The regulations do not prevent the construction of a parking lot... Before you act like you know what you're talking about, you should actually know what you're talking about.

They prevent development of the proposed parking lot (at least that is my assessment from what has been posted). Are you the person that wants to build the parking lot?

City staff don't have control over policy. They can recommend changes, but it's up to City Council to adopt policy. Parking lots are permitted by right in downtown. Therefore, if so many of you are so passionate about not having them, go lobby City Council to remove the by right permission and make them conditional, special permit, etc.

City staff don't have control over policy. They can recommend changes, but it's up to City Council to adopt policy. Parking lots are permitted by right in downtown. Therefore, if so many of you are so passionate about not having them, go lobby City Council to remove the by right permission and make them conditional, special permit, etc.

Based on what has been posted, parking lots can't built at corners - only midblock. That means what you are suggesting we do has already been done.

This was approved under the perspective that the vacant building at 6th/Hudson has been impossible to rent because of the parking problem that it has. The argument was made that the surface lot can be converted as market conditions allow. Marva Ellard got up and spoke against it.

What a waste of space. How soon can we expect the vacant building to be rented? Did they not see the 100 parking spaces across the street?

LOL, look at the first sentence of the description on this webpage: http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16229299/615-N-Hudson-Oklahoma-City-OK/

That could actually be a livable building if they removed that arrow feature on the roof and used the horizontal awnings shown on the Guyutes proposal.

They prevent development of the proposed parking lot (at least that is my assessment from what has been posted). Are you the person that wants to build the parking lot?

JTF: sorry for the late response... busy day. I am not the person who wants to build the parking lot nor do I support a parking lot at this location. I am a strong supporter of the rights of property owners, and I feel that a lot of posters on this board express a general lack of empathy. The property owner is locating a business to downtown from the suburbs and occupying a building that has been vacant for years. If he has to build a surface parking lot to support this move, so be it.

JTF: sorry for the late response... busy day. I am not the person who wants to build the parking lot nor do I support a parking lot at this location. I am a strong supporter of the rights of property owners, and I feel that a lot of posters on this board express a general lack of empathy. The property owner is locating a business to downtown from the suburbs and occupying a building that has been vacant for years. If he has to build a surface parking lot to support this move, so be it.

No worries - it got approved so on to the next battle. Do you know what business is moving and which building they will be occupying? As for the property rights angle, this country has never had the kind of property rights many people think it had. When the first town was founded in America they had restriction on building placement and land use and it has been that way every since. Personally, I think we have gone to far in catering to the automobile and the resulting land-use patterns from doing so have hurt us in every conceivable way - from excessive taxation to build and maintain urban sprawl, to obesity, to drug use, to crime, to wars in the Middle East, to texting while driving (and the list goes on and on).

Personally, I think we have gone to far in catering to the automobile and the resulting land-use patterns from doing so have hurt us in every conceivable way - from excessive taxation to build and maintain urban sprawl, to obesity, to drug use, to crime, to wars in the Middle East, to texting while driving (and the list goes on and on).

I agree with all of this except, please explain how drug use would be mitigated in an urban environment.

I agree with all of this except, please explain how drug use would be mitigated in an urban environment.
I think it is probably a stretch to say that suburban drug abuse is necessarily more prevalent than urban, but it is undoubtedly different and likely contributed to by the suburban lifestyle. The school of thought is that living in the suburbs makes you more disconnected from others, bored, depressed, inactive. Kids specifically don't have as much supervision or adult interaction and have too much time on their hands...there was a book written about this in 2000 called Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community (http://bowlingalone.com/). You can find a number of studies publicized online that seem to support those theories.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the other items JTF lists. You can make a strong argument for every one.

I think it is probably a stretch to say that suburban drug abuse is necessarily more prevalent than urban, but it is undoubtedly different and likely contributed to by the suburban lifestyle. The school of thought is that living in the suburbs makes you more disconnected from others, bored, depressed, inactive. Kids specifically don't have as much supervision or adult interaction and have too much time on their hands...there was a book written about this in 2000 called Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community (http://bowlingalone.com/). You can find a number of studies publicized online that seem to support those theories.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the other items JTF lists. You can make a strong argument for every one.

I figured it would have something to do with social isolation, just wondered if there were stats. Thanks for the link to that book.

I think it is probably a stretch to say that suburban drug abuse is necessarily more prevalent than urban, but it is undoubtedly different and likely contributed to by the suburban lifestyle. The school of thought is that living in the suburbs makes you more disconnected from others, bored, depressed, inactive. Kids specifically don't have as much supervision or adult interaction and have too much time on their hands...there was a book written about this in 2000 called Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community (http://bowlingalone.com/). You can find a number of studies publicized online that seem to support those theories.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the other items JTF lists. You can make a strong argument for every one.

That is it Urbanized and thanks for the book link as well. I have not read that and based drug use on my own personal experience growing up in suburbia. Most people I grew up with that used drugs did so out of pure bordem. Fortunately I started working at a very young age (8 years old) so I had places to go and people to see that kept me active.

No worries - it got approved so on to the next battle. Do you know what business is moving and which building they will be occupying? As for the property rights angle, this country has never had the kind of property rights many people think it had. When the first town was founded in America they had restriction on building placement and land use and it has been that way every since. Personally, I think we have gone to far in catering to the automobile and the resulting land-use patterns from doing so have hurt us in every conceivable way - from excessive taxation to build and maintain urban sprawl, to obesity, to drug use, to crime, to wars in the Middle East, to texting while driving (and the list goes on and on).


This company: http://www.estinc.net/
This building at 6th & Hudson: http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2729/R010019368001rA.jpg

The development standards of this city are so shockingly low it's ridiculous.

This is the same building that was advertised as having "abundant parking". Anyhow, water under the bridge.

So it appears this is their first office in OKC. Any idea how many employees will be moving in and will this company be using the new parking lot?

No worries - it got approved so on to the next battle. Do you know what business is moving and which building they will be occupying? As for the property rights angle, this country has never had the kind of property rights many people think it had. When the first town was founded in America they had restriction on building placement and land use and it has been that way every since. Personally, I think we have gone to far in catering to the automobile and the resulting land-use patterns from doing so have hurt us in every conceivable way - from excessive taxation to build and maintain urban sprawl, to obesity, to drug use, to crime, to wars in the Middle East, to texting while driving (and the list goes on and on).

Yes, before cars there was no conflict in the Middle east. There was no problem with taxation (sorry Boston). There were no drug problems (opium doesn't count). Everything was great. Ugh.

Hysteria knows no bounds.

The development standards of this city are so shockingly low it's ridiculous.

This.

It's almost getting hard to blame anything on specific developers at this point. If you were investing money and had real estate downtown, would you bother to go "above and beyond" (and propose something palatable) when all of your competitors are doing the bare minimum? Probably not.

These low standards, that few other high-profile cities would even consider, are becoming a civic plague.

Yes, before cars there was no conflict in the Middle east. There was no problem with taxation (sorry Boston). There were no drug problems (opium doesn't count). Everything was great. Ugh.

Hysteria knows no bounds.

Yes those problems pre-date urban sprawl but they have all gotten significantly worse since the advent of suburbia.

on edit - I am not sure about obesity. I think that has become a problem since 1945.

There have always been problems in the Middle East; our foreign oil requirements make them specifically OUR problems.

Also, we're getting way off topic.

That would be a perfect block for a couple of mid rise apartment buildings ala Regency Towers.

That would be a perfect block for a couple of mid rise apartment buildings ala Regency Towers.

It would, provided there was someone willing to make that investment.

Someday a person or group may buy it up and do exactly that. Until then, it's going to be a better looking and more functional and more highly used piece of property when the new lot is put in than it is today.

It seems like a mid-rise apartment building in that area would be the perfect fit for Rick Dowell to build. I believe he's suggested an apartment tower in Park Plaza in the past.

There is an interesting community dynamic at play here. I think today it seems a little preposterous, after decades of downtown not attracting the big bang developments, for someone to suggest a residential high rise. However, after that first residential high rise goes up in almost half a century, it won't seem preposterous at all anymore.