What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

..and they destroy the public realm in the process. That is the whole debate we have been having in this city since 1960. The public realm should take priority over private space because the public realm belongs to all of us. If you don't get a crap about your share of the public realm then that is up to you - but some of us do give a crap about our share.

How Bad Architecture Wrecked Cities
Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

Then why is it in an overlay that requires 100% of the frontage to be within 30 feet of the street? Clearly this was not what was intended for the area or sold to the public as more and more public resources were being committed to the area.

Also, I don't understand why quality urban development can't exist more than a block away from the park. Why does it have to be limited just to the adjacent blocks? That seems like a very short sighted contention.

The set back guideline is probably the most fundamental of all the development guidelines and they did not just make a small variance. They went from 100% to 28%!

But the real problem here is that we have been and are spending so much public money to try and create something new for the city and it ends up just being the same old stuff. That's a complete waste of public resources whether you favor urban development or not. These guys could go a few miles in almost ANY direction and this thing would fit right in.

The willingness of the committee to rubber stamp this shows that the vision for C2S that was sold to the public was smoke and mirrors or, at best, it will be much much more limited in scope.

+1. Why subsidize more suburbia especially if it brings nothing new to the table? Did OKC not learn anything from the mistakes of Lower Bricktown? This design looks like it would be a perfect fit with all the other office complexes at Memorial and Meridian.

It was my assumption all along that C2S would be far less impressive than the initial vision. I didn't think it would stoop THIS low.

What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

There absolutely is public space fronting this on all sides. The streets and the river.

In an effort to create a nice view from a desk, the public gets a view of a parking lot, and the view of the back of their building with no relation to the river. Excellent trade off.

The people in the offices get the benefit, while the people trying to enjoy public space get an unsightly view from all sides. Seems like a good trade off.

Sorry guys, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking a legitimate question in regards to the benefit of the building being pushed up to the street. If the building was turned a complete 180 and the "corner" of the building was pushed up in to the Northeast corner, with the "front" of the building facing Southwest would that be a better design just because its placed up against the street? How can the front facade be pushed up against the street & still be a logical entrance by car/parking lot?

Sorry guys, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking a legitimate question in regards to the benefit of the building being pushed up to the street. If the building was turned a complete 180 and the "corner" of the building was pushed up in to the Northeast corner, with the "front" of the building facing Southwest would that be a better design just because its placed up against the street? How can the front facade be pushed up against the street & still be a logical entrance by car/parking lot?

Cities around the world are able to do this every day.

So easy a novice using MSPaint can figure it out in 5 minutes.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/lawoffice_zpsdeaacf9a.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/lawoffice_zpsdeaacf9a.jpg.html)

In November, the wife and I went to Charleston and Savannah for vacation. While in Savannah, we came upon Forsythe Park which is about 30 acres and 175 years older, so there are a lot more mature trees, but at minimum, the surrounding areas of Forsythe Park is what I would like our C2S park to looks like. There are several one story office buildings fronting the park, but they are set back no more than five feet from the sidewalk which buts up against the street. There are parking lots that front the street in front of the park, but there are three or four story buildings on either side of them or parking behind them, the next street over. Also, there is a mile of walking/jogging trails around the outside of the park between the mature trees and the interior of the park.

There absolutely is public space fronting this on all sides. The streets and the river.

In an effort to create a nice view from a desk, the public gets a view of a parking lot, and the view of the back of their building with no relation to the river. Excellent trade off.

The people in the offices get the benefit, while the people trying to enjoy public space get an unsightly view from all sides. Seems like a good trade off.

I assume you are being sarcastic. That said, do you believe that the owner should NOT have the right to benefit themselves within any constraint provided by rules, regulations and laws? Should private investment be first for the investor or for the public?

Secondly, if the public also is enjoying the river and river trails, does that public also have a right to have a view of the building or must they view the parking lot from the riverside?

If the street side of the lot is appropriately developed and landscaped, does that mitigate the damage done by the placement of the parking lot there? Is the only answer structured parking with street level retail interaction?

This development is perfectly legal and within the current standards required in the Core2Shore area. I don't fault the developer or the architect for this. What this shows us though is that the zoning needs to be modified to require urban development in that area. Developers around here usually won't do it on their own unless they are forced to.

I'm not a fan of private ownership of parkfront land anyhow so if they put me charge for a day I would build a road connecting S. Harney Parkway to S Lee (on the west side if this lot). I would then find out where that creek goes and daylight it. Then I would put a bike path along it and connect it to the existing one along the river.

This development is perfectly legal and within the current standards required in the Core2Shore area. I don't fault the developer or the architect for this. What this shows us though is that the zoning needs to be modified to require urban development in that area. Developers around here usually won't do it on their own unless they are forced to.

No it wasn't. They had to get a variance to do what they did.

nm

Damn.... I really this building and think it would be great for the area but the site plan is not good. This is stupid. Like Catch22 said, this shouldn't of even been considered until they redid the site plan to have no setback. This building would've been awesome on a corner.

I assume you are being sarcastic. That said, do you believe that the owner should NOT have the right to benefit themselves within any constraint provided by rules, regulations and laws? Should private investment be first for the investor or for the public?

Secondly, if the public also is enjoying the river and river trails, does that public also have a right to have a view of the building or must they view the parking lot from the riverside?

If the street side of the lot is appropriately developed and landscaped, does that mitigate the damage done by the placement of the parking lot there? Is the only answer structured parking with street level retail interaction?

No I am not being sarcastic. This development was not within the regulations and design standards of the area. They issued a variance for this project. Meaning: they changed the law to allow it.

Private investment (especially in areas with significant public investment for the public good) should have the private and public interest in balance. Not favored to one or the other.

You should have enough pride in your work to be of private and public benefit. We the public now get to view their cars in their parking lot, while they get to enjoy the view of the river.

I don't think we need to be so desperate for development here to allow variances.

This is a joke, and it's not even a funny one. Core to Shore was supposed to be OKC's major urban district. Allowing this land usage shows that when it comes to urban planning, we are at best a Big League Suburb.

"Don't Edmond my downtown... unless you apply for a variance." -_-

This is a joke, and it's not even a funny one. Core to Shore was supposed to be OKC's major urban district. Allowing this land usage shows that when it comes to urban planning, we are at best a Big League Suburb.

"Don't Edmond my downtown... unless you apply for a variance." -_-

I've said on here for a long time I didn't think Core2Shore would end up being what the original vision was. There are possibilities though that are urban, special, and totally realistic in a city like OKC. Look at Mud Island/Harbor Town in Memphis as an example.

Something like this building I could understand being given a variance for in the late 1990s when OKC was desperate to get any investment downtown no matter what it was. You guys saw this with developments like the new federal building, which is terrible by urban standards. Considering when it was built, it was understandable why it was built the way it was. You guys saw this with lower Bricktown, which is an absolute travesty compared to what could have been. In the early-mid 2000s though, the mindset was any development is better than none at all. Today, I think OKC has grown beyond the need to take what it can get, and continuing to do so will ensure this city will never realize its full potential. Now is the time to make sure what is done going forward is done right and that the mistakes of Lower Bricktown and other early developments are not repeated.

This development is perfectly legal and within the current standards required in the Core2Shore area. I don't fault the developer or the architect for this. What this shows us though is that the zoning needs to be modified to require urban development in that area. Developers around here usually won't do it on their own unless they are forced to.

What about the higher standards of Charlotte?

The reason that this had happened is because nobody said anything and it was passed in a vaccuum. Has the riverfront design review committee ever approved a development before?? Why even have people who meet to discuss design review if they don't do anything?

Steve Lackmeyer is too busy commenting on state politics and dismissing his readers with concerns about this project, and this forum is too busy obsessing over Dallas and Charlotte.

And so we get another OIPA in C2S that will set the bar nice and low. Click to the next page to read more about the mystery towers!

...
Private investment (especially in areas with significant public investment for the public good) should have the private and public interest in balance. Not favored to one or the other.

You should have enough pride in your work to be of private and public benefit. We the public now get to view their cars in their parking lot, while they get to enjoy the view of the river.

Where's the balance being advocated here? I'd dare say My lack of opposition to this design is more balanced than the gnashing of teeth and how dare this be approved crowd's position. Even JTF's MS paint y novice is focused almost solely on ho the building interacts with Walker. Hang the existing park lands and river use to the south, and in his design, to the west as well. Only those who may drive by at 30 mph or walk along Walker deserve any consideration at all. Only contributing to some form of street canyon, however lacking in depth, and without accessible components to the public counts as urban apparently to some folk. And private preference? Oh, no, only how it appears in the minds to some matters, and private considerations are less than secondary.

Balderdash folks. The building, and the legal to seek, and to grant, variance, takes into account existing park lands, and the river, and attempts to minimize the amount of parking it includes. Truthfully, I wish the far north 15-20 feet of the property was ceded to the city and turned into a path way to the existing park lands. But it is not my property to make that call.

If you want to talk about balance and what's right, you might be more convincing if you were not completely dismissive of how someone wants to use their property, especially when it takes into account the views the folks using existing park lands will have, of a not ugly building rather than a bunch of parking. In the approved design, the parking will be landscaped along the edges, and from the north, east and south east, will primarily be viewed by folks in whatever structures are ultimately placed on the east side of Walker when that land begins to be developed.

JTF, not picking on you per se, but you're the one who drew up a parking lot facing existing park lands and called it better. I simply disagree that's a better approach to this lot given where it sits.

I do not know the owners, or anyone in the firm to the best of my recall. But dang it, I like what they have decided to do with their project, and I am not unhappy their variance was approved.
I think their project does appropriately balance their needs and the needs of the public in the surrounding area. Unless they are to have no parking, silly given their practice area, I like their choice for location of parking to sticking it facing existing park lands.

I emailed Scottye Montgomery at the Planning Department and was told that they still need to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. To get dates and times of those hearings, you can call Kathe Casula, Clerk of the Board of Appeals, at 297-2519. I'll try and post them if I find out when they are.

If you want to talk about balance and what's right, you might be more convincing if you were not completely dismissive of how someone wants to use their property, especially when it takes into account the views the folks using existing park lands will have, of a not ugly building rather than a bunch of parking. In the approved design, the parking will be landscaped along the edges, and from the north, east and south east, will primarily be viewed by folks in whatever structures are ultimately placed on the east side of Walker when that land begins to be developed.

This is in a district that requires 100% of the property be set back more than 30 feet from the street. The variance reduced that by TWO THIRDS! There is absolutely no balancing act at work here. And, given that the entire reason this company wants to be there in the first place is because of PUBLIC investment, I don't see why the city has to bend over for the first developer that wants to "use their propertry" in a completly different way than was intended for the area when the city decided to sink all of these resources into it.


JTF, not picking on you per se, but you're the one who drew up a parking lot facing existing park lands and called it better. I simply disagree that's a better approach to this lot given where it sits.

Of course it's better. The approved plan has BOTH deep setbacks AND parking facing the park land. JTF's at least complies with the guidelines and his was a 2 min shaded drawing. There are probably a dozen ways to make it work. The city didn't even ask them to try.


... Unless they are to have no parking, silly given their practice area, I like their choice for location of parking to sticking it facing existing park lands.

Yes, it is totally silly. It's silly that they even considered the area given their needs and the guidelines in place. But, what do they care, OKC doesn't care either. The silliest part of it all is that it could go almost anywhere else in the city and they'd actually be REQUIRED to build it like this. But no, they got to do it in this tiny little carve out of the city that was trying to be different and not have deep setbacks.

The BOA is not the board to send this back to be reworked. This has been a process failure already and the only thing that can change this is if the law firm changes their mind and does want to be closer to Walker after all. Chances are they didn't even expect this to sail through.

Cities around the world are able to do this every day.

So easy a novice using MSPaint can figure it out in 5 minutes.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/lawoffice_zpsdeaacf9a.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/lawoffice_zpsdeaacf9a.jpg.html)

It's really that easy.

The BOA is not the board to send this back to be reworked. This has been a process failure already and the only thing that can change this is if the law firm changes their mind and does want to be closer to Walker after all. Chances are they didn't even expect this to sail through.

Good point. The variance is so extreme that it could be likely that they overreached thinking they could force a compromise to get their way. They probably had to hold back the giggles when they heard the decision.

As for the BOA, that's just what I was told.

While I may not agree with several posters, I do get the point. Then again, so did one of my favorite singers from back in the day.
Big Yellow Taxi - Joni Mitchell - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94bdMSCdw20&list=RDcRjQCvfcXn0)

The nicest thing about having older brothers was it introduced me to lots of musicians before friends my own age, often the eldest children in their homes, had a clue who they were.

Just a shot in the dark here, but is it possible such an extreme variance was given because interest in new development in this area isn't as strong as hoped? Feel free to fire away

Just a shot in the dark here, but is it possible such an extreme variance was given because interest in new development in this area isn't as strong as hoped? Feel free to fire away

That's a wild shot in the dark. Hard to make that argument because development is happening even in spite of the public investments caught in limbo right now that should be holding things back. The CC project just migrates to whatever is currently considered the most prime development site, OCURA has exercised eminent domain for economic development surrounding the park, and nobody knows how the "boulevard" is going to turn out which is pretty major.

Essentially you have the public sector doing everything possible to bungle C2S.

That's a wild shot in the dark. Hard to make that argument because development is happening even in spite of the public investments caught in limbo right now that should be holding things back. The CC project just migrates to whatever is currently considered the most prime development site, OCURA has exercised eminent domain for economic development surrounding the park, and nobody knows how the "boulevard" is going to turn out which is pretty major.

Essentially you have the public sector doing everything possible to bungle C2S.

Well, all shots in the dark are wild. Was just thinking maybe some are getting nervous that demand for the property down there isn't going to be what they thought, so they got an itchy trigger finger. Not saying I'm right. You make good points about stuff still happening despite those factors you mentioned being in limbo.

Just a shot in the dark here, but is it possible such an extreme variance was given because interest in new development in this area isn't as strong as hoped? Feel free to fire away

That's not a shot in the dark. Core 2 Shore was envisioned before the mass redevelopment of the neighborhoods north of the CBD had even begun. Much of the niche that was originally going to be fulfilled by C2S is now filled by Deep Deuce and other districts like Midtown and Uptown are still a few years away from critical mass but are approaching it fast. I believe the kind of mid-rise and high-rise residential originally envisioned for C2S is a longshot for OKC at this stage of the game. However, I don't believe the city has to stoop as low as issuing a variance for an extremely suburban office building in order to get development there. The bar is just going to have to be set a little lower than the original vision. I don't get why the city doesn't think outside the box on this. There are options for a district that is unique, urban, special, and totally doable in OKC that don't seem to be on the table.

That's not a shot in the dark. Core 2 Shore was envisioned before the mass redevelopment of the neighborhoods north of the CBD had even begun. Much of the niche that was originally going to be fulfilled by C2S is now filled by Deep Deuce and other districts like Midtown and Uptown are still a few years away from critical mass but are approaching it fast. I believe the kind of mid-rise and high-rise residential originally envisioned for C2S is a longshot for OKC at this stage of the game. However, I don't believe the city has to stoop as low as issuing a variance for an extremely suburban office building in order to get development there. The bar is just going to have to be set a little lower than the original vision. I don't get why the city doesn't think outside the box on this. There are options for a district that is unique, urban, special, and totally doable in OKC that don't seem to be on the table.

Sometimes you are so far off that I don't know where to begin.

I was at all of the meetings between 2006-2008 where schematics for C2S were unveiled. Anthony McDermid led that process, after he had personally developed the CAV. It was also through those meetings that Hargreaves got their foot in the door. All of these people and plans and processes didn't just come out of nowhere.

There was so much more proposed development before 2008 than you realize, and even more than most locals remember. The main reason it's seared in my memory is because I was operating the old Okmetropolis.org board at that time before Pete revolutionized OKC development with his stewardship of OKC Talk. Tracking all of that development back then was much like it is today some weeks, except most of it amounted to nothing like the Cotton Exchange or Candy Factory or The Flatiron or countless other amazing proposals.

I don't know if it's hilarious or insulting that you have no basis and still act like you know what constitutes a long shot for OKC. I remember arguing with people who said the NBA, a streetcar, a River, a booming downtown, and a new tower were all long shots. I'll take my chances again.

Today's OKC is a very different city than it was in 2006-08. In 2006, downtown OKC was pretty much Bricktown. Deep Deuce was in its very early stages. The Legacy at Arts Quarter was the crown jewel of downtown living. Lower Bricktown was still being built and abhorrent development approved because at least it was something downtown. There was no Devon tower. Uptown and Midtown were both still very sketchy. Was there even a Plaza back then? I agree there was so much exciting proposals in that timeframe that unfortunately due to the economy never got off the ground. The core was at a crossroads though at that time and it has since went a different direction than the one that was assumed when the original C2S idea was dreamed up.

I have to plead ignorance to pre-late 2008 bust OKC. I didn't move here till 1/09.

Today's OKC is a very different city than it was in 2006-08. In 2006, downtown OKC was pretty much Bricktown. Deep Deuce was in its very early stages. The Legacy at Arts Quarter was the crown jewel of downtown living. Lower Bricktown was still being built and abhorrent development approved because at least it was something downtown. There was no Devon tower. Uptown and Midtown were both still very sketchy. Was there even a Plaza back then? I agree there was so much exciting proposals in that timeframe that unfortunately due to the economy never got off the ground. The core was at a crossroads though at that time and it has since went a different direction than the one that was assumed when the original C2S idea was dreamed up.

Just stop. At least until the game is over.

I loosely followed it back then so I am not completely ignorant of it. I don't know all the details like Spartan. I do know the core back then was nothing compared to what it is today and what we have today was largely done by the private sector.

Just stop. At least until the game is over.

I know bchris isn't everyone's favorite poster, but you're best for this site when you're sharing your vast knowledge and not being an ass.

I loosely followed it back then so I am not completely ignorant of it. I don't know all the details like Spartan. I do know the core back then was nothing compared to what it is today and what we have today was largely done by the private sector.

Again I would not say that it was nothing compared to what it is today from 2006-2008. We had a lot of momentum, went from one of two nba teams potentially moving here to what became the thunder, most of the maps 1 projects were completed, maps 3 and nba maps were passed, the Devon tower was announced in 2008, Bricktown was already established and had several projects slated and things were being kicked off in midtown, film row, and the plaza, and residential had been established in deep deuce. Though OKC wasn't especially hard hit, the recession hurt a lot of the development slated for downtown and the surrounding area at the end of 2008. We've come a long way since then but the momentum was there and the development was ongoing at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know bchris isn't everyone's favorite poster, but you're best for this site when you're sharing your vast knowledge and not being an ass.

Bingo. Spartan, you have a ton of knowledge and wisdom to share, but instead of sharing it with any kind of respect or decency, you constantly express your opinions with a tone of condescension and disrespect towards fellow posters. I want to learn from you. A lot of us do. But, you undermine your development/urbanism goals by your means of expression... More importantly, do you want to be THAT kind of person? Because, in the end, the way you treat people while you're on this earth is a heck of a lot more important than what ya know.

My apologies everyone, I just get cranky when he uses his half baked ideas to support an argument as to why we don't need fork based guidelines that reinforce revitalization and walkability, etc.

Pictures still don't do it justice. It dominates the immediate neighborhood. In a good way.

You are right about that. It also goes within a few feet of each of the buildings on either side of it which I find to be particularly interesting. I hope the rest of Midtown turns out to be so dense.
I'm not trying to rekindle an argument, but these two quotes come out of the Fassler Hall / Dust Bowl thread.
I sure would like to see remarks like this in the future about these law offices, but the setback and orientation makes it so that people will look at it (probably through their car windows) and say, "Hmmm. A building."

That's the heart of the issue.

It's a nice building. But, we need to build for the future -- not for the present. The problem with allowing this siteplan is that we are literally removing potential development opportunities from the future vision of the area.

With a better site plan, this building could become an anchor for Core to shore. Someone might try and build a small office building (like Jeepnokc's) on the opposite corner, and a small weave of urban fabric begins to grow. Someone else might build something across the street -- now we have 3 corners defining the intersection, all the sudden you have a neighborhood focal point.

We are restricting that with this site plan. Instead of a building defining the corner, we have a parking lot. And the building is not even defining the river. They have a landscaped and closed in grassy area between the river trails and their building. The public gets the short end of the stick on all sides of this building. This site plan represents the lack of backbone on some of our committees and the lack of vision of (some) people who are investing in our city.

My apologies everyone, I just get cranky when he uses his half baked ideas to support an argument as to why we don't need fork based guidelines that reinforce revitalization and walkability, etc.

Using an supposed apology to attack him and his "half baked ideas...." doesn't really rehab your image. LOL There are a lot of half baked ideas on this board...mine probably foremost in some (if not many's) mind. You have great ideas and vast knowledge. Just counter our half baked ideas with your will reasoned, educated, and, usually, fully baked ideas.

This site plan represents the lack of backbone on some of our committees and the lack of vision of (some) people who are investing in our city.

I know some of the lawyers of this firm. They are very good lawyers, but not planners, architects, developers or necessarily "urbanists", though they have been loyal to downtown for awhile, which is more than many. It is their architects who should be the visionaries, not a bunch of lawyers. It is their architects who should be called to answer and should be educated as to why this is bad. I doubt the lawyers told them how to put this on the site. The architects took the lazy and unimaginative way out. If the lawyers wanted good views, it should be possible AND still be a good urban development. Most disappointing is the fact that one of them is someone most would say is a solid urbanist.

Using an supposed apology to attack him and his "half baked ideas...." doesn't really rehab your image. LOL There are a lot of half baked ideas on this board...mine probably foremost in some (if not many's) mind. You have great ideas and vast knowledge. Just counter our half baked ideas with your will reasoned, educated, and, usually, fully baked ideas.

His ideas expressed in this thread are lacking of merit, and cast a serious shadow on his perspective to lambaste OKC's urban amenities on a routine basis.

Your half baked ideas are much less annoying, and hopefully mine as well.

Is it too late to reason with these people? This is a poor start for Core to Shore.

C2S was always a joke anyway.

ODOT was sure taking it seriously at the boulevard meeting. Had the consultant cite C2S to me several times as canon, which surprised me.

What did they cite from?

His ideas expressed in this thread are lacking of merit, and cast a serious shadow on his perspective to lambaste OKC's urban amenities on a routine basis.

Your half baked ideas are much less annoying, and hopefully mine as well.

I don't see what is so detestable about my ideas regarding this project. I am pretty much in agreement with everyone else here this is a very poor start to Core2Shore and goes completely against what the initial vision was.

What did they cite from?

They just kept repeating that C2S was a "city approved plan" and I kept asking for proof (because I didn't think it was still valid), but I'm not strong enough in this background to have adequately defended my position. I wish the city council would just put up a resolution for vote that said authoritatively whether the C2S planning documents were still valid or were OBE.

That's not a shot in the dark. Core 2 Shore was envisioned before the mass redevelopment of the neighborhoods north of the CBD had even begun. Much of the niche that was originally going to be fulfilled by C2S is now filled by Deep Deuce and other districts like Midtown and Uptown are still a few years away from critical mass but are approaching it fast. I believe the kind of mid-rise and high-rise residential originally envisioned for C2S is a longshot for OKC at this stage of the game. However, I don't believe the city has to stoop as low as issuing a variance for an extremely suburban office building in order to get development there. The bar is just going to have to be set a little lower than the original vision. I don't get why the city doesn't think outside the box on this. There are options for a district that is unique, urban, special, and totally doable in OKC that don't seem to be on the table.

Deep Deuce had two waves. The 90s and early 2000s brought a lot of activity, and then around 2005, OCURA did an RFP for the triangle site between Stiles/Perry and 235. There were three proposals, and the two that rose to the top were The Hill and Elliott Park by TAP. One offered home ownership and the other offered a vibrant mixed-use area with higher density. OCURA granted Canfield the ability to eliminate a TIF request at the 11th hour without notifying Anthony McDermid and the rest is history.

The 2000s had a different set of players than right now. No Richard McKown or Gary Brooks back then, but McDermid and Grant Humphreys et al were all just as ambitious back then. 2008 happened, they dropped out, Somerset stopped building more Deep Deuce apts for whatever reason, and OCURA didn't let out too many RFP's for bidding during the recession.

This is all just to illustrate that the development book we see today is a MAPS response, not a MAPS 3 response. I also think the NBA helps more than we realize or could possibly quantify. Also, we should have rail transit already. We aren't as backwards as you think, we've just been held back by a few issues.

I've been eating at the Deep Deuce Bar and Grill for years and years. One of my fave places, and I think they've changed ownership, but I've seen it go from a slow business to a madhouse since Deep Deuce has gotten hot. I don't even try getting in before or after a Thunder game. There also used to be a small gourmet grocery store called "Sage Market" across the street where WSKY is now.

I hope this gives some good background on where OKC was and is now and how C2S fits into that, looking through the lens of our most successful district.

They just kept repeating that C2S was a "city approved plan" and I kept asking for proof (because I didn't think it was still valid), but I'm not strong enough in this background to have adequately defended my position. I wish the city council would just put up a resolution for vote that said authoritatively whether the C2S planning documents were still valid or were OBE.

How does ODOT think their plans work with C2S?

I honestly don't remember the logic fully, am too old and have slept to many times since then, but I think they were trying to make the argument that the boulevard was needed to get all those future residents out of the core and to their workplaces and I made the argument that they aren't factoring in the fact that many of those residents would be moving into the core from outside of it to be closer to their work in the CBD and so their traffic numbers shouldn't count...

Wow.

This design looks oddly similar to OCU's Meinders School of Business. http://www.d5arch.com/images/commercial/Meinders-2.jpg

Did this project ever go anywhere? I see back a few pages Steve's article that said it should have started construction last summer, but with the lack of any updates or pictures I'm assuming it didn't.

Hopefully it didn't. This layout was really bad.

Checking County Assessor records, it looks like GPHG still owns the property. However, the only permits I can find with the city are the demolition permits from 2008 when the lot was cleared.

Looks like this project is probably dead. For sale sign up on the property when I drove by at lunchtime.

Looks like this project is likely dead. For sale sign up on the property when I drove by at lunchtime.

Good news. This was a bad project and sets a terrible precedent for Core 2 Shore, an area where urban standards should be aggressively enforced.