I believe so, there was no parking required or provided at JDM Place when I did that project. In fact the parking along the street is under control of the city.

That surface lot is tiny!!!

How about some street parking then.

There are two surface parking lots here. Both of which take up more frontage along the street level of the canal than the buildings do themselves. I'll edit this and post the top-down schematics later if someone doesn't first. He does plan a fountain on top of the parking garage though.

An undeveloped grass lot will never be developed in Bricktown or Downtown without some sort of controlled parking. This is a great deal. Thanks Chris. Lets get it done.

This project will interfere with at least one exisiting business...someone is gonna get sued...

I don't understand some comments being made. More surface parking needed in Bricktown? Someone will get sued for competing with an existing business? No development in Bricktown without surface parking? Is anyone who's opinion is rooted in reality able to comment on this thread??

The Bricktown Urban Design Commission is probably not going to go for some surface parking, with a terrible warehouse-feeling awning, right on the canal. Not if they're serious about Bricktown urban design, that is.


What is the code there...is development without parking even allowed?

Is that a serious question, Rover?

They reformed all of the downtown zoning in 2007 or so. It's all fairly flexible zoning at this point, with the rigid parts directing land use and urban form.

There are two surface parking lots here. Both of which take up more frontage along the street level of the canal than the buildings do themselves. I'll edit this and post the top-down schematics later if someone doesn't first. He does plan a fountain on top of the parking garage though.


I see. Both buildings have surface lots to the south.

I would be fine with the project if they added one more level to the parking garage so it's not a "surface lot" from street level. I could deal with the small surface lot on Mickey Mantel if the other side didn't have surface parking too.

I would prefer no surface parking on either side, but if it came to a compromise, I would be willing to allow that as long as the garage added one more level to set it out and make the project denser.

This project is being developed by Chris Johnson, owner of USA Screen Printing. You can reach him at 946-3100

the 2 story "addition" should be forced to be built now ... then while not perfect this would be ok

Maybe Pete or someone can provide a top view map, but isn't this being proposed where the Canal makes the sharp turn in front of the Ballpark (where the grassy knoll is)? If so there is no Canal level surface parking is there? That area is below grade (where the Canal starts it actually below the basement level of those buildings). From the orientation depicted in the renderings, it looks like the surface parking that was proposed is behind the buildings, up on the street level. Not unlike the surface parking at Toby Keith's????

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6137393182_f9b30be8be_b.jpg
Street-level of the parking garage.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6136848605_4442e6038b_b.jpg
Canal-level of the parking garage. This is all retail.

This proposal is nothing more than building a miniscule building to get some paid parking, buildings should fill up those sites, not parking. This is nothing more than a suburban mindset development in an urban area.

The first elevation A3.1 shows the building that sits between Mickey Mantle Drive and the Canal, from the elevator/water feature to the alley, the fenced area is all street level surface parking. The second elevation (also called out as A3.1) shows nothing but a parking lot on the grassy spot where the canal turns west in front of JDM Place. While the ground floor retail would be nice, the sheer depth of that level would require a pretty large tenant, unless they were to occupy it themselves I see that as a hard to lease space considering the other open spots that exist there. Grass is better in that spot than a lot which would more than half surface parking even if the other building gets built....and those are nothing but turds with brick and awnings with them, there is absolutely no need for parking fronting the canal even at street level...NONE. If I was on the committee I would have made that clear during the first review. The existing lot on the canal by Zio's is a complete waste of urban space as well but it has been in there as long as I can remember. The lot between Zio's and Reno next to the Rock Island Plow building is not desirable but it is much better than the other lot since it is not fronting the canal.

Nothing like this proposal is going to do anything to help Bricktown move forward from the stagnant state that it is in due to some property owners who don't really seem to care about the area and what it could be.

I wouldn't say Bricktown is stagnating, not in the least. But good post otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree,

I don't understand some comments being made. More surface parking needed in Bricktown? Someone will get sued for competing with an existing business? No development in Bricktown without surface parking? Is anyone who's opinion is rooted in reality able to comment on this thread??

The Bricktown Urban Design Commission is probably not going to go for some surface parking, with a terrible warehouse-feeling awning, right on the canal. Not if they're serious about Bricktown urban design, that is.



Is that a serious question, Rover?

They reformed all of the downtown zoning in 2007 or so. It's all fairly flexible zoning at this point, with the rigid parts directing land use and urban form.

Gosh, now I am embarrassed I asked an apparently stupid question. Sorry I didnt know if new construction downtown had to provide parking.

It is sad that at this juncture there is more economic value to a surface lot in BT than an income producing other structure. As long as land is cheap there and business opportunities few we will see continued efforts for projects like this. The real question is what can we do to increase the economic value of land in BT. Restrictions dont create opportunities. We need more opportunities.

Um, it's a density and transit issue. It's just gonna take time, residential construction, and an economy on sure footing.

It is sad that at this juncture there is more economic value to a surface lot in BT than an income producing other structure. As long as land is cheap there and business opportunities few we will see continued efforts for projects like this. The real question is what can we do to increase the economic value of land in BT. Restrictions dont create opportunities. We need more opportunities.

I agree. With almost no one living in Bricktown, it is obviously going to be somewhere that people drive to.

No one responded to my comment how there is no street parking in Bricktown!!!

Hopefully this is going back to the drawing board. The grass lot is better than this.

Rover, I did NOT mean to embarrass you. I generally don't "know more" than you so I am surprised if you didn't already know the deal with the downtown zoning/parking requirements, but yes, there is a BAD ordinance on the books for other parts of town requiring adequate parking to be provided. Same as there is the ordinance on the books requiring basic uniform set backs on all streets, but in the case of downtown, it's the complete opposite--no setback is allowed with the new zoning, hence how we got into the SandRidge debacle (that ordinance is why the Planning Dept kept issuing recommendations to not pass their proposal). Parking, especially of the surface lot variety, is a well-known problem in Bricktown--so obviously more right on the canal is not going to come to pass.


No one responded to my comment how there is no street parking in Bricktown!!!

Well, because you're right. I wonder if the city would encounter resistance if it introduced more street parking in Bricktown..it could easily get hundreds of new spots if it did that.

This proposal is interesting and I still have questions whether it will ever happen. If this is an attempt by a business owner to open up and do business in Bricktown, it will come to fruition eventually and we'll meet a compromise. If this is an attempt to get some parking through the BUDC, then this is a joke of a proposal that is just wasting everyone's time. I think we have a process that will likely involve him having to go back to the drawing board once more, and then we will see the real intentions.

My personal thoughts on this are that he should be allowed to include AS MUCH parking as he should desire in his "garage" if he would put a building on top of it. You can include structured parking in mixed-use developments, it was definitely included in the Cotton Exchange.

Parking lot capitol of the western hemisphere! :kicking:

Is it that he needs parking for his business or he also wants to be in the parking business?

It is sad that at this juncture there is more economic value to a surface lot in BT than an income producing other structure. As long as land is cheap there and business opportunities few we will see continued efforts for projects like this. The real question is what can we do to increase the economic value of land in BT. Restrictions dont create opportunities. We need more opportunities.

I find this post Sad but very True.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this latest proposal.

Has a developer ever had their project rejected twice by the BUD committee?

I ask because it seems like most developers comes back with a design that does receive the approval. I have been through this process myself and after the initial proposal was rejected, the city was very helpful with the second proposal in order to receive their approval. Meaning most often the second proposal is being seen a few times before hand and altered with the necessary recommendations by the city as to what exactly is needed to receive the approval.

He has owned parking in bricktown before...Its about a parking lot more than a "house of bedlam". My post regards to the existing bar business in the ally that his build out will disrupt. There is no ingress egress to build anything without possibly shutting down that side street.

BT needs more parking like it needs another under capitalized bar. I'd rather see an empty lot with the painted bisons fake grazing than see a p lot put there

I wish the Cotton Exchange would be resurrected on this site.

I would say this is the single most high profile site remaining in Bricktown. Right on the turn of the canal, right by the ballpark. It deserves a fantastic building like JDM Place, IMO, across the canal.

Does anyone know what was on that site before the Canal was built? Or was it a larger vacant lot before that? Did a building come down to make room for the change in direction for the Canal, and the grassy knoll was what was left over?

UPDATED INFO FROM STEVE:
http://newsok.com/developer-pushes-ahead-with-plans-for-parking-along-oklahoma-citys-bricktown-canal/article/3603982?custom_click=lead_story_title

There were a couple of buildings across from JDM. Photo is on Retro Metro OKC somewhere, I'm sure.

Good article Steve. Too bad he didn't pursue the mid-rise hotel idea....

He obviously wants to just run a parking lot. The fact that he added a second building to the plan, and made it 35 feet tall to make it look 2 stories.....seems rather fake and trying to just make the site more visually appealing, with the main use being parking.

Are you kidding me?! He turned down a 10 story hotel proposal, so he could build his crappy parking lots?

Kick this guy out of downtown development forever.

I saw this on the new agenda too, but didn't know if it was different from the original. If they don't allow this, who knows how long it will be until something else is even proposed on that site. It really doesn't need to be empty and I don't think this proposal falls in the "better than crappy makes us happy" category. It really would be a nice addition and an obvious improvement over what is currently there.

Yeah, the more I think about this and realize that this guy just wants to run some parking lots, I have to retract my support. We can wait for someone who cares about quality and synergy with the area.

Yeah, the more I think about this and realize that this guy just wants to run some parking lots, I have to retract my support. We can wait for someone who cares about quality and synergy with the area.

Me too. Kick this guy out! If I had known he'd been approached by a developer for a 10 story hotel and turned it down, I would have not shown any support for this guy.

How can you turn down a 10 story hotel on prime, undeveloped land in the heart of Oklahoma Cities premier entertainment district so you can have a little parking lot and be taken seriously? This guy is a joke. I was in support of him and was hoping that it would be approved so something would get built here but not by a fraud like this man. Hopefully someone else with a better grasp of what should be built here will recognize the potential of this spot and develop something worth while here.

http://www.retrometrookc.org/wp-content/gallery/bricktowndecline/bricktown_collection_094.jpg

Only in Bricktown would a property owner choose Parking Lots over a Hotel partnership development.

Continued until next meeting. There was not a vote on this project.

The application was deemed incomplete with the developer to come back with the following 3 things:

1. More ornamentation on the buildings
2. Screening so you cannot see parked cars
3. And a diagram showing that you cannot see parked cars from the canal.

The developer claimed the parking lot was simply an efficient use of space that otherwise would be a white roof of the building that is the 1 story canal level retail space. Apparently there is 30,000sq feet of retail space in this project. How much of that will get filled is yet to be determined. There is plenty of potential retail space as it is right now, just no actual retail. The developers were claiming this would bring a much needed piece to bricktown, retail, but had no actual retailers other than his own business, House of Bedlam.

I would be fine with the project if they added one more level to the parking garage so it's not a "surface lot" from street level. I could deal with the small surface lot on Mickey Mantel if the other side didn't have surface parking too.

I would prefer no surface parking on either side, but if it came to a compromise, I would be willing to allow that as long as the garage added one more level to set it out and make the project denser.

Apparently a garage on the canal is not allowed.

Sadly, it sounds like it is 99% approved, subj. only to very minimal modifications.

The application was deemed incomplete with the developer to come back with the following 3 things:

1. More ornamentation on the buildings
2. Screening so you cannot see parked cars
3. And a diagram showing that you cannot see parked cars from the canal.

The developer claimed the parking lot was simply an efficient use of space that otherwise would be a white roof of the building that is the 1 story canal level retail space. Apparently there is 30,000sq feet of retail space in this project. How much of that will get filled is yet to be determined. There is plenty of potential retail space as it is right now, just no actual retail. The developers were claiming this would bring a much needed piece to bricktown, retail, but had no actual retailers other than his own business, House of Bedlam.
Agreed, but I don't see retail as happening in Bricktown full-blown all at once (would be great if it did). If his is successful, perhaps it would spur other retail. A synergy. Plus businesses may be willing to go into a newer building rather than having to deal with the inherent challenges of an existing space. But there is something lost in the transition too. Not apples to apples at all, but they were hoping for the same with Bass Pro and that didn't work out.

Is the Sonic headquarters building fully occupied?

UnFrSaKn: thanks for the pic, if I am looking at it correctly it looks like that may be where the Ballpark is, but the squarish, 2-story slant-roofed building near the center of the pic, what was it? What about the l-o-n-g low building across the highway from it (towards the bottom of the pic). Looks like some type of rail depot???

Are there publicly available email addresses or phone numbers for the design review board? If they allow this to go forward, I'll have officially given up on Bricktown. It shows an inexcusable lack of seriousness about the future of the district.

Sadly, it sounds like it is 99% approved, subj. only to very minimal modifications.

Not necessarily true. They said they did not feel comfortable voting without the 3 things I mentioned making the application incomplete.

There was a lot of hesitation.

I think if the BUD were going to decline this development they would have done so today, with or without the 3 items listed. Bringing him back next month with the 3 additional requests only to deny his proposed development doesn't seem right.

Why waste everyone's time and energy only to drag this out another month for rejection?

I asked this earlier and nobody seemed to know the answer ......
Has a developer ever had their project rejected twice by the BUD committee?

I ask because it seems like most developers comes back with a design that does receive the approval. I have been through this process myself and after the initial proposal was rejected, the city was very helpful with the second proposal in order to receive their approval. Meaning most often the second proposal is being seen a few times before hand and altered with the necessary recommendations by the city as to what exactly is needed to receive the approval.

Get ready for ..... "House of Bedlam!!"

They didn't approve anything today - they continued it.

Hey, Oklahoma City will have the best publicly enhanced surface lots in the country for sure. MAPS for Parking Lots is working out great! ; )

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone know if they have approved the Meineke Building apartments on Main?

Sadly, the City set the standard - Bass Pro parking, Lower Bricktown parking, North Bricktown lots, Bricktown Ballpark parking, etc...

Stuff like this is how I know future generations will never invent a time machine. Lower Bricktown needs to be scraped clear and done again.

How would you have wanted the parking to be at bass pro?

Well, the city should have had higher goals for downtown retail in the first place and not allowed it. I suppose it brings in a lot of people who would never come downtown otherwise though. Of course... they are mostly the ones who cry out about the parking problem.

How would you have wanted the parking to be at bass pro?

I would have preferred the parking at Bass Pro to be under the building. I don't have any pictures but both the Target and IKEA at Atlantic Station are built on top of their parking. The Target store is actually elevated over the parking that is at ground level, while the IKEA is built on top of a 2 story underground garage. Even a traditional above ground parking garage would have been preferable to acres of surface parking. Look at an aerial photo of Lower Bricktown and imagine if all the structures were pushed together. There is a lot of wasted space (it actually depresses me).

Not to derail the thread, but does anyone know if they have approved the Meineke Building apartments on Main?

It was denied! There wasn't enough parking included with this project. (This is only a joke and internet sarcasm.)

Economics determine this. As long as there is plenty of CHEAP open land, or land with dilapidated buildings, around the projects, there will be huge resistance to building costlier parking garages. Adding costs to projects limits the number of economically viable projects and development will come much slower. The best thing that can happen in the area is to fill it up with projects like Level which add people to the area and increases demand for goods and services. The higher the revenue potential per square foot the more investors are willing to spend. Right now, unfortunately the highest revenue per foot is often parking, and that is sad. When parking generates more revenue than sales or rent payments then we will continually struggle with this issue.

Economics determine this. As long as there is plenty of CHEAP open land, or land with dilapidated buildings, around the projects, there will be huge resistance to building costlier parking garages. Adding costs to projects limits the number of economically viable projects and development will come much slower. The best thing that can happen in the area is to fill it up with projects like Level which add people to the area and increases demand for goods and services. The higher the revenue potential per square foot the more investors are willing to spend. Right now, unfortunately the highest revenue per foot is often parking, and that is sad. When parking generates more revenue than sales or rent payments then we will continually struggle with this issue.

I don't think it is that complicated Rover. I think it is people building what they are used to seeing. How many parking spaces is "House of Bedlam" going to provide, 15 to 20? Do you think that parking will generate more profit per sq foot than a 10 story hotel? The difference is 'effort'. We need developers and land owners willing to put forth more effort. Building a parking lot is easy - the hardest part about the whole business is painting the lines straight.

Many times it is the City's own policies being counter-productive. Take the just mentioned Meineke Building apartments being denied because of a lack of parking. The last reason a project should be denied in Bricktown is because of a lack of parking. We are trying to build a walkable community and the City keeps making requirements for cars. They need to let pioneers take the arrows and try to make a go of it without cars. We might find out the pioneers are able to do it and blaze a trail for the rest of us.

How would you have wanted the parking to be at bass pro?

Just not against the canal. The store should have faced north, with the west side abutting the Residence Inn and the canal spur that goes to the shop should have wrapped around the front of it. This could have even allowed for some fill in retail development to the east. Not much, but at least something that would have had the potential to capitalize a little bit on the idea that Bass Pro was supposed to be an anchor and deserved public assistance because of it. As it is now, it just creates a barrier to the east, requires any Bass Pro visitor to cross a major parking lot to access the rest of bricktown, and is a significant reason why there is more surface parking within 100 yards of the canal than there is actual development. It's placement on the lot and the creation of a large surface lot that separates it from the rest of lower bricktown severely hindered its ability to be any sort of real retail anchor for the rest of area.

It's actually a good example of how this USA Screenprinting guy's idea is not good for retail in the area, just on a smaller scale. His lot, no matter how purdied up it is, will just create another permanent division in the district. For retail to thrive, there has to be a flow. The next store can not be far from the store you are in. Otherwise, it begins to feel like too much of an effort for people. Now, you have to walk by nothing TWICE just to visit one more store.

The real downside to this is that this specific lot actually has the best opportunity to tie lower bricktown to bricktown proper. With a real attraction there, be it retail or otherwise, suddenly the two would right next to each other. It wouldn't seem so much like the two are completely different districts as it does now. What USA Screenprinting is proposing to do is permanently solidify that division, which will only hurt the future of both districts. That lot needs something that will help traffic from the theater venture into bricktown and vice versa. The bricktown area as a whole needs more density of attractions once you've left the parking lot rather than more parking lots that will never be an attraction to the area. People will walk father (and pay more) if, once they have the the parking complex, they can do a lot more things.

Traffic counts is what matters when trying to lease this stuff to retail and this lot actually holds the key to significantly increasing the traffic counts in front of each storefront in both districts without having to increase the number of visitors to either districts. This guy's idea is to prevent that from happening.

It was denied! There wasn't enough parking included with this project.

Say what? That's not true at all.

Opps, I thought I clicked on the only a joke laughing icon. :dizzy:

Thanks for pointing that out.

Does everyone feel like this postponed decision today is a Win for the House of Belam developer? I know I do.

Sarcasm meters might need to be adjusted. Just saying.

Sorry ... didn't pick up on that!

Does everyone feel like this postponed decision today is a Win for the House of Belam developer? I know I do.

It most definitely was. They basically said "no problem, as long as you polish your turd a little bit more".

Maybe they're just seeing if he will finally get the drift, I won't be surprised either way though.