development
|category1=office buildings
|category2=River
|category3=
|category4=
|
|project=
|address= 1501 S. Walker
|status= Proposed
|owner= Black Pearl LLC
|cost=
|architect= Krittenbrink Architecture (http://www.krittenbrinkarchitecture.com/)
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height= 3 floors
|sq. feet=
|acreage= 1 acre
|other=
|
|image=http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/gphpwiki1.jpg
|

Information & Latest News
This would be the first new construction in the Core 2 Shore area.

Goolsby, Proctor, Heefner & Gibbs firm is currently located at 701 N. Broadway.
Links
Firm Website (http://www.gphglaw.com/index.html)
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R100289100)
Gallery

Really nice office building in design approval process.

The properties to the south and west are owned by the City, so this building will be as close to the river as commercial development can get at this point; at least until the City rezones other properties.

Note that the top level has large outdoor patios which will have nice views of the river and the skyline to the north.

There will also be a large, open lobby with a grand staircase.

This will be a great start

This will be a great start. Super skyline and river views.

Well, I'll beat the new urbanism contingent to it: I can't believe that in what is supposed to be great new urban development that the first proposal has that awful setback with parking lining the street.

Abso-freaking-lutely no way that should be approved.

Very likely that it is though.

My God, it's like a small portion of PC North plopped down in the middle of the core.

There couldn't be a worse site plan.

This is an absolutely terrifying precedent if this is approved.

They have filed an application with the Board of Adjustment:


The applicant is proposing to construct a new office building on the subject site and is requesting a variance to the front yard setback of the Scenic River Overlay Design District. The SRODD (Western Gateway District) requires 100 percent of the front façade to be located within 30 feet of the street right-of-way. Only a portion of the proposed building (28 percent) would be located within 30 foot of the right-of-way.

Yeah this setback is not appropriate for what we were sold on with C2S.

Design standards have to be applied universally. We scrutinized jeepnokc's project - it is not fair to him to not scrutinize this project in a similar setting and scenario. The project looks great, just move the parking around and you've got a simple fix.

You can enjoy the river views and still front the street.

This is a very, very prime parcel for the development of C2S. Important to get right.

I don't mind the look of the building but I wish they would move the whole thing to the northern part of the property and have all the parking west and south.

Nope. We are done with parking lot lined streets. Why do developers keep proposing this garbage? The building looks nice, but the layout is a joke. What is so difficult about putting parking lots behind street facing buildings?

Nope. We are done with parking lot lined streets. Why do developers keep proposing this garbage? The building looks nice, but the layout is a joke. What is so difficult about putting parking lots behind street facing buildings?

Nothing. But if they did that here, the offices lining the back of the building would look at parked cars, rather than the protected river view they bought. If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?

Structured parking should be included in the redevelopment of the area.

So you are saying they would rather walk a few blocks through old Riveraide than have parking in their riverfront view?

Why don't they do a row of angled parking spots in the front along the street and then have a smaller lot in the back?

Nothing. But if they did that here, the offices lining the back of the building would look at parked cars, rather than the protected river view they bought. If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?

Structured parking should be included in the redevelopment of the area.



This is a minature version of the Dell complex a few miles west.

The thing the stupefies me about this is not that they submitted a "suburban" design, but that they are so pumped on their suburban design that they asked for a variance. I understand building bad urbanism because you don't know better, but insisting upon building bad urbanism in spite of clearly-defined design requirements is another deal altogether. Why?

... If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?
...

While I get your point, isn't this subject property separated a fair bit from the actual park. Not sure it would be visible to anyone who is physically present in the park. Not saying it is the best design for that chunk of space, but relating it directly to the park doesn't seem a real strong argument to me.

Absolutely not. No.

While I get your point, isn't this subject property separated a fair bit from the actual park. Not sure it would be visible to anyone who is physically present in the park. Not saying it is the best design for that chunk of space, but relating it directly to the park doesn't seem a real strong argument to me.

This site should relate to Walker. Walker is important and more visible than this "park."

I get that Spartan. That wasn't the point to which I responded. The post I responded to was how the parking lot would be unattractive to folks in the new C2S park. As it is a couple of( also to be developed by others) blocks away from that park, I do not see that as being a valid argument.

As for this specific wedge, I can actually see an argument for placing their parking to the north. It is better for sight lines from the public spaces, including the river, on their southern exposure, as well as more beneficial for the occupants sight lines. My main dislike is that it seems to be a lot of parking for the size.

If this project was a few blocks north, I would have more issue with how they are doing their parking. Being down at the end of Walker, abutting the river and river frontage, and a fair piece away from the C2S park property, I'm a bit more accepting of it.

It's a **** ton of parking for a bldg this size. Just from skimming it's 60-65 spaces.

This will also be setting precedent.

...

This will also be setting precedent.

It definitely could.

Then again, don't ugly up the river front with a sea of parking like they did with the canal isn't the worst precedent in the world.

Well, I'll beat the new urbanism contingent to it: I can't believe that in what is supposed to be great new urban development that the first proposal has that awful setback with parking lining the street.

Thank you. It just goes to show you don't have to be a new urbanist to see how bad this is.

Here is Steve's article.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/4568339?embargo=1


A law firm housed along Automobile Alley is looking to start construction this summer on a three-story office building that will represent the first significant private investment in the area known as Core to Shore.

It definitely could.

Then again, don't ugly up the river front with a sea of parking like they did with the canal isn't the worst precedent in the world.

You make a valid point, but this river won't be as intimate an urban setting as the canal could or should be. Walker should be a very intimate, human scale setting that links downtown and Capitol Hill.

We are talking about streetcars, a Central Park, and both urban and natural vistas. Broadway Extn development is not acceptable here.

If they absolutely need to build a huge surface lot as proposed, they need to design the rest of their site plan to eventually foresee that lot being developed on as the area grows in density. They need to build their building so a future development on the lot will fit seemlessly.

There's no way this should be approved as proposed.

This project was approved today by the Riverfront Design Committee. The variance to the setback requirements was also approved by the Board of Adjustment. Both votes were unanimous. The representative at the Board of Adjustment meeting stated that construction would start in the fall with completion in 2015. He stated that they had not expected to be approved so quickly. Video of both meetings are available on the city's website.

Our city leadership has no spine.

This site plan should not even be a discussion, much less approved unanimously.

Oh well, another building my generation will have to work around or tear down in 20 years when it comes time to do this area the right way.

Ridiculous.

Wow.

Oh well, another building my generation will have to work around or tear down in 20 years when it comes time to do this area the right way.

Yep. Sadly, this is going set the standard for the area so at this point it is looking like the areas east of I-235 and south of I-40 will be all suburban style development. Once again we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Core to Shore is going to blow it for all other future civic visions. This has turned out to be a grievous money pit just to incentivize a new NWX and May.

Oh my…No bueno.

Actually…there probably will be a Taco Bueno, if this is how the area is going to develop...

oh come on there has got to be some way for us to fight this. We demand more out of our city! This is pathetic. This belongs in the lot next to Dell, not where we plan on having a vibrant community centered around a park!!

This project was approved today by the Riverfront Design Committee. The variance to the setback requirements was also approved by the Board of Adjustment. Both votes were unanimous. The representative at the Board of Adjustment meeting stated that construction would start in the fall with completion in 2015. He stated that they had not expected to be approved so quickly. Video of both meetings are available on the city's website.

Is there anyone on this Riverfront Design Committee that understands what we all "envision & expect" for the C2S? ... and why just 3 stories, we need a minimum of 4-5.

I don't think we need minimum floor counts.

is there anyone on this riverfront design committee that understands what we all "envision & expect" for the c2s? ... And why just 3 stories, we need a minimum of 4-5.

nm

It was designed by a member of the Bricktown Urban Design Committee...

Just sayin'.

It was designed by a member of the Bricktown Urban Design Committee...

Just sayin'.

The Law Offices or the Riverfront Committee?

The Law Offices or the Riverfront Committee?

The Law Offices.

The law offices were designed by Krittenbrink Architecture. Mark Krittenbrink is on the Bricktown Urban Design Committee.

Food for thought - the adopted plan for the southern area of Core to Shore.

7697

The law offices were designed by Krittenbrink Architecture. Mark Krittenbrink is on the Bricktown Urban Design Committee.

I really liked Mark when I was staff to BUDC. I thought he "got it" for the most part...

Yeah, agree that he seems like one of the most apt members of the committee. He has done some quality urban projects and he actually offices in a cool urban office on Campus Corner in Norman, and has for decades. He's no stranger to urban design. It's entirely possible that the layout was 100% client-driven.

Parking Lot Capital of the Western Hemisphere!

I don't think we need minimum floor counts.

Actually we do. Nothing in core to shore should be less than 3 stories. No height requirement but definitely a floor count requirement is in order.

Why even bother with requirements if they're going to be thrown out of the window at the first opportunity?

The thing the stupefies me about this is not that they submitted a "suburban" design, but that they are so pumped on their suburban design that they asked for a variance. I understand building bad urbanism because you don't know better, but insisting upon building bad urbanism in spite of clearly-defined design requirements is another deal altogether. Why?

Yes, it makes no sense. Why do they even want to be in the core when they clearly don't like what it's about. Oklahoma City just turned core to shore into yet another office park. This stuff shouldn't even come up anymore, let alone be approved.

Go for it:

https://www.okc.gov/planning/Riverfrontdesign/RiverfrontDesignCommittee.html

For questions on how these adopted changes may affect any work you may be contemplating to the exterior of your property, or for general question, please contact Scottye Montgomery at (405) 297-3538 or scottye.montgomery@okc.gov.

I don't think we need minimum floor counts.

so a single story is ok?

so a single story is ok?

If I had to chose, I would choose contiguous single story development fronting the street with sidewalks every time over spread out 5 story buildings with surface parking in an office park configuration.

For example, the office park on memorial is not more urban than the Plaza district just because its buildings are taller.

Often times the best urban neighborhoods are not ones full of tall structures and none of them have anything like this is going to be.

If I had to chose, I would choose contiguous single story development fronting the street with sidewalks every time over spread out 5 story buildings with surface parking in an office park configuration.

For example, the office park on memorial is not more urban than the Plaza district just because its buildings are taller.

Often times the best urban neighborhoods are not ones full of tall structures and none of them have anything like this is going to be.

I'm w/ you on the fronting the street w/ sidewalks. But, we should have both. Even if it is a 3 story minimum w/ and sidewalks w/ a clean front would be so much better. The 3 story designs would provide for both Mixed Residential & Commercial Applications to be inter-woven throughout the C2S fabric.

I'm w/ you on the fronting the street w/ sidewalks. But, we should have both. Even if it is a 3 story minimum w/ and sidewalks w/ a clean front would be so much better. The 3 story designs would provide for both Mixed Residential & Commercial Applications to be inter-woven throughout the C2S fabric.

I agree. But as it is now, it doesn't even look like we can enforce setbacks. I guess we can all talk about desired guidelines, but it doesn't seem to matter even when they are in place.

It's sad that Core 2 Shore is likely to become another Lower Bricktown or even worse a Galliardia Office Park. I am not anti-sprawl but the urban core should be urban and I don't understand why the city doesn't get that.

The first time I went to the South Waterfront in Portland, I thought to myself "I bet C2S will be like this". This is only one project, but it looks like I might've been a bit off base.

Sad thing is its not difficult to do this right. All that would need to be done is having the building fronting the street and the parking in the back. Why can't this city wrap its mind around any type of development that does not involve a sea of surface parking facing the street?

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

Yeah, I'm not faulting the owner/occupant on this.

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

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.

Yeah, I'm not faulting the owner/occupant on this.

I fault them, the architect, and the people who approved it. There is too much stupidity involved in this to lay it all one group. It takes a comedy of errors to end up here. Just like a plane crash, no one thing can bring it down; it takes a series of screw-ups.