Pete, I believe that Fairfield's are 100% franchise. Does this mean that they are actually buying a Fairfield franchise with Marriott? Great location, looks like a solid company, it's an interesting choice to go with Fairfield. I would love to hear why they made that choice. The room count continues to head upwards downtown. What a turnaround in such a short time!

As recently as 1998, we had ONE downtown hotel.

This would make 22 and there are more coming.

You mean for the Canopy?

No, no design has been revealed and now they even have another group competing for the Canopy flag on the Bodyworks site.

So, I have no idea where that project stands right now.

I'm sorry Pete, I was referring to this new Fairfield. Will it be an all brick structure to keep consistent with some of the other brick buildings in the area?

A beautiful 5-story brick building that is lit up at night would be a great start to this area. While I worked in the hotel industry downtown, we always talked about this area potentially being a great hotel district.

It is close to Bricktown and has great highway access, along with access to the future boulevard and proximity to the Chesapeake Arena and river. It's also filled with a ton of old metal warehouses that no one will miss or be upset about if they are all torn down to make way for a string of hotels that are 5-10 stories in height, perhaps even a couple of restaurants.

I haven't seen any designs for this hotel yet, so I don't know about the style or materials.

I like that Residence Inn in Tulsa, so that give me hope.

If they decide to put the CC right next to this proposed hotel it appears to me like this developer has hit the jackpot. Good thing that they didn't sell this site. Also,I would be willing to make a small wager that the CC will be built in this area. It's really about the only viable option it appears. But will they move the sub station or build something around it?

Although the hotel plans were not in the packet they submitted to the DDRC in advance in today's meeting, the Oklahoman is reporting that they did show plans and has a rendering here:

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5402941&headline=Plans%20unveiled%20for%20first%20hotel%20 to%20be%20built%20in%20Oklahoma%20City%27s%20Core% 20to%20Shore&embargo=1

The meeting today was to get approval for demolition which was granted. They still have to formally submit plans for new structure for approval.

It's just a 5-story brick box built to the property lines on all sides and what looks like a stucco first level. Very simple but they did manage to squeeze in 110 rooms.

Sounds like they want to get started very soon.

I really hope someone from the city is having a conversation with him about his site for the CC. But the quicker he goes to get approval the more leverage it gives him over the city if that site is chosen.

^

Right.

Very recently he had that property listed for sale.

Then suddenly, the signs come down and he applies for a demo permit and quickly produces plans for the largest hotel he could possibly place on that site. Keep in mind, there is no place for hotel guests to park. I suppose that only matters if he actually builds a hotel.

Also, I called him several times and he never returned my calls. Now all the sudden he's splashing out renderings when we still haven't seen anything on the Canopy Hotel that was announced months ago.

If the City does try to buy his land, he can now claim lost revenue in addition to the value of the land.

They really shot for the bare minimum here,didn't they?

I think he shot for the bare minimum on purpose though. It was simply a demolition permit which if everyone remembers the first rendering for OGE building, it was just to get the permit and awful. But here he has to be playing a bigger game. He has seen the scrutiny the other downtown hotels have seen recently so he has to know it will take more. I've also been curious to see if we see a new Core 2 shore design committee put together to really make sure the district has a distinct(and consistent) identity. Now would be the time to get it started instead of waiting to late and having bare minimum projects slip in.

I thought having buildings pushed out to the sidewalks and no parking was what everyone has been clamoring about on the site. The new Staybridge Inn doesn't have parking either.

Plans unveiled for first hotel to be built in Oklahoma City's Core to Shore | News OK (http://newsok.com/plans-unveiled-for-first-hotel-to-be-built-in-oklahoma-citys-core-to-shore/article/5402941)

I thought having buildings pushed out to the sidewalks and no parking was what everyone has been clamoring about on the site. The new Staybridge Inn doesn't have parking either.

All I meant by my comment about the lack of parking on site is there isn't anything other than street parking in that area and given the nature of that neighborhood, I wouldn't think that would be an acceptable strategy for a 110 room hotel.

With SpringHill, the developers actually own the lot to the east and there are also several surface lots they could contract with (as did the Holiday Inn Express) and the Power Alley garage that other hotels like the Hampton and Homewood Suites use.

If this Fairfield Inn was built in the next few months in Core to Shore, I simply don't know where people would park other than some streets in very bad condition in front of mainly abandoned buildings. I'm trying to imagine people walking to and from their car and I just can't see it. Even with valet, where would they put the cars that was even remotely safe?

Since no one has brought up the International Harvester Building yet, how does this affect that building and the possibility of the new convention center going in this area? I would hope efforts to save the building for reuse can start now and not at the eleventh hour like the film exchange building down the street and all the other buildings lost or about to be lost.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157634784488953/

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Photos/Photo%20Jul%2022%2C%203%2000%2029%20PM.jpg?_subjec t_uid=9322497&w=AAAdSGUIVoqiyB1_JLsVLqXvY-m5vnGTsB9tl8vj2kp0zQ

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

By the way, it's obvious this building would add a lot of character to the area if it was restored like the Rock Island Plow Building since it's pretty much the only structure of its kind in that whole area.

Not going to get too excited, probably just going to be another 4 story, stucco/brick hotel, with a lot of parking spaces, like all their other hotels.

Just like I stated back in June, blah...

^

Right.

Very recently he had that property listed for sale.

Then suddenly, the signs come down and he applies for a demo permit and quickly produces plans for the largest hotel he could possibly place on that site. Keep in mind, there is no place for hotel guests to park. I suppose that only matters if he actually builds a hotel.

Also, I called him several times and he never returned my calls. Now all the sudden he's splashing out renderings when we still haven't seen anything on the Canopy Hotel that was announced months ago.

If the City does try to buy his land, he can now claim lost revenue in addition to the value of the land.



I agree, this timing is actually comical. I guess you could say he is smart, though.

I actually like the design. I know there are concerns as to how feasible that design on that site may be, but I like the picture.

"Welcome to Fairfield Inn!"

"Thanks. Uh, where should I park my car?"

"Oh, just drop your bags and then find a spot on the street -- there's plenty!"




http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfieldstreet1.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfieldstreet2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfieldstreet3.jpg

At what point do we get enough hotels--or maybe too many?

At what point do we get enough hotels--or maybe too many?

By the park and by the new CC. This will be a huge success.

A parking garage will probably get built sometime in the future in that area. But clearly it is not there now.

^

Right.

Very recently he had that property listed for sale.

Then suddenly, the signs come down and he applies for a demo permit and quickly produces plans for the largest hotel he could possibly place on that site. Keep in mind, there is no place for hotel guests to park. I suppose that only matters if he actually builds a hotel.

Also, I called him several times and he never returned my calls. Now all the sudden he's splashing out renderings when we still haven't seen anything on the Canopy Hotel that was announced months ago.

If the City does try to buy his land, he can now claim lost revenue in addition to the value of the land.

Bingo. The plans also look like the Staybridge. This was obviously just slapped together for some negotiating leverage and never intended to actually get built. His underwriters would want to see parking. Our design review also would supposedly not approve this jumbled mess...but who knows on that front.

By the park and by the new CC. This will be a huge success.
Oh, was the site decision announced and I just missed it?

From what I have seen so far I like the proposed hotel. Some things could be better, and I am sure they will be in the final product. As for parking. I would have zero concern parking there. Downtown Memphis is orders of magnitude scarrier to park a car in than along streets with a clear view from almost everywhere.

Oh, was the site decision announced and I just missed it?

Of course not. But it is the odds on favorite.

It is?

It is?

Just my opinion. I don't have a vote on it or a seat on the committee.

OKCTalk - First hotel in Core to Shore area reveals design plans (http://www.okctalk.com/content/144-first-hotel-core-shore-area-reveals.html)

The design calls for 42 on-site spaces, plus they plan valet parking as well.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515e.jpg

Demolition of the building at this corner began early this morning.

Design is so generic... I was hoping everything that got built in the C2S area would have a more modern feel.

All these 5-story 100-120 room hotels in the downtown area... And they all look so similar.

No plans for floors 2-4? I realize they are likely just cookie cutter of each other, but would still be nice to see one of the cookies. If the cookies are going to be baked that is.

Here you go:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfield041515f.jpg

The design is unimpressive and a waste for what Core to Shore could represent. Get ready for the design standards of Lower Bricktown to extend to Core to Shore.

I'm not sure how fully brick and cast stone is mimicking LB. Sure it's a little generic, but it will still be a nice looking hotel that will not be an embarrassment.

I like it. It gets a JTF rating of 5 out of 5 on what I can see so far. I do wonder why in a state with 3 or 4 months of swiming weather why outdoor pools are built though. With that kind of investment I would enclose it and get year-round use out of it.

Appreciate that Pete. Was curious to how the rooms were allotted.

It's got more brick than several of the UPPER Bricktown hotels…

I agree that I would like to see modern architecture in the area…but that doesn't mean every building needs to be as such. Also consider that this will be next door to a large Brick building that, unless the CC ends up on this site, will likely be renovated at some point in the future.

I like it too. It is brick and cast stone, no EIFS. It fits in well with the International Harvester building next door. This is good infill - it isn't going to be the center of attention or be a district defining building, but it is quality development and looks very nice. If most of Core 2 Shore looks like this I'll be very happy.

I don't think its so bad.. it could certainly be worse.. its a fairfield in I didn't expect much different that this.

Not that it matters, but I can't see a problem with it at all.

What are the design standards for this area? Is it a copy of Bricktown, or do they plan to go with something else? At least do brown brick instead of the red brick of Bricktown.

I like it too. It is brick and cast stone, no EIFS. It fits in well with the International Harvester building next door. This is good infill - it isn't going to be the center of attention or be a district defining building, but it is quality development and looks very nice. If most of Core 2 Shore looks like this I'll be very happy.

Is that corner not EIFS?

All these 5-story 100-120 room hotels in the downtown area... And they all look so similar.

They are relatively cheap to build the way they do it. Low architectural fees, basic stick construction, and cheap mechanical systems. They are modern day motels. But everyone on here seems to like them if they are just close to the street. Go figure.

Brick is a native building material and should be used extensivley on every structure in the city. It is funny that the people who reject vernacular architecture as fake, often times opt for an even more fake style (i.e. modern with glass curtain walls and steel).

Is that corner not EIFS?

I think it says cast stone.

Is that corner not EIFS?

I saved the picture and then tried to enlarge it. It's incredibly hard to read, but I think it said something about metal panels. Can't be positive though.

They are relatively cheap to build the way they do it. Low architectural fees, basic stick construction, and cheap mechanical systems. They are modern day motels. But everyone on here seems to like them if they are just close to the street. Go figure.

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

Wait wait wait. Am I the only one that remembers when we all agreed to be happy with things that were "better than crappy"?

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

I have by doubts about Core 2 Shore and whether it really will see true urban and quality development. So far that is not the precedent being set. Core 2 Shore developments should be required to not only adhere to urban principles in terms of street frontage, but also have a specific level of street interaction. For instance, this development would be nice if the first floor had retail or bars/restaurants. Architecturally it is nothing special but it isn't that bad. One only has to go a few blocks east to Lower Bricktown to see much worse.

Really? If one more 5 story brick/stucco hotel gets built in downtown, I am going to throw up!

How many 5 story brick hotels are downtown now? Heck, this one isn't even downtown.

I think people are greatly underestimating how important uniformity is to placemaking.

How many 5 story brick hotels are downtown now? Heck, this one isn't even downtown.

I think people are greatly underestimating how important uniformity is to placemaking.

Yep. Street presence > materials.

This is a good looking hotel, and I agree its really creating a sense of place. I don't get the hate in the least bit.

Yep. Street presence > materials.

Side bar - I was watching a program a while back how the people of London are getting angry over a lot of the new glass towers and modernist buildings because they are screwing up their city and history. I am reading a book now called The Impulse Society which echos the exact same thing, but to society in general. It turns out individualism and deviation from norms (be they social or architectural) isn't sustainable. In the end you have nothing worth caring about.

Anyhow, just thought that was an intersting connection to vernacular architecture.

How many 5 story brick hotels are downtown now? Heck, this one isn't even downtown.

I think people are greatly underestimating how important uniformity is to placemaking.

That is good, because this is uniformly cheap construction. Building motels would be uniform too. We worry so much about cosmetic that we give a big pass on real sustainability and livability beyond the next 10-15 years.

I am not much on demanding everything be avante garde and or be a 75 floor skyscraper, but these cookie cutter low or no service hotels are starting to define our city like motels did along the highways. Slapping a little brick facade on them doesn't change what they are. Budget priced multi-floor motels. (By the way, it isn't me defining these kinds of hotels as "modern motels". A high ranking exec at Hilton told me that as far as he was concerned that these were just motels).

If this hotel, or any other, wants to build with concrete, not use thru the wall AC units, etc... I would be fine with that.

Core to Shore falls with the purview of the Downtown Design Review Committee.

Core to Shore falls with the purview of the Downtown Design Review Committee.

Well we have already seen what that group will approve.