Big improvement. Now let's get it built.

I love the street life improvements they've added, but am disappointed it's another 4 story box from ground level. Will we get a developer that can do something else besides 4 story boxes?

I love the street life improvements they've added, but am disappointed it's another 4 story box from ground level. Will we get a developer that can do something else besides 4 story boxes?

I believe 60 feet is the limit for DD, so you're not going to get much more than 4 stories there. I don't know how far north that restriction goes though.

I love the street life improvements they've added, but am disappointed it's another 4 story box from ground level. Will we get a developer that can do something else besides 4 story boxes?

Between the additional cost and the potential for market saturation, I don't think you're going to see over 4 stories in DD. It's set to be a nice, modestly dense neighborhood.

I believe 60 feet is the limit for DD, so you're not going to get much more than 4 stories there. I don't know how far north that restriction goes though.

If that's the case (I have no reason to doubt you), how would the original version of this development have passed? Wouldn't it have been above the 60 feet limit? Particularly if it was 4 stories of housing over 2 stories of parking?

from the packet

5. Previous Actions
On September 19, 2013, the Downtown Design Review Committee approved asix-story version of this same project. Based on the type of construction
proposed, the Building Code limits the building height to four stories and the project had to be redesigned to satisfy that requirement. Accordingly, the
parking garage has been lowered into the grade by about 1½ levels and the result is that none of the structured parking is visible above grade and all four
stories above grade are retail or residential space. The original application back in September 2013 also included a proposal to relocate an existing billboard
on the project site and integrate into the building as a potential roof sign. Since that time, discussions between the project applicant and the owner of the
existing billboard have resulted in a solution where the billboard will stay mounted in the ground in its present location and the proposed structure will be built
around it. Therefore, the exiting billboard is no longer a part of the project proposal and not listed as an Item for Consideration.

I assume building code limiting it to four stories is because it is a stick structure. Is that correct?

^

Believe so.

That says "building code" and not "design requirements"; and of course, the concrete Aloft structure is higher than 4 floors and it's in the same design district.

If that's the case (I have no reason to doubt you), how would the original version of this development have passed? Wouldn't it have been above the 60 feet limit? Particularly if it was 4 stories of housing over 2 stories of parking?

Honestly, this is what I was told by a Real Estate Agent, Developer and an HOA, but I have never read the actual language of the restriction, nor do I know its source. So, maybe someone was just trying to sell me something (wait a sec, I know they were). It certainly looks like there's some sort of height limit, but Aloft would probably be an exception.

Personally, I kind of like low profile urban neighborhoods, as long as you got street frontage and some retail. I like looking at high rise clusters from a mile away, but I've always liked hanging / living in the more neighborhoody places of big cities.

Is there any more information about the proposed restaurant space? I have a hard time believing that three different restaurants would be okay with sharing one kitchen. So my thought is that there's a tenant already interested that will be within all three spaces..with each one being a different restaurant concept. I can't think of anything else that makes sense? Anyone know of any restaurants they have shared kitchens?

Fassler Hall and Dust Bowl (under construction in Midtown) will share a kitchen, but of course they are the same ownership.

Perhaps there will be a couple of different restaurants and one bar.

Can this project be redesigned?

More About the Billboard and the Maywood Apartments | News OK (http://newsok.com/more-about-the-billboard-and-the-maywood-apartments/article/5334738)

http://newsok.com/new-plans-for-oklahoma-city-maywood-apartments-in-deep-deuce-include-underground-parking/article/5334493

Other than the retail portion, I think the new renderings are a disappointment(See Steve's article for the new ones). Though it's hard to tell for sure, EIFS appears prevalent once again, and the design in general looks pretty ham-handed.

I think it's time for a moratorium on the faux stucco. It doesn't seem to be well suited to the oftentimes extreme climate of the midwest, nor long-term durability in general. I understand other cities have removed it from code (real concrete stucco only).

I love everything about the changes, however how on earth are 3 restaurants going to run an efficient business with a shared kitchen (inventory, loss prevention, and not creating chaos while sharing equipment and cooking different types of cuisine). I like the idea of efficiency, but don't see how it works in reality. Even if it is one operator that will lease all 3 spaces. What happens if a concept doesn't work out, or if the operator doesn't work out?

Other than the retail portion, I think the new renderings are a disappointment(See Steve's article for the new ones). Though it's hard to tell for sure, EIFS appears prevalent once again, and the design in general looks pretty ham-handed.

I think it's time for a moratorium on the faux stucco. It doesn't seem to be well suited to the oftentimes extreme climate of the midwest, nor long-term durability in general. I understand other cities have removed it from code (real concrete stucco only).

That would be nice. No one has to repair the bricks in buildings in Bricktown, but LEVEL is completely repainting or whatever they do to their top three floors. How can that possibly be cost effective as compared to brick? And it's certainly not more appealing. Wait until all these buildings sell to an owner who doesn't care to keep up the exterior. I don't see stuff like this near downtown in the other cities I visit.

What happened to all the people who were willing to be so excited about the Level and kept claiming their stucco was acceptable? Now, when it has had staining, disclosing, warping, cracking, etc, maybe they will admit it is a mistake. Everyone thought I was too critical. Fake stucco, through the wall ACs, and other cheap shortcuts will come back to haunt downtown. We should require sustainability and quality...and we all need to recognize what that is or isn't.

This is much improved, but will it feature hideous orange brick like its predecessor?

9354

There is a bulldozer on the site moving dirt, and a couple other people there as well.

Was really wishing this was under construction by now. Glad to see movement again since demolition.

And now the trees have been bulldozed. They seem to have made real progress today.

They're pushing people around with a bulldozer? That's not safe.

They're pushing people around with a bulldozer? That's not safe.

Like :)

11/8/2014

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3937/15570173528_201c297ac3_b.jpg

The area is fenced off now.

The area is fenced off now.
And of course the fence goes all the way to the street along Oklahoma, taking out an entire half-block of sidewalk. Why do they continue to do this on almost every downtown project?

Because nobody tells them not to?

How are is pedestrian traffic in Deep Deuce these days?

Because nobody tells them not to?

Yeah. I asked the city once and this was their response:


@andrewmperry: .@cityofokc Why are construction projects in the downtown area allowed to block sidewalks? Other cities have scaffolding over the sidewalk.


@andrewmperry: .@cityofokc Like in Deep Deuce at Mosaic site. People use those sidewalks.


@cityofokc: @andrewmperry In most cases, sidewalks are closed for safety of pedestrians. 1/3


@cityofokc: @andrewmperry Scaffolding is sometimes used when alt routes are not available and if the sidewalk to be closed is the only access point. 2/3


@cityofokc: @andrewmperry There are sometimes safety concerns with scaffolding depending on the type of work that may be occurring in the area. 3/3 ^zn

So in other words, it would cost the developer more money to protect the pedestrians so they let them take the cheap route and close the sidewalk.

I really don't understand why this is always such a big deal. It's not like the blocked off area is a mile long. I understand the handicap side of this and it's inconvenient but it's not permanent. This is coming from a guy who takes the stairs instead of an elevator to stay in shape so maybe it's just me.

I really don't understand why this is always such a big deal. It's not like the blocked off area is a mile long. I understand the handicap side of this and it's inconvenient but it's not permanent. This is coming from a guy who takes the stairs instead of an elevator to stay in shape so maybe it's just me.it's not a huge deal, just common practice in other cities it seems

Yeah, really not a huge deal. Just a little annoying for people who are out and about to have to walk/run in the street. Especially with mosaic's construction zone being in such close proximity.

Because nobody tells them not to?

Shockingly, I was in NYC for the last month and virtually all the construction sites closed the adjoining sidewalk area. Guess nobody told them not to.

It is deeper than that. It is a fundamental issue of respecting pedestrian space and access.

In other walkable cities, the pedestrian takes 100% priority over any obstacle. If they have to shut a street a vehicle lane to preserve a sidewalk they will do it. If it's a simple issue like scaffolding overhead, they will do it. Here it's just easier to completely shut off pedestrian access. Who cares???

Here, sidewalks are a luxury. If they have to close one down, even temporarily...it's "oh well, use the other side or walk in the street." Pedestrians are an after thought in this city.

It's funny they say they are protecting peds. How so? By forcing them to walk in the street with drivers who don't give a damn about pedestrians? Trust the guys in the mega diesel trucks to not be douchers and "roll coal" on the pedestrians? Yeah, right.

It is deeper than that. It is a fundamental issue of respecting pedestrian space and access.

In other walkable cities, the pedestrian takes 100% priority over any obstacle. If they have to shut a street a vehicle lane to preserve a sidewalk they will do it. If it's a simple issue like scaffolding overhead, they will do it. Here it's just easier to completely shut off pedestrian access. Who cares???

Here, sidewalks are a luxury. If they have to close one down, even temporarily...it's "oh well, use the other side or walk in the street." Pedestrians are an after thought in this city.

It's funny they say they are protecting peds. How so? By forcing them to walk in the street with drivers who don't give a damn about pedestrians? Trust the guys in the mega diesel trucks to not be douchers and "roll coal" on the pedestrians? Yeah, right.

In every city, like this? 9490

It is deeper than that. It is a fundamental issue of respecting pedestrian space and access.

In other walkable cities, the pedestrian takes 100% priority over any obstacle. If they have to shut a street a vehicle lane to preserve a sidewalk they will do it. If it's a simple issue like scaffolding overhead, they will do it. Here it's just easier to completely shut off pedestrian access. Who cares???

Here, sidewalks are a luxury. If they have to close one down, even temporarily...it's "oh well, use the other side or walk in the street." Pedestrians are an after thought in this city.

It's funny they say they are protecting peds. How so? By forcing them to walk in the street with drivers who don't give a damn about pedestrians? Trust the guys in the mega diesel trucks to not be douchers and "roll coal" on the pedestrians? Yeah, right.

Ever walk around NYC? I've been routed out into traffic countless times there. It's not an OKC thing, it's a city thing.

Ever walk around NYC? I've been routed out into traffic countless times there. It's not an OKC thing, it's a city thing.

Yes I have walked around NYC, I've always been routed into jersey barrier protected paths. Or scaffolding protecting paths. Or, even just some cones in the street.

It is deeper than that. It is a fundamental issue of respecting pedestrian space and access.

In other walkable cities, the pedestrian takes 100% priority over any obstacle. If they have to shut a street a vehicle lane to preserve a sidewalk they will do it. If it's a simple issue like scaffolding overhead, they will do it. Here it's just easier to completely shut off pedestrian access. Who cares???

Here, sidewalks are a luxury. If they have to close one down, even temporarily...it's "oh well, use the other side or walk in the street." Pedestrians are an after thought in this city.

It's funny they say they are protecting peds. How so? By forcing them to walk in the street with drivers who don't give a damn about pedestrians? Trust the guys in the mega diesel trucks to not be douchers and "roll coal" on the pedestrians? Yeah, right.

I totally understand what you are saying here. OKC up until recently has placed very little value on pedestrian infrastructure and still has work to do. However, fencing off sidewalks in a construction zone like we see here isn't something unique to OKC.

In every city, like this? 9490

You're on a roll Trollver...

Where did I say "Every city". In fact, the word "every" does not appear once in my post.

Good try, Trollver.

Perhaps I was looking at the wrong thing, but this is what I gathered.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7549033882_59765bdaf0_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8318/7941290396_84a776d42f_b.jpg

This is related to a sidewalk closure: Street Works Manual?Chapter 3?Permits and Approvals (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/streetworks/html/chapter_3/3_3_4.shtml)

You're on a roll Trollver...

Where did I say "Every city". In fact, the word "every" does not appear once in my post.

Good try, Trollver.

i am no more trolling than someone who is trying to make issues over non-issues. Trolling is making statements in order to elicit a certain response. It isn't just that someone challenges a made statement.

PluPan, those are excellent examples of how it can be done.

My experience here in downtown Denver, a very walkable area, is that where sidewalk traffic is heavy, they will put in scaffolding and pedestrian tunnels. In most all other cases, they will block the sidewalk. Ran into a closed sidewalk on 2nd street through Cherry Creek North, a very walkable retail area. So, I'm sorry, but pedestrians DON'T take 100% priority. I believe you saw cases in NYC where the sidewalks were closed, too, printed above.

My experience here in downtown Denver, a very walkable area, is that where sidewalk traffic is heavy, they will put in scaffolding and pedestrian tunnels. In most all other cases, they will block the sidewalk. Ran into a closed sidewalk on 2nd street through Cherry Creek North, a very walkable retail area. So, I'm sorry, but pedestrians DON'T take 100% priority. I believe you saw cases in NYC where the sidewalks were closed, too, printed above.

This was the case in Charlotte as well.

It's understandable that they block the sidewalk near the Maywood Apartments though and they probably would in most other mid-sized cities. In high-pedestrian areas though like Bricktown or Midtown, I wish they would start thinking of the pedestrians. The norm here is to block the sidewalk no matter what.

This was the case in Charlotte as well.

It's understandable that they block the sidewalk near the Maywood Apartments though and they probably would in most other mid-sized cities. In high-pedestrian areas though like Bricktown or Midtown, I wish they would start thinking of the pedestrians. The norm here is to block the sidewalk no matter what.

It's been a while but the last time I walked by the construction area for Brickopolis in Bricktown there was a blocked area out in the street for pedestrians.

Yes, the developer and contractor both have been pretty conscientious about keeping that open, despite needing to take not only the sidewalk but the entire southbound lane for cranes and equipment. Helps that the street is overly wide, but still, props to them.

What is the official policy or code in the city?

There is none that I am aware of. I think that is a big part of the problem. Specifying open sidewalks or a protected pedestrian walkway should be a part of the permitting process. The Brickopolis construction us a good example because no protected walkway would force walkers to cross jaywalk twice on a wide, too-fast street between Wanda Jackson and Flaming Lips Alley if they were traveling between points on the west side of Mickey Mantle.

Is part of the problem the fact there is no sidewalk their now? At Brickopolis there is a sidewalk and proven pedestrian traffic.

Is part of the problem the fact there is no sidewalk their now? At Brickopolis there is a sidewalk and proven pedestrian traffic.
Not sure where you're talking about but yes, there is a sidewalk along Oklahoma. Of course there isn't as much pedestrian traffic as in Bricktown, but it is still an urban neighborhood. I just don't understand why they need to include that extra three feet inside the fence and force pedestrians into the street.

Not sure where you're talking about but yes, there is a sidewalk along Oklahoma. Of course there isn't as much pedestrian traffic as in Bricktown, but it is still an urban neighborhood. I just don't understand why they need to include that extra three feet inside the fence and force pedestrians into the street.

Because the city does not care, the developer probably isn't even thinking about it, and the contractor is just doing what the city requires and the developer wants.

Since we expect these urban projects to be built out close to the street, why is anyone surprised that means the safety barrier would extend out to the curb? You certainly don't want pedestrians close to the actual work going on. Whether you re-route them or not is a separate issue.

Not sure where you're talking about but yes, there is a sidewalk along Oklahoma. Of course there isn't as much pedestrian traffic as in Bricktown, but it is still an urban neighborhood. I just don't understand why they need to include that extra three feet inside the fence and force pedestrians into the street.

Yes, I stand corrected...there is a sidewalk there.

The only way around the sidewalk issue is to erect a covered walkway, which is an expense I'm sure the developers are happy not to incur.

There is certainly no requirements for them to keep the sidewalk open. That would have to change at the code level before there was any real change in this issue.

What's wrong with walking across the street and using that sidewalk ?

Depends how wide the street is

Well, there are street lights on both intersections, don't see a problem here.

Well, there are street lights on both intersections, don't see a problem here.I guess it's just kind of the thing where I see it as, what is the problem with just giving the peds a covered sidewalk out of convenience. They don't close the road as much as they close the sidewalks, so what is the issue with making the car lanes a foot or two narrower or reducing a lane(if more than one lane each way) to dedicated a walking path.

I think you have to remember that Bradshaw tore out the sidewalks on 3rd street when they leveled the south eastern brownstone lots, left it that way for months, didn't build anything there (because he had no approved plans), and then put sidewalks back in (not sure who paid for that). Soooooooo, it's clearly not a priority for him.