Are there really people in here who don't think it will be successful, money-wise?

for this development to pull this national chain without any dirt moved is very impressive. Big things to come here I think.

for this development to pull this national chain without any dirt moved is very impressive. Big things to come here I think.

You mean big parking lot

Look some people from Edmond might go on the weekends. But it’s not gonna be the “it” place of Oklahoma City. Lower your expectations it’ll be like Cheesecake Factory or macaroni grill. It’s a franchise invading a neighborhood that has character where franchises don’t belong. Let’s throw up another franchise I haven’t been to TGIF or BWW in there. Apparently buffalo wings come without bones now., pappadeaux should’ve come to memorial 10 years ago. I would rather they not come to AA /uptown at all. I wish they’d passed on okc. We have our on thing going on we don’t need pappadeaux

We went to a Pappas BBQ, which is the same chain, in Houston earlier this year. It was okay and fairly good but it wasn't kick ass.

Mixed feelings. Super glad that Pappadeaux is finally moving forward on their plans to come to OKC, and barring some serious unforseen issue they're gonna print money. I know it's gonna go into my regular rotation too! But good god that site plan is depressing for that location, especially considering the more urban development that was originally proposed here. I really wish they had at least pushed the building to the street and hid the parking behind it instead of opting for suburban-style laziness like this.

We went to a Pappas BBQ, which is the same chain, in Houston earlier this year. It was okay and fairly good but it wasn't kick ass.
Btw, i am told there is a Pappdeaux in the central business district in Houston

The one we went to was close to Hobby Airport.

I wonder if they'll start with validated parking or move to that in 2035 after people abuse that lot to go to the other cool stuff in the area?

There isn't a restaurant chain in the world that I would want badly enough to be okay with that site plan.

I wonder if they'll start with validated parking or move to that in 2035 after people abuse that lot to go to the other cool stuff in the area?

There isn't a restaurant chain in the world that I would want badly enough to be okay with that site plan.

Yeah, the site plan really affects the quality of the food.

Yeah, the site plan really affects the quality of the food.

It doesn't affect the quality of the food. It affects the quality of the city. We have hundreds of great restaurants in OKC to go to all over the landscape. We have only one urban core.

It’s not that big of a deal. It isn’t harming the city lol

I wonder how long that location in Dallas has been there. It looks left over from a bygone era. But I may be incorrect.

Anyway, I am reminded of a Maya Angelou quote.
"Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better."

A building that is tolerated because it is already in existence is one thing. This is brand-new construction on one of the most important urban roads in the city. We know better in the year 2024. We should do better.

It was there on Oak Lawn when l moved to Dallas in 1986. I took my parents there who lived in Dallas in the 1950s and they said it was a dance hall of some sort back then.

I wonder if they'll start with validated parking or move to that in 2035 after people abuse that lot to go to the other cool stuff in the area?

There isn't a restaurant chain in the world that I would want badly enough to be okay with that site plan.

Only if I get to open a towing company beforehand. If the lot gets abused, I can promise you a towing company will literally offer to have a lot attendant that will not warn a soul. As soon as they walk off property they radio to a truck around the corner. I did it for a Hibachi place in Norman 20 years ago. I can not imagine much has changed since, especially because it is even more lucrative nowadays. When I first started we took turns for hour shifts throughout the night and made $20 a car we reported that parked and walked to another nearby restaurant.

So is there that much organic pent up demand for parking in that area?

Love this place!

It's funny all the negative comments on here. Folks are dying to get stuff to open in and near the core, and now a national brand comes in and there are so many complaints. I applaud them finally coming to our market. I also applaud them for avoiding Memorial Road. From Edmond, we will gladly drive past Memorial to the core and eat here often. I will also back our suburban into one of the parking lots.

If you've never eaten at one, you're in for a real treat.

North of 13th and east of Broadway to 235 are not in a design district: https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/design-review-and-historic-preservation/urban-design-districts

Guess it was because it was historically industrial or something? Seems like an oversight considering everything else surrounding it.

Not sure, but this development is surrounded on 3 sides by opportunity zone. Not sure why people are complaining about anything nice being built here.

Disappointing, I'd honestly rather not have a Pappadeaux at all then have them ruin a good near downtown development location with a suburban style design.

Yeah they'll be busy, sure the food will be good, but none of that is the point.

19165

I’d take a view from their restaurant like this. This is on Oaklawn in Dallas.

Love this place!

It's funny all the negative comments on here. Folks are dying to get stuff to open in and near the core, and now a national brand comes in and there are so many complaints. I applaud them finally coming to our market. I also applaud them for avoiding Memorial Road. From Edmond, we will gladly drive past Memorial to the core and eat here often. I will also back our suburban into one of the parking lots.

If you've never eaten at one, you're in for a real treat.

You might re-read the thread. Very few people are mad they’re coming. They just want them to design their building to fit the area better.

You might re-read the thread. Very few people are mad they’re coming. They just want them to design their building to fit the area better.

You might re-read my comment. I didn't say people were mad -- I was referencing all the negative comments of which there are plenty.

If it looks too suburban or people can't ride the rails, a bike, or walk to it easily, usually people in this forum will complain.

I like the concept and I think it will do well.

You might re-read my comment. I didn't say people were mad -- I was referencing all the negative comments of which there are plenty.

If it looks too suburban or people can't ride the rails, a bike, or walk to it easily, usually people in this forum will complain.

I like the concept and I think it will do well.

I mean if not glazing parking lots, isolated buildings, and general un-walkable design around the urban core is considered negative, maybe positivity doesn’t encourage a well built city.

Pete's photographs of the Papadeaux's parcel show a power line easement between Broadway and the current building site. If you look carefully at the photograph, it isn't a normal neighborhood power line but something more significant. Perhaps this is why the building is in the suburban style set back from Broadway?

Pete's photographs of the Papadeaux's parcel show a power line easement between Broadway and the current building site. If you look carefully at the photograph, it isn't a normal neighborhood power line but something more significant. Perhaps this is why the building is in the suburban style set back from Broadway?

In the video of the meeting the developer spends considerable time discussing the easement. He stated that the utilities agreed to bury the lines but would not remove the easement or allow them to build on it. The architect stated that the building is a standardized design developed to take advantage of certain efficiencies. As designed the building will not fit between the easement and the street. Changing the design will reduce its efficiency.

In the video of the meeting the developer spends considerable time discussing the easement. He stated that the utilities agreed to bury the lines but would not remove the easement or allow them to build on it. The architect stated that the building is a standardized design developed to take advantage of certain efficiencies. As designed the building will not fit between the easement and the street. Changing the design will reduce its efficiency.

So, are you saying that nothing of any kind of use, design, height, etc, would be allowed to be built there over the easement anyway?

In the video of the meeting the developer spends considerable time discussing the easement. He stated that the utilities agreed to bury the lines but would not remove the easement or allow them to build on it. The architect stated that the building is a standardized design developed to take advantage of certain efficiencies. As designed the building will not fit between the easement and the street. Changing the design will reduce its efficiency.

It's always nice when companies go for functionality and efficiency over just looks... but then again, I'm an engineer, not an artist.

Btw, i am told there is a Pappdeaux in the central business district in Houston

It is inside the George Brown Convention Center. There is outside access. I've eaten there while attending a conference a few years ago.

The negativity on this thread for a national tenant to invest millions into a piece of land that has sat vacant for over a decade is hilarious.

The negativity on this thread for a national tenant to invest millions into a piece of land that has sat vacant for over a decade is hilarious.

+1
It amuses me also when people complain about building architecture when OKC can use any infill projects to improve density

A suburban-style parking island in the core of the city very specifically DOESN’T improve density.

The negativity on this thread for a national tenant to invest millions into a piece of land that has sat vacant for over a decade is hilarious.

Let's not pretend that we didn't initially have a better plan presented to us. Once again Lucy pulled the football out from under us.

A suburban-style parking island in the core of the city very specifically DOESN’T improve density.

Totally understand and agree. However, it will do at least two things. One, it will draw thousands of patrons to near downtown…thousands who the current business owners can court and encourage to linger and shop downtown before and after eating there. They will expose more of downtown to many who wouldn’t or don’t come down otherwise. Secondly, they will hire people who will likely look for housing in and near downtown. That will add to people density some and help increase the vitality of midtown specifically.

I would also argue the site isn't really in the core… it is in the near proximity of the core. It is in an area that is struggling now, and will for quite some time, to find eager investors to build truly dense projects. There are so many sites in and around mid and downtown to be developed first, not to mention areas like Strawberry Fields that are potentially more central to true high density development l

I understand the relative positives. I was responding to the comment that this somehow magically improves density. It very specifically does NOT improve density in this area.

Also, I’m sorry, but you cannot make the case that this isn’t in the core of Oklahoma City. Is it in downtown proper? No, of course not. But the core of Oklahoma City extends beyond the central business district.

It very specifically does NOT improve density in this area.



isn't any building with any site plan by default "more dense" then an empty lot??

From a planning standpoint density generally refers to population density. This doesn’t positively impact that metric, and could potentially be a barrier to more dense development, especially to the north by interrupting the walk appeal from the north to the more dense and walkable city center.

Sure, placing a building on a site that is currently vacant improves the building density…on that lot. However if it is a suburban site plan proximate to more urban building density it actually REDUCES the overall average concentration of urban fabric, at the very least from the standpoint of potential. It’s an opportunity cost.

All of this said, I’m generally not “anti” this particular development. It’s a really good add to the urban core from an amenities standpoint, and I suspect it may be helping to unlock a more concentrated development to the south. So I still feel it may be a net positive. I just wish it was sited a bit differently. And yes, I do understand there are some compelling limiting factors.

From a planning standpoint density generally refers to population density. This doesn’t positively impact that metric, and could potentially be a barrier to more dense development, especially to the north by interrupting the walk appeal from the north to the more dense and walkable city center.

Sure, placing a building on a site that is currently vacant improves the building density…on that lot. However if it is a suburban site plan proximate to more urban building density it actually REDUCES the overall average concentration of urban fabric, at the very least from the standpoint of potential. It’s an opportunity cost.

All of this said, I’m generally not “anti” this particular development. It’s a really good add to the urban core from an amenities standpoint, and I suspect it may be helping to unlock a more concentrated development to the south. So I still feel it may be a net positive. I just wish it was sited a bit differently. And yes, I do understand there are some compelling limiting factors.

thank you for the detailed explanation ..

I understand the relative positives. I was responding to the comment that this somehow magically improves density. It very specifically does NOT improve density in this area.

Also, I’m sorry, but you cannot make the case that this isn’t in the core of Oklahoma City. Is it in downtown proper? No, of course not. But the core of Oklahoma City extends beyond the central business district.

I'm pretty sure a thriving restaurant is more dense than land with a few homeless tents on it.

Don't Facebook my OKCTalk.

I'm pretty sure a thriving restaurant is more dense than land with a few homeless tents on it.
Perhaps next time you could say “better than crappy makes me happy.” It would be less offensive.

Sounds like this has been canceled.

Now where are people going to park?

Now where are people going to park?

Mazaheri has an illegal lot somewhere downtown for you to utilize.

Evan Onstot from KOCO posting on FB that Pappadeax has pulled their plans from OKC.

They also replied to Evan’s post saying they’re still planning on a OKC location.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pappadeaux112124a.jpg

They have abandoned plans in OKC before..
In fact they still own that pad site near the SE corner of Memorial & Portland/Hefner Pkwy.

https://docs.oklahomacounty.org/AssessorWP5/AN-R.asp?PropertyID=251856

They have abandoned plans in OKC before..
In fact they still own that pad site near the SE corner of Memorial & Portland/Hefner Pkwy.

https://docs.oklahomacounty.org/AssessorWP5/AN-R.asp?PropertyID=251856

It's almost like they forget they own that site

They had that site for sale for a while, but pulled it from the market.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pappadeaux112124a.jpg

Guess that confirms they pulled out of that site

They have abandoned plans in OKC before..
In fact they still own that pad site near the SE corner of Memorial & Portland/Hefner Pkwy.

https://docs.oklahomacounty.org/AssessorWP5/AN-R.asp?PropertyID=251856

I am 100% against building anything around Memorial and Portland until JKT and LHP are properly connected (all the interchanges installed). Then build out whatever there is room for in the leftover area.

This is the property owned by Pappadeaux:

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pappadeaux112124b.jpg

What a cluster this is, with the way they do things, I really am over it. Either come or don't, but I don't have high hopes either way.

Hopefully, the development on Broadway will be reverted to its original design.

I doubt they ever build on the Memorial and Portland site. Doesn't feel like a very good spot. Maybe if they built when they originally bought the land they could have 'set the tone' for all those surrounding lots that were developed the past few years. Also, the plot seems a little on the small side. It would work, but seems like they wanted more on the Broadway site.

How many years has this been going on now? I can't believe people still fall for it with them.

I doubt they ever build on the Memorial and Portland site. Doesn't feel like a very good spot. Maybe if they built when they originally bought the land they could have 'set the tone' for all those surrounding lots that were developed the past few years. Also, the plot seems a little on the small side. It would work, but seems like they wanted more on the Broadway site.

The site is about the same as they proposed on Broadway.

They had already drawn up and submitted plans for that Memorial site before they ever purchased it.

Thanks Pete! That is probably out of the way then... I can't believe they haven't fixed that interchange yet, though.

Thanks Pete! That is probably out of the way then... I can't believe they haven't fixed that interchange yet, though.

fixed how?

Hopefully, they either utilize their current land they own to build, or go to the Half Development! Always enjoyed Pappadeaux's when I lived in DFW! I really enjoyed Pappasito's too!

fixed how?

You can't stay on the highways!

LHP and JKT don't connect in many directions, you have to exit onto Memorial to make the connection. Going north, you can go east but not west. You can't go either direction going south. Going west, you can go south, but not north. You can't go either direction going east.