I've been told to leave the car unlocked and remove all the valuable in such a situation.


That is what the bell hop told us to do. We took everything out - and I mean eeevveeerrryyyttthhhiiinnnggg. I did lock it though.

'Prototypical' is short hand for - we see no value if tailoring anything to be site specific. Some random yahoo drew up some generic plans and they plop it down where they can.

The parking codes for the urban core are different than elsewhere in the city, which is why restaurants and bars and get permits without any dedicated parking at all.

If you think about it, many of hotels downtown don't have their own parking but rather utilize other garages and lots.

Yep. The downtown and Bricktown core have ZERO required parking. Any parking that is built for a development is at the owner's discretion.

That is what the bell hop told us to do. We took everything out - and I mean eeevveeerrryyyttthhhiiinnnggg. I did lock it though.

'Prototypical' is short hand for - we see no value if tailoring anything to be site specific. Some random yahoo drew up some generic plans and they plop it down where they can.

The random yahoo is an Oklahoma architect... not sure how much he did in actuality, but it's sealed by him, so he's responsible.

steve should suck it up and admit that he was dead wrong in his comments last week on this issue

I hope the antagonists stay out of Steve's chat today on this topic. Right now we don't need to pick at that wound or anything right now. Steve does a great job and frankly can help our case by getting the word out there. If you jump on the chat this morning, I beg of everyone to just keep things civil. Moving on, we've got a serious project on our hands that needs focused attention if we are going to be successful in altering it as needed.

Agreed. I think he's been taken to task enough here.

I hope the antagonists stay out of Steve's chat today on this topic. Right now we don't need to pick at that wound or anything right now. Steve does a great job and frankly can help our case by getting the word out there. If you jump on the chat this morning, I beg of everyone to just keep things civil. Moving on, we've got a serious project on our hands that needs focused attention if we are going to be successful in altering it as needed.

+1

Downtown Design Review Committee.

Meeting is scheduled for Thursday 6/20 and they meet at:

Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 North Walker Ave., Third Floor - 9:30 a.m

Re-posting this.

BTW, I believe there will only be a preliminary review of this project at the 6/20 meeting, which means they are not seeking formal approval at this point.

However, the time is now to voice concerns, well before the final approval vote which may come as early as July.

4.8 million, right!?

http://images.canadianlisted.com/nlarge/kelowna-luxury-living-at-the-madison-exec-suite-rental_5030029.jpg

There's a really old tall tree on this plot of land that I have photographed before. I guess it will be history. It's the tallest tree I can think of anywhere around downtown.

The reaction so far in Deep Deuce has been unanimous. Pretty much a big "oh hell no". Business owners are slowly learning about it and have been marking the meeting date on their calendar. I hope people show up!

Also, Pettis is getting a personal visit with the pictures from one of the business owners. I don't have any contacts at the Hill. Anyone?

NewYorker (something like that?) on this forum lives there and bought another unit as an investment I believe.

That tree seems to be right in the middle of the parking lot and it certainly is not shown on their landscape plan.

Patel owns two lots, the one highlighted and the other immediately west with the tree:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/springhill6713.jpg

I've contacted the Oklahoma Tree Bank and sent them pictures. Hopefully they will want to see the tree saved and chime in.

Can you post a pic here so that we can see the tree in question?

You can see the tree here:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/springhill6613b.jpg

Ah yes, that is a grand old tree. Great character.

Oops. I imagine that saving a tree of that size is an expensive proposition.

I know it probably sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but they *shouldn't* have to save it. Why can't he build around it? That tree has probably been there for decades. The developer should take some initiative and work it into his plan. We have far too few grand trees and there's no sense in cutting them down for a parking lot. Hell, it could provide some shade for the parked cars.

But then again, based on what I've seen so far, I'd rather this little lot stay as is, maybe turned into a park or something. This springhill suites idea sucks so far.

That thurr tree has witnessed a lot of life. And overheard a lot of jazz. It must be preserved.

Besides, isn't it beautifully contumely to argue that this development should be halted in order to save a tree. Such a grand old tree. Great character!

I found the photos from March 2012 but for some reason can't find them or never put them on Flickr. I'll have them up in a bit. They turned out really well.

Oklahoma City (March 12 2012) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157633995191752/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3694/8981806224_cd53fe4790_b.jpg

What a tree!

edit: And before anyone notices from my above post, I realize it's contumacious. The whole adv/adj throws me for a loop when I'm typing from my iPad, and attempting to use a $10 word amplifies the derp :x

The tree can be saved! lol

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/375614_590423337656203_715287735_n.jpg

Sorry to disagree with at least some of you, but that scrawny and hardly robust tree just ain't worth the trouble. It's feeble and, I think, kinda ugly, and bringing it up in an adversarial setting concerning the proposed project itself might only serve to diminish the effectiveness of much more important and credible objections concerning the actual and far more important goal. I couldn't tell from your above post, Spartan, whether you were being sarcastic or sincere in your comment, "What a tree!" notwithstanding your comments after that point. I quit necessarily taking your comments at face value long ago when, in your former Oklahoma City talk forum, you indicated that you were a black person ... do you remember that? Ha ha. You were younger then and I was more trusting. BTW, Spartan/Nick gets the credit for suggesting to me the name I should use in/for my blog, and I remain grateful. Thanks, Nick.

I agree with Doug. Placing the tree in the foreground of this objection makes it appear to be a grasping of straws which could diminish the efforts.

Include it at the bottom of your argument. But the brunt of the criticism should be about the structure itself.

I really should have expressed my thoughts better in my initial post. I'm probably in the vast minority on this, but I am opposed to another short, boxy building that will look just as boring as the Maywood and Level apartments. In spite of the street life they bring to that area, which is all well and good, Deep Deuce's developments are too repetitive and most are uninspiring to look at. The only buildings I find visually appealing are the Brownstones and the Aloft Hotel. Beyond that, it's the same boxy, boring stuff. Instead of posting about saving a tree, I should have done a better job saying I'm in favor of leaving the grass lot and tree alone until something better comes along. Otherwise, it's just the same old boring design with more garish colors and I'm not optimistic that substantial changes will be made.

Spartan, at least use the right words if you're going to try and eloquently ridicule me. Otherwise, stick to the simple insults. :rolleyes:

I agree with Doug. Placing the tree in the foreground of this objection makes it appear to be a grasping of straws which could diminish the efforts.

Include it at the bottom of your argument. But the brunt of the criticism should be about the structure itself.
As a lawyer, were I engaged to make a presentation before the DDRC for a client opposed to the project based upon design elements of the building itself, I'd leave the tree matter off my argument altogether, unless my client foolishly insisted that I include the tree as part of my argument. In that event, I might even request that the client give me a written instruction to do so, while acknowledging in writing that the request would be presented against my advice. Real and good faith design objections to this project have nothing to do with the lonely tree ... it is merely an afterthought, as I see it ... e.g., "Oh, by the way, there is this scrawny tree which has great significance, too ..." Just don't do it.

IF the Oklahoma Tree Bank (Sid said he was contacted them) deems this tree worthy of picking a fight, let THAT organization present its case. It would know about such things. Not being aware that there are any horticultural/tree experts who have voiced opinions in this thread or generally at OkcTalk, it would be best to leave such fights, if any are to be made, to those who know what they are talking about.

ON EDIT: Sid, you posted as I was writing the above. You said, "In short, a tree like that does a lot help manage stormwater, clean the air, slow wind ect."

Were I your lawyer engaged to oppose the design of this project before the DDRC, would you seriously insist that I use your words to that august body for this tree ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/uglytree_zpsf7e35a83.jpg?t=1370734004

... and would you be prepared to hear the muffled chucking of the DDRC members as I spoke those words?

Again, I appreciate your opinion. Really do. Tell me where to sign. ;)

Yeah, the Tree Bank is going to pick that fight. I'm a board member so it wasn't a hard call to make.
Well, I suppose that it is a well know fact that clients are better informed than their lawyers about which arguments may or may not have credibility in a particular context or legal forum. My disclaimer for you might read (humorous context intended),


Sid, you ignorant slut. You have engaged me to present your cause and to offer my legal advice. Yet you insist that I vary from my advice in making my presentation before the DDRC concerning design aspects of this project, i.e. the tree. I have advised you that the scrawny tree argument may be counterproductive to attaining your main goal. Please sign below, above the blank which reads, "Client Who Disregards His Lawyer's Advice."

P.S. Sid, since you are giving me, your lawyer, lawyerly advice, please advise me further as to how I can best argue, "This tree does a lot help manage stormwater, clean the air, slow wind ect." Since you are paying me big bucks to make that argument vis a vis this particular tree and in this legal context, notwithstanding my advice to the contrary, I don't mind so much that the DDRC members will be giggling in their toes if not in their faces at my words as they roll out of my mouth, but I'm really gonna need your help saying those words with a straight face.

That's what I need help with ... how to keep a straight face while speaking your words before the DDRC. As always, your advice is most appreciated.

As I said, just kidding my friend. At the least, you'll know what lawyer NOT to hire.

That tree looks like a cottonwood to me... not really that desirable of a tree.

Awesome. I'm going to have to bookmark this and come back to it every day when I need a little humility. ;)
Uh huh.

Good comments. I'll agree to disagree. There's nothing like walking around Bricktown/Downtown under the shade of mini-canopies of the saplings we plant. Urban forestry is actually an important topic and one I wish I had more time to devote. In short, a tree like that does a lot help manage stormwater, clean the air, slow wind ect. One tree doesn't make a huge impact but I think it is important the city start to hear more of a message about preserving more of our urban forest.

I do appreciate the concern though. Really do. It looks like the Oklahoma Tree Bank Foundation -- whose mission is dedicated to urban forestry -- will be in attendance of the meeting anyway to brief the committee on the benefits of urban trees.

Also, this tree is hardly in the way of the structure, at least at glance. Requiring it be saved and the parking lot built around it isn't really detracting from the design message. To me it falls more in line with the 'good steward' or 'be a good neighbor' category.+1

Is that tree alive? I can't tell from the photo.

Is that tree alive? I can't tell from the photo.
There is a good chance it won't be for long if it's roots get paved over.

Is that tree alive? I can't tell from the photo.

This is from June 3rd....

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/springhill6613b.jpg

I still say be careful placing the tree at the front of this discussion. While I agree it's an important tree to save, it makes the argument watered down. Most people will be on board with how ugly this building is. You can get everyone behind that. But you won't be able to get everyone behind the tree.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't live in the neighborhood but I am watching what happens with close interest.

I still say be careful placing the tree at the front of this discussion. While I agree it's an important tree to save, it makes the argument watered down. Most people will be on board with how ugly this building is. You can get everyone behind that. But you won't be able to get everyone behind the tree.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't live in the neighborhood but I am watching what happens with close interest.

This.

Sorry to disagree with at least some of you, but that scrawny and hardly robust tree just ain't worth the trouble. It's feeble and, I think, kinda ugly, and bringing it up in an adversarial setting concerning the proposed project itself might only serve to diminish the effectiveness of much more important and credible objections concerning the actual and far more important goal. I couldn't tell from your above post, Spartan, whether you were being sarcastic or sincere in your comment, "What a tree!" notwithstanding your comments after that point. I quit necessarily taking your comments at face value long ago when, in your former Oklahoma City talk forum, you indicated that you were a black person ... do you remember that? Ha ha. You were younger then and I was more trusting. BTW, Spartan/Nick gets the credit for suggesting to me the name I should use in/for my blog, and I remain grateful. Thanks, Nick.

Doug, what a tree. Look at that tree. It must be saved.



I really should have expressed my thoughts better in my initial post. I'm probably in the vast minority on this, but I am opposed to another short, boxy building that will look just as boring as the Maywood and Level apartments. In spite of the street life they bring to that area, which is all well and good, Deep Deuce's developments are too repetitive and most are uninspiring to look at. The only buildings I find visually appealing are the Brownstones and the Aloft Hotel. Beyond that, it's the same boxy, boring stuff. Instead of posting about saving a tree, I should have done a better job saying I'm in favor of leaving the grass lot and tree alone until something better comes along. Otherwise, it's just the same old boring design with more garish colors and I'm not optimistic that substantial changes will be made.

Spartan, at least use the right words if you're going to try and eloquently ridicule me. Otherwise, stick to the simple insults. :rolleyes:

I can't help it typing on this stupid iPad thing is hard, and my laptop is on the fritz. So you're going to just have to tolerate the wrong words in your eloquent ridicule and insults for now...

That said, when we talk about density, I think (generally speaking) the most ideal thing would be to blanket all of downtown with new development of mixed uses up to 4-5 stories. But of course you're absolutely right that we want variation and quality design. Just food for thought my friend.

This.

That^^

Maybe its worth repeating - we aren't trying to stop development; we are trying to get more of it AND make it better quality.

I'm trying to do some research to find a good example of hotels that would fit on this lot and have similar number of rooms that we can use as comparisons. Bonus points if it does a good job of matching Deep Deuce design and culture. Any suggestions?

Holiday Inn Express in Nottingham, UK

http://www.worldwidehotelsonline.co.uk/hotels_images/UKExpressByHolidayInnNottinghamCityCentre63.jpg

I'm glad Doug brought this up; I was wanting to. I think it is admirable that folks are mobilizing to fight for quality development, but I really do believe that including the tree will water down the argument and risk allowing your opponent to control the message.

It would be pretty simple for the developer or an accomplished attorney or PR firm working for him to cast this argument as being about the tree - which would generate eyerolls and yawns among a large segment of the population - effectively marginalizing your case against the hotel in the public discussion.

The concerns regarding design and finish are compelling, powerful and reasonable. I would hate to see a separate, marginal issue interfere with the proper communication of those concerns. I too would like to see a a nice tall tree remain on the site if practical, but I think letting the Tree Bank and the Tree Bank alone carry the water on that is a good idea.

Maybe its worth repeating - we aren't trying to stop development; we are trying to get more of it AND make it better quality.
And just as a follow-up to my previous post, I believe allowing the tree to take center stage in the argument will create the public perception that stopping development at all costs is what this is about. If I were an uninitiated outsider or even a member of the design review committee who was not privy to this online discussion it would be easy to sway me to believe the tree was only an issue because the protesters wanted to pull out all of the stops to kill the development. Instead I honestly believe the real goal here is to ensure QUALITY development takes place. Quality development and the removal of that tree are not mutually-exclusive.

I'll say it again, I believe it's a cottonwood, not a desirable tree. They grow fast, they shed small limbs and bark like crazy. Any slight wind brings down small limbs and leaves...and they are ugly to beat.

There are a lot better trees out there to be saved than this one. Look at the mature trees on the SC site.

Yeah, if it's a cottonwood, folks should DEFINITELY reconsider adding it to the discussion.

--

Members of this board seem to be easily distracted. Can a board have A.D.D.? :rolleyes:

Members of this board seem to be easily distracted. Can a board have A.D.D.? :rolleyes:

If it can, this one does. haha

Yeah that tree sucks and is ugly.

Lol, I give up.

Anyway, I hope folks come to the meeting to discuss the horrible design and some of the site issues of this project on the 20th. Come a little early so you can be sure to get your name on the list to speak.
Does that mean that you are no longer willing to sign the dratted disclaimer? :rolleyes:

Members of this board seem to be easily distracted. Can a board have A.D.D.? :rolleyes:
Did you not read the forum guidelines? It is a requirement. If you don't, you must have slipped through the cracks. :tongue:

My favorite ADD joke of all time:

Q: How many kids with ADD does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
(How Many?)
A: Wanna go ride bikes?!?

Yeah that tree sucks and is ugly.
Hey, I'm not making any pronouncements about the worthiness of the tree (unless it is indeed a cottonwood, in which case I'll bring the axe). I fully support lots of trees in the urban realm. The last house I owned was a corner house in Gatewood, and I lovingly tended to the nine pin oaks lining the street, plus another dozen or so on the property, and even planted more, all without whining once. Well, OK, sometimes in the Fall I whined, but NEVER thought about taking a tree down or regretted having them. Same with the trees on my previous property. They are important, and beneficial. They are definitely worth fighting for at times.

But this will be a PR battle, and one of the most important ingredients to winning something like this is to control the conversation. Having a focused message that is difficult to argue is the most important part of this. I'm sorry, the tree just won't help achieve this goal, and could actually work counter to it, as Doug ably pointed out.

This conversation reminds me a bit of the SandRidge demolition debate, when (in my opinion) the most important issue (removal of street frontage along Robinson and on Kerr) was obscured by the debate over whether the India Shrine Temple was truly historic and/or fit for renovation. The argument became about "hysterical preservation", not about walkability (a hot-button issue downtown, even with City leadership) and the impact of those removals on the neighborhood as a whole. We see where it ended up. I say this as a pretty avid and passionate preservationist. We all need to carefully choose the hills we are willing to die on.

One of the biggest obstacles to this type of fight is the perception that the participants are making strictly emotional and anti-business pleas. Pointing out the negative impact shoddy construction might have on the surrounding neighborhood's for-sale housing, future development, etc. are compelling, business-savvy arguments, and reduce the chances that the protesters will be marginalized as do-gooders tilting at windmills.

If you lose the battle over the building itself THEN work on the tree argument. Till then, it is just a distraction from the real issue.

My favorite ADD joke of all time:

Q: How many kids with ADD does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
(How Many?)
A: Wanna go ride bikes?!?

This joke belongs in the Spokies thread. ;)

Yeah that tree sucks and is ugly.

Just make sure the tree goes to a well respected paper company...

Members of this board seem to be easily distracted. Can a board have A.D.D.? :rolleyes:

I don't think we're easily distracted. We stay on subject pretty...squirrel!

Yeah, if it's a cottonwood, folks should DEFINITELY reconsider adding it to the discussion.Think someone pointed out earlier that it's an Elm.

Yeah that tree sucks and is ugly.Well maybe the tree doesn't like you either lol, I don't think it's a bad tree though

I find myself confuzzled. If this is a brick added adaptation of a prototypical design, why is it when you visit the Springhill Suites website and look at images of existing facilities elsewhere none are as absolutely fugly as this design is to my eyes. Don't get me wrong, by and large none of them inspire me in the least, but some are completely gorgeous by comparison.

I find myself confuzzled. If this is a brick added adaptation of a prototypical design, why is it when you visit the Springhill Suites website and look at images of existing facilities elsewhere none are as absolutely fugly as this design is to my eyes. Don't get me wrong, by and large none of them inspire me in the least, but some are completely gorgeous by comparison.

It is prototypical OKC - not prototypical Springhill Suites. :)

It is prototypical OKC - not prototypical Springhill Suites. :)

Surely prototypical OKC is better than this BS. If not, then I'm darn speechless.

Surely prototypical OKC is better than this BS. If not, then I'm darn speechless.

Start practicing sign language ;)