pretty confident the front of the hotel faces Walnut and the back of it faces the CBD

It fronts Second Street, as it should.

The most negative posts (by far) in this thread so far have been....


It seems like there is always something negative brought out and made a big deal of when something positive and good happens for this city. I swear, the constant negativity is what will do this city in...nothing will ever be good enough for our beloved citizens.


Exactly! i can just hear the debate a year ago... "wow why dont we have an aloft hotel or something similar. We are never going to get anywhere until we start really developing deep deuce and making it more dense. Dallas has an aloft... we need to get one too.. blah, blah, blah."
Now we get a new hotel that isnt a generic red roof inn or something, and of course people are going to bitch about it. Pretty sad.

eh, just give it a few months.. haha im sure the final design will be too suburbia, or not tall enough, etc. I have faith that everyone on here will find something wrong with it.

eh, just give it a few months.. haha im sure the final design will be too suburbia, or not tall enough, etc. I have faith that everyone on here will find something wrong with it.

You seem to be counting on it, so that you will have a point..some day. Don't count on it, but good luck anyway.

The rest of us will be rooting for this to be a good project.

You seem to be counting on it, so that you will have a point..some day. Don't count on it, but good luck anyway.

The rest of us will be rooting for this to be a good project.

Just as I will too. obviously.

I'm pretty confident the front of the hotel faces Walnut and the back of it faces the CBD

That's not right. I'll post the site plan later today. The front faces NE 2

eh, just give it a few months.. haha im sure the final design will be too suburbia, or not tall enough, etc. I have faith that everyone on here will find something wrong with it.

Well, if the final design is too suburban, why shouldn't it be pointed it out?

As it is now, I personally think it is a great fit and a great concept. I actually wouldn't want it any taller based on where it is going. While there will be surface parking, it actually sounds like the developers are cognizant of the negative effect surface parking can have and are going to try and mitigate those negative effects.

The reality is that, as it is now, this may be the first urban minded hotel development outside of the core. Of course, the developer may change their mind and OCURA may not really care how it's built, but at least this is actually a brand that doesn't want to project a suburban image, so our best hope is that there will actually be pressure from the brand affiliate to NOT change it going forward.

Hampton Inn?

You'd be surprised. People (even coming from the coasts) often whine about having to park across the street from the Colcord.

Do you think the people from the coasts whine about that when they're staying in a hotel in Manhatten or San Francisco? It's all a matter of expectations, I suspect.

Well, it's not really possible to avoid using a car to get to a downtown hotel from out of town, unless you use the floo network. Either you gotta ride in from the airport or from an interstate, unless you're taking the Heartland Flier. That's not exactly "business class," although it is very cool for some regular joes with a weekend to waste on something different.

And by the way, 1) It's an awesome development, and 2) It's entirely appropriate to discuss the addition of another massive surface parking area in a dense (or something we wish were dense) urban area. It's certainly something that the Urban Design Committee will be discussing with the developer.

I understand your point, but you sort of mischaracterize the situation. It is not as if they are tearing down buildings to replace them with a "massive surface parking area". They are, in fact, planning to take out a small building and a "massive, abandoned surface parking area and replacing it with a larger, quite urban-oriented building and a much-less massive surface parking area; which, as others have speculated, can be built on at a later date.

The huge transition being done by OKC requires a lot of small steps.

None of us ever said they were demo'ing any buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Don't turn this into another thread where we argue about the travel distance between OKC and Tulsa.

It's going to be hard not to improve upon a chain-link fenced abandoned parking lot, which every year has a little less asphalt and a few more uncut weeds. The Finley building has a lot of potential, but I've been looking at it every day for over a year now and while it might make cool condos, I think the cost of renovating it for them would make the prices as much or more than the ones in Maywood everyone is already complaining about. I was thinking, although the hotel is a branded one, it would be great if they could call it "The Finley". That's a lot cheaper and easier to do than a statue.

I understand your point, but you sort of mischaracterize the situation. It is not as if they are tearing down buildings to replace them with a "massive surface parking area". They are, in fact, planning to take out a small building and a "massive, abandoned surface parking area and replacing it with a larger, quite urban-oriented building and a much-less massive surface parking area; which, as others have speculated, can be built on at a later date.

The huge transition being done by OKC requires a lot of small steps.

You'll note that I said "addition" of surface parking, which is accurate.

It's going to be hard not to improve upon a chain-link fenced abandoned parking lot, which every year has a little less asphalt and a few more uncut weeds. The Finley building has a lot of potential, but I've been looking at it every day for over a year now and while it might make cool condos, I think the cost of renovating it for them would make the prices as much or more than the ones in Maywood everyone is already complaining about. I was thinking, although the hotel is a branded one, it would be great if they could call it "The Finley". That's a lot cheaper and easier to do than a statue.

Hey Betts, any update on how many of the brownstones have been sold? There were 17-18, and I'm guessing they've sold 10 so far? And I believe the cheaper condos (not lofts) in the Maywood Lofts are half sold (about 20-25 out of 55)?

one was listed as closed in the real estate section of the paper today....

Is there a magical number of total rooms in the OKC area that OKC can have before it becomes oversaturated?

Don't worry about it. We're not even close.

We do need to worry about it though. Because we have not realized 1/3 of the demand for downtown hotels, we need to get on that in order to move ourselves forward economically.

yep, now OKC is at 2000 rooms downtown, I think we need to move the target to at least 4000 (5000 being truly Tier II).

I am excited about this development and everything but I do have a question: it seems as though all new hotels in OKC are being built below the 250 room mark (with 100+ - being the most common). I can understand this outside of downtown, but I can't for the life of me understand why OKC is building downtown hotels so small.

So. .... Im going to be the first on this thread who to say 'I wish the hotel was a little bit bigger'. :)

ha ha ha, 300 rooms (or at least 200) would be much better, BUT I suppose a good point could be made that we should save those larger hotels for the CBD.

Nevertheless, I am very happy about this development, it's design, and the brand. This will be great for Deep Deuce, Downtown, and OKC - should definitely liven up Deep Deuce a bit. I wish every district in downtown could have a hotel that 'defined' it.

I'm all in favor of a statue or placard for Finley and other Deep Deuce pioneers; it is the least OKC could do to pay tribute to those who had foresight but not the means or support to make OKC a great city (we do this for others).

So. .... Im going to be the first on this thread who to say 'I wish the hotel was a little bit bigger'. :)

You urbanists are always so negative. You hate everything, don't you?

The next one can be bigger.

[QUOTE=HOT ROD;340725]

I wish every district in downtown could have a hotel that 'defined' it.
QUOTE]

Good point! That would be awesome to have a hotel in Stockyard City, Midtown, Medical District, and along the river that had a unique character that helped make each a better destination. Even the Asian District would be better with an Asian style hotel.

touche Spartan, lol :)

I am excited about this development and everything but I do have a question: it seems as though all new hotels in OKC are being built below the 250 room mark (with 100+ - being the most common). I can understand this outside of downtown, but I can't for the life of me understand why OKC is building downtown hotels so small.


In my opinion, we won't be seeing anything much larger until the new convention center is built and a hotel is built in conjunction with that and requiring some kind of city support.

None of us ever said they were demo'ing any buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Don't turn this into another thread where we argue about the travel distance between OKC and Tulsa.

The response wasn't to you, of course. And of course I never said or implied that anyone had said they were demo'ing buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Stop trying to pick arguments. (and if you insist on picking arguments, at least read the posts carefully before starting.)

The poster said we were adding a "massive surface parking area." I merely pointed out that that was a mischaracterization in that there is already a massive surface parking area on the site and the proposed development would actually reduce the amount of surface parking.

Sorry you weren't able to understand that rather straight-forward and non-argumentative point.

You'll note that I said "addition" of surface parking, which is accurate.

I indeed noted that you said "addition of another massive surface parking area".

While that may be arguably technically correct, it mischaracterizes reality where they are actually proposing to replace one massive surface parking area with a new much less massive surface parking area, as I originally said.

The development will cause a net reduction in the amount of surface parking in the neighborhood. If you insist on characterizing such as an "addition of massive surface parking," I suppose it's your right, but it's not exactly the best route to a productive discussion.

Oil Capitol, have you ever parked your car on the current site where the Aloft is proposed?

The new surface parking will be far less visible. I question whether they will need that much parking, but I'm with Oil Capital on this one: I believe surface parking will be less and less visibilty is the best part.

Oil Capitol, have you ever parked your car on the current site where the Aloft is proposed?

:dizzy: It's not currently available for use. It's an abandoned surface parking lot. It's still a surface parking lot. Anything else you need explained?

So you mean it's a vacant lot, then..