If there is any change to the external design at all, it has to be resubmitted to the committee for approval.

This includes even minor changes.

Nice job. This looks like a quality project. Great land use as well.

On edit: it's nice that there will be some affordable housing in the area.

LOVE the new redesign! The new Via Paseo project could learn from this!

Here are some better images:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons121514a.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons121514b.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons121514c.jpg

Wow! Very nice!

This is how I wish Staybridge Suites would have turned out, with the curved part facing Reno.

This is how I wish Staybridge Suites would have turned out, with the curved part facing Reno.

oooo, yes that would have been awesome.

From the JR:

Elevations: Commons on Classen

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record January 22, 2015

OKLAHOMA CITY – Senior citizens wanting to live in an affordable place near downtown could make that dream a reality in late 2016.

Neighborhood Housing Services and Belmont Development are building the 40,500-square-foot Commons on Classen independent-living facility for low- to moderate-income senior citizens. The three-story building will have 49 apartments – 36 one-bedroom units, nine two-bedroom units and four efficiency-style places. The $4.2 million project is funded through an Oklahoma Housing Fi*nance Agency tax-credit program. The building near NW 13th Street and Classen Drive was designed by architect Larry Black*ledge, owner of Blackledge and Asso*ciates architecture firm. Susan Bolner-Hamilton served as the project manager and interior designer.

Neighborhood Housing Services Executive Director Roland Chupik said this type of housing is needed in Oklahoma City.

“As baby boomers continue to mature, the need is there, particularly for low- to moderate-income seniors,” Chupik said. “This is an amenity-rich facility. As far as aesthetically pleasing, this will stand the test of time over the years.”

The brick building is a triangle shape, with an open center courtyard. The brick is accented with exterior finish insulation, or EFI, which gives a stucco appearance. Metal balconies and awnings help complete the contemporary yet classic aesthetic.

The first floor has a lobby, office, lounge area and covered patio. All of the first-floor apartments are one-bedroom units. They will have access to the street through individual separate doors. The residents will be able to walk out into a small, fenced yard.

The second floor has a fitness area and a lounge. All of the rooms have an outdoor walkway with views of the courtyard. The third floor has the same sort of outdoor corridors, a lounge and a covered balcony. The balcony is above the covered patio on the first floor. Some rooms also have individual balconies.

The rooms were designed with the elderly in mind, so there are no bathtubs, only walk-in showers. This helps prevent falls, Blackledge said. The rooms have alarm systems and fully equipped kitchens with Energy Star appliances.

Because of the amenities, finishes, land cost and project cost, unit leases could be market rate, but that won’t be the case. A $750,000 grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank will help reduce the loan needed to purchase the property. The rents are restricted to guidelines from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“It’s really a wonderful partnership with one of the best federal programs still out there,” Chupik said.

The existing building is expected to be demolished in April, with construction starting soon after the remnants are removed.

The project has a 12- to 14-month build time; therefore, it could be done by summer 2016.

$5.5 million building permit application today.

Should see work start here soon.

$5.5 million building permit application today.

Should see work start here soon.

Yeah I saw movers moving out the current tenants a couple of weeks ago.

Full Set of Plans (http://www.rpgplanroom.com/viewer/viewer.php?job=1940&section=6548&file=0001++A0.0.pdf)

Construction fencing going up on this site right now. I'm not sure why they heve it on the street side of the sidewalk. Not very pedestrian friendly.

I'm sure they'll be reworking the sidewalk as a part of this project.

I'm sure they'll be reworking the sidewalk as a part of this project.

You're right. From the demolition plans, Sheet 16 from post #190 above, most are being replaced.

...I'm not sure why they heve it on the street side of the sidewalk. Not very pedestrian friendly.


I'm sure they'll be reworking the sidewalk as a part of this project.

This has become a pet peeve of mine. In parts of the city where pedestrian use is prevalent, contractors should be required to provide barriers that create a protected walkway in the street when blocking the sidewalk. Lots of recent construction projects downtown have simply blocked the sidewalk and made no provision for pedestrians, other than making them walk across the street (and sometimes that's not really an option either) or IN the street with no protection. This happens every day in other cities; we need to catch up in this regard.

https://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/images/atssa_pedestrian_work_zones/s32.jpg

^

Absolutely right.

They haven't even done that at 499 Sheridan, which is blocking huge sections of sidewalk on 3 different blocks right in the middle of the CBD.

This has become a pet peeve of mine. In parts of the city where pedestrian use is prevalent, contractors should be required to provide barriers that create a protected walkway in the street when blocking the sidewalk. Lots of recent construction projects downtown have simply blocked the sidewalk and made no provision for pedestrians, other than making them walk across the street (and sometimes that's not really an option either) or IN the street with no protection. This happens every day in other cities; we need to catch up in this regard.

+1

This has become a pet peeve of mine. In parts of the city where pedestrian use is prevalent, contractors should be required to provide barriers that create a protected walkway in the street when blocking the sidewalk. Lots of recent construction projects downtown have simply blocked the sidewalk and made no provision for pedestrians, other than making them walk across the street (and sometimes that's not really an option either) or IN the street with no protection. This happens every day in other cities; we need to catch up in this regard.

https://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/images/atssa_pedestrian_work_zones/s32.jpg

Is this something that just requires someone of authority at the city to demand it, or what specifically needs to be changed to make it mandatory? Sorry I don't know this.

Street and sidewalk closures must be permitted by the City. When they are applied for, the City could require an alternate sidewalk traffic plan that meets a minimum standard (set by the City). It's no different than requiring trash receptacles or portable johns when issuing revocable permits for events. This alternate sidewalk plan could be limited to urban areas, but would not have to be. At the end of the day, we could require it, and we just don't bother.

To whom do we start a write-in campaign to put pressure on this as a requirement?

Street and sidewalk closures must be permitted by the City. When they are applied for, the City could require an alternate sidewalk traffic plan that meets a minimum standard (set by the City). It's no different than requiring trash receptacles or portable johns when issuing revocable permits for events. This alternate sidewalk plan could be limited to urban areas, but would not have to be. At the end of the day, we could require it, and we just don't bother.

Which really describes the way OKC operates and always has. Better than crappy makes us happy.

To whom do we start a write-in campaign to put pressure on this as a requirement?

You didn't seem too interested in them in this thread.

Maywood - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Maywood+Apartments+Phase+II&p=843799#post843799)


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.

His statement isn't as contradictory as it appears. I agree with him that bringing safety barriers out to the street is necessary for many/most projects. And his last line (in the portion that you quoted) says that the requirement to reroute is a separate issue, which of course it is, and that is the issue at hand in these recent posts.

Rover, to answer your question I think that suggestion should be routed to Eric Wenger, the Director of Public Works, and to Jim Couch, the City Manager. Also might be worth contacting City Council members in the areas most affected (in urban areas that's mostly Meg Salyer and John Pettis, both of whom tend to be very responsive. Finally, might be worth contacting Downtown OKC Inc, who could take a strong advocacy role in this issue.

Edit: I did a quick cursory search for other cities' requirements (I'm sure there are good, workable ones out there) and I found this easy-to understand document from a county in Idaho, of all places: https://www.achdidaho.org/Departments/PP/files/ContractorsResponsibility.doc

What I found most interesting is that the document seems to indicate that contractors providing adequate temporary walkways during construction is actually an ADA issue. If this is correct, these types of sidewalk closures without adequate relief violate ADA, and if the City allows it, then the City is being complicit. Therefore it might also be worthwhile to contact the City's ADA coordinator Paula Falkenstein.

You didn't seem too interested in them in this thread.

Maywood - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Maywood+Apartments+Phase+II&p=843799#post843799)

First of all, not sure why you are trying to snarky. Secondly, I still believe that in the context of that discussion that the two are different issues. You seem to imply something not there. Don't try so hard to go personal and away from the discussion at hand.

Urbanized, thanks for the information. I wish all posters were as grown up as you.

Don't try so hard to go personal

I wish all posters were as grown up as you.

lol not personal at all

First of all, not sure why you are trying to snarky. Secondly, I still believe that in the context of that discussion that the two are different issues. You seem to imply something not there. Don't try so hard to go personal and away from the discussion at hand.

Urbanized, thanks for the information. I wish all posters were as grown up as you.

I'm not being snarky. I just happened to have remembered that thread, where instead of supporting the issue you were bringing up contradictory points as well as implying things in my posts which indeed were not there. (Where you implied I said every city has requirements for temporary sidewalks, when in fact I did not).

I agree with you, let's not get personal. (Which I have not brought your character or personal business into question. You have implied in your own post a personal shot at me)

Quit trying to pick a fight, please. Quit trying to frame my positions, please. I am perfectly capable of stating my own positions on specific topics. You are free to do for your own position and I welcome the airing of all positions whether I agree with them or not. I never claim to be all knowing and infallible.

I will be clear... I am FOR an alternate and safe pedestrian path when construction obstructs or makes unsafe the in-place paths. I am FOR the developer/contractor providing this path at their cost. I am FOR the city requiring it. I am FOR the city coordinating with the contractor to do this with as little disruption to street activity as possible.

I appreciate the information Urbanized provided and encourage everyone so motivated to make the contacts and make their positions known. I am FOR activism to make changes, and I am NOT for whining afterwards.

I will be clear... I am FOR an alternate and safe pedestrian path when construction obstructs or makes unsafe the in-place paths. I am FOR the developer/contractor providing this path at their cost. I am FOR the city requiring it. I am FOR the city coordinating with the contractor to do this with as little disruption to street activity as possible.

Thanks for clarifying, I am glad to see we both agree. I was under the impression that you weren't from the previous thread.

Demolition has begun:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons082615.jpg

Demo underway.

11395

I drove by today and saw the building was torn down. I searched and wasn't able to find any information on this.

11455

As you now see, this is the Classen Commons development, which is actually a great project. That said, thank you for reporting a demolition that took you by surprise! One day that will probably happen and we will need citizen journalists.

Well under construction now:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons122015.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons012316a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons030616b.jpg

This is an underrated development.

It is nice, I only wish it were taller and therefore had more units. I think we need many more of these senior-oriented URBAN residential buildings in the downtown neighborhoods and throughout the inner city where our seniors can live close to the all of the services and amenities of the city.

From today; windows have started to go in:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons032416.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons050916.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons062616a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons062616b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons082816a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons082816b.jpg

This turned out sharper than expected.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons103016a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons103016b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons103016c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/commons103016d.jpg

This turned out a lot better than I was expecting. Besides a few minor changes, I think it looks pretty nice.

Just wish they had truly rounded the corner. Looks like they took the cheap way out.

From last night’s ULI Oklahoma Impact Awards: https://twitter.com/ulioklahoma/status/962125268289716231

From last night’s ULI Oklahoma Impact Awards: https://twitter.com/ulioklahoma/status/962125268289716231
Very deserving. This was a great little project.