To me it looks like the entrance is on the SE corner facing primarily the sidewalk. With this lot and the one proposed by the Clark Building owner Waters, that would make 2 large Parking lots in Deep Deuce.

It would be nice if they would start mowing. The fact that they don't even care enough to keep it maintained yet is concerning. There are stick tights everywhere that are extremely painful for dogs.

The surface parking wouldn't bother me so much if I knew that something was going to be done with the land to the north. Right now it's a parking lot and if it were developed, it would make that area look dense enough that the other parking would be minimized.

He's saying parking isn't required, but it's not against the ordinance code either. And the only thin you can protest is the overall appearance of the parking lot. I think the double negative threw you off (not NOT)

Yep. I like to use double negatives sometimes... but that may be more fun for me than others. :)

Has this gone up for review yet Pete? If not, when does it? I'd like to protest the parking lot. It would set a horrible precedent for the neighborhood.

it is going to be an office of course they need parking ...

this is not a big lots .. and is reasonable for the area

I agree. Offices have visitors and employees. As much as it would be nice to say everyone can ride public transit or walk, it's not currently an option. And, there is certainly not enough reliable onstreet parking to eschew a parking lot. But, it would be nice to see the empty land to the north developed. Were it too planned as surface parking, then I would have an objection.

You would know better than I Sid. I'm usually only in Deep Deuce in the evening, when the streets are completely parked up.

I'll post pictures soon. The number of spaces in this lot are readily available on the street all day. I took several pictures yesterday and kept an eye on the street. There were lots of parking available.

this is okc .. if you are going to invest in an office you are going to want your own parking ... this also will have a little event space .. the parking is reasonable

Did the church congregants park in the empty lot to the north?

It is 20 spaces. Hardly a major parking lot. Which means, if there are far more than 20 spaces available on the street, why have it? Please, don't say "this is OKC". That's about the worst reason in the world to approve a parking lot. In fact, I think it is the VERY worst reason.

how about they are allowed to have a parking lot by right ...... you know land and zoning rights ..

I thought we were having a development discussion, not a political one. I'm not interested in debating property rights. Restricting the installation of a surface parking lot in a residential neighborhood has slightly more than a gazillion precedents.

plenty of places in deep deuce have parking lots .... it would not be anything new ..

if plenty of places in deep deuce have parking lots, why does the area need another one? -M

if plenty of places in deep deuce have parking lots, why does the area need another one? -M

because none of them are attached to this office building on on this persons property

if there is plenty of parking, though, why is it important to have it directly attached to this building? -M

if there is plenty of parking, though, why is it important to have it directly attached to this building? -M

a there is not plenty of parking at all times during the day .... and B when it is 110 or 20 outside .. i would not want to walk 2 block to my car .. and if they ever plan to lease the office space this will be a big consideration ..

a) Prove it

b) See a and then why would you ever have to walk more than half of a block? I guess if you just really enjoy walking in 105 degree heat but honestly, there is tons of streetside parking all within a couple hundred feet.

this is really a pointless argument ... they can build a parking lot by right and they are going to as would i if i owned the building

this is really a pointless argument ... they can build a parking lot by right and they are going to as would i if i owned the building

It's not a pointless argument. Why do you get so testy when someone disagrees with what you think is a divine right?

It's not a pointless argument. Why do you get so testy when someone disagrees with what you think is a divine right?

not testy and i don't think it is a divine right ... it is just by right with the zoning that the property has

this is really a pointless argument ... they can build a parking lot by right and they are going to as would i if i owned the building

This is a very important argument/discussion. We need to decide what the use of DD is, is it for the suburban mindset of being able to park at the front door of the business you are going to, or the home you are sleeping in. Or the urban mindset of utilizing pedestrian methods of circulating. With the understanding you will have to walk around a little bit to get to your destination?

In other words, by approving more surface lots in DD, we are encouraging the suburban mindset. Instead of enforcing the district's current direction of urban design principles.

On a more constructive note perhaps, I've been wanting to start talking to the city about getting Walnut moved to 2 lane with street parking. Walnut doesn't need the 4 lanes and it would add more street parking and help improve the neighborhood.

Ding Ding Ding - winner. I have been saying this for 2 years. It should coincide with opening Oklahoma Ave from DD to Bricktown.

On a more constructive note perhaps, I've been wanting to start talking to the city about getting Walnut moved to 2 lane with street parking. Walnut doesn't need the 4 lanes and it would add more street parking and help improve the neighborhood.

that has close to a 0% chance of happening ..

Ding Ding Ding - winner. I have been saying this for 2 years. It should coincide with opening Oklahoma Ave from DD to Bricktown.

that is a bad idea for a number of reasons the biggest being that in crosses what will be the future rail line to the adventure district and the line to MWC/tinker

This isn't a petty debate. I have no intention of living in a neighborhood plagued with surface parking. If this becomes a trend, I'll gladly move out when my lease is up. I'm looking for an urban, residential neighborhood to raise my family. They exist all over the world and we need at least one in OKC.

and very very few of those have no parking lots because of city interference ..

that is a bad idea for a number of reasons the biggest being that in crosses what will be the future rail line to the adventure district and the line to MWC/tinker

Please. You are aware this line already has like 20 crossing right? Not only that, but it is already in the future plan for Bricktown.

Please. You are aware this line has like 20 crossing already right?

20 that are within 50 feet of where a trellis starts ... right next to the station??

Please. You are aware this line already has like 20 crossing right? Not only that, but it is already in the future plan for Bricktown.

Have you negotiated that "future street"? It would require another Walnut Bridge. There's about a 15 foot grade change between the parking lot north of Main St. and 2nd St. I see very little benefit to making Oklahoma a through Street when there's one each block east and west. Not to mention the fact it would destroy one of the very few urban pocket parks we have.

In answer to Pete's question, the Church congregants used to park along second and in the vacant lot to the north. The second street option is diminishing with Level and Aloft coming in, especially with a grocery store and new restaurants on the horizon.

Sid, you seem like a nice guy and a welcome addition to the neighborhood, but I believe you are off base on this one. Having lived in DD for >3.5 years, I see on street parking wars in the near future. Some of this can be headed off with enforcement of the 2 hour limit, but Level took down the 2 hour parking signs and now Level residents use 90% of on street parking almost 24 hours a day. This will worsen when the Aloft opens. Second street east of Walnut has no time limit and looks like a high school parallel parking class gone wild most of the day and certainly in the evening and nights.

It seems terribly unfair to expect someone to invest huge sums of money to rehab an iconic landmark without the expectation of off-street parking. What about the elderly and/or infirm that most would likely hire a different attorney than not be assured of reasonable access? What about the security of their employees and/or concerns of not finding a parking space near work? I could go on and on.

Welcome to the neighborhood and should your kids wish to tour a Brownstone, let me know.

The front door facing a parking lot should be a non-starter in DD.

You know, the OIC has had plans for some time for a large parking lot facing 3rd street. If those plans go though, it will be a swath of surface parking that is continuous from 2nd to 3rd street. They haven't been able to raise the funds to do it though as of yet. I have a copy of the plans as I lived accross the street from it for 8 years and they wanted my opinion. Lol.

You know, the OIC has had plans for some time for a large parking lot facing 3rd street. If those plans go though, it will be a swath of surface parking that is continuous from 2nd to 3rd street. They haven't been able to raise the funds to do it though as of yet. I have a copy of the plans as I lived accross the street from it for 8 years and they wanted my opinion. Lol.

The very idea pisses me off...

ROYALLY.

Let's hope it never comes to fruition shall we? I don't mind this awkward little parking lot with a driveway that has 15' buffers between the sidewalk and the building [:dontgetit they should take advantage of that space and install a nice screening fence], but I would definitely mind if ripe land facing along Walnut were allowed to be wasted for expanded surface parking that will comprise half a block.

Maybe the OIC should sell their land and use the money to get their golf outing back on track.

I wish they could settle for a nice sidewalk (from the sidewalk aproaching the bridge at Walnut) to the several hundred parking spaces by the railroad one block away

Actually, the first step is the Historic Preservation Commission Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, City Council Chamber.

This isn't about the church, so this is off topic. Stop reading now if you are a forum Nazi.

Anyway, narrowing Walnut to two lanes would be disastrous for 5pm on weekdays. Everyone already backs up and blocks intersections trying to get onto I-235.

And actually, a ton of the problem is the lights. We don't need the street lights at 2nd, 3rd, and perhaps even 4th.

The problem is people are cutting through a residential neighborhood (2nd and 3rd). All traffic getting on 235 should be taken through 5th and those street lights should be optimized for those cycles.

This is the purpose of the street grid, if one street is busy, then you can take a parallel one that is less busy.

Would love to discuss this. I've watched traffic here quite a bit and I understand where you are coming from but traffic is always in one lane anyway. I watch it every day, both morning and night and it always consolidates into one lane. A few cars turn off but most of that traffic is headed for the highway and not 235.

Pete, should we start a N Walnut Ave thread and put it in Transportation?

Am I missing something? The only 'highway' in this area, is I-235 AKA Broadway Extension AKA US 77 AKA Centennial Expressway.

5th street is just as bad. In fact, the reason cars are backed up on Walnut, is because they cannot turn right because the cars streaming down 5th are also bumper to bumper.


Don't even think about going down to 10th and trying that on-ramp - it, too is a cluster.


Honestly there isn't enough access points on the east side of Bricktown/DeepDeuce - The assumption of everyone willing to dive south to the new I-40 and then take it east to get on 235 is hilarious. The stretch of Broadway east of Downtown has more than double the ramps to get INTO downtown than it does to get out.

This was just approved for the proposed parking lot immediately east of the old Calvary Church:


install asphalt surface parking lot; install minimum 5' wide concrete sidewalk along frontage and along west boundary of parking lot site; install landscaping and irrigation; and install planting bed with border at west side of parking lot.

Yay surface parking!

Which document did this come off of?

DDR from the dec 20th meeting under item 8. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrative Approval Report number 6.

I noticed yesterday that this lot has all the ground torn up around it (via bobcat), with caution tape surroundng it. ALmost appears to be for the 'sidewalk'.

LEVEL took down their 2-hour parking signs? ...is this even legal?

LEVEL took down their 2-hour parking signs? ...is this even legal?

I've been hoping to get rid of ours in front of the Brownstones. It doesn't prevent people from parking in front of your house, but any visitors or family parking there risk a ticket. When I called the city, I was told you just need a majority of your neighbors to sign off on getting rid of them. Since LEVEL has the entire block, I guess they constitute a majority all by themselves. It's pretty annoying, really, that they were initially placed without asking anyone who lived in the Brownstones at the time, and yet to get rid of them takes a lot of effort.

Betts,

Why don't you PM me? I'm the President of the Maywood Park Owners Association and if you think there is enough interest in getting the signs taken down - I'd be willing to work with your HOA President to get it done.

They are replacing the retaining wall along the sidewalk.

Once again, the city allows projects to 'consume' the sidewalk and not provide a path of egress around the construction...

Is there anything we can do to petition our city to require jersey barriers?

Good news!

Calvary Baptist Church being brought back to life as law firm | News OK (http://newsok.com/calvary-baptist-church-being-brought-back-to-life-as-law-firm/article/3755615)

Great to see the progress!

Looks like the sanctuary will be preserved and made available for special events and that the offices will be in the balconies, with glass walls to insure site lines to all the stained glass.

Photo credit, Newsok.com:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-82c8c32829741e859904fbaaf8ac0b38.jpg

The outside looks a ton better since the retaining wall updates.

They are replacing the retaining wall along the sidewalk.

Once again, the city allows projects to 'consume' the sidewalk and not provide a path of egress around the construction...

what would you have suggested .. they ripped out the entire sidewalk

what would you have suggested .. they ripped out the entire sidewalk

Protecting pedestrian traffic by using the street and barriers like every other single city does.

Protecting pedestrian traffic by using the street and barriers like every other single city does.

the other side of the street has a side walk ..

Protecting pedestrian traffic by using the street and barriers like every other single city does.

Someone has to put the pedestrians in their place. After all, people who walk are second class citizens. I see this in downtown Atlanta all the time. There can be three lanes of traffic and 1 sidewalk, but if construction required space in front of the building they don't close one of the lanes of traffic and bump the sidewalk out, they just put up a sign that reads "Sidewalk Closed". I guess because the traffic engineers think it is easier and safer for the pedestrian to cross the street, walk down a block, and cross the street again than it is for a car to change lanes.

I like what Enrique Penalosa did while Mayor of Bogota. When he was improving the sidewalks the drivers complained that there wasn’t enough room for pedestrians and vehicles during construction. He said you are correct, and he closed the street to cars. His reasoning – all people are equal before the law so why should someone in a car get priority over someone walking.

the other side of the street has a side walk ..

I tend to see this more and more. Either in Chicago, or most recently in Denver. It seems there used to be more plywood tunnels with with fall protection above and the occasional plexiglass window showing what is going on construction wise.

Church into a lawfirm. Interesting. Still a building full of judgement, lol.

Church into a lawfirm. Interesting. Still a building full of judgement, lol.

Actually, law firms don't judge. But I catch your drift.

Perhaps the better phrase would be "both try to prepare you for judgement day". :wink:

Actually, law firms don't judge. But I catch your drift.

Perhaps the better phrase would be "both try to prepare you for judgement day". :wink:

Nor do churches judge.

Nor do churches judge.

Rrrrrright...

Nor do churches judge.

Ok there Jack, lol.

Rrrrrright...

... but you'll give the lawyer the benefit of the doubt? Rrrrrrright ...

... but you'll give the lawyer the benefit of the doubt? Rrrrrrright ...

Not saying anything about lawyers. Just pointing out the fallacy of churches not judging.