As the bare minimum I think the retail spaces in the garages need to be redesigned so they are viable for a variety of businesses. I'm thinking convenience stores, coffee shops, restaurants like Subway, maybe a pub someday, and retail sales businesses. They may even be able to basically recreate the Carpenter facade on the retail level of the north garage. The retail space in the tower may have the same challenges for the same reason if they hope to attract a larger business but I am no expert.

I understand the unhappiness about losing Hotel Black and Auto Hotel but I think that ship may have sailed. I also wonder how big a fight the skybridges will be but hope the city will make a stand. The building itself really isn't bad at all in my opinion; but the overall plan needs some adjustments to be a win - win - win for the city, developer, and future tenants.

Per Steve's article, who is this Chuck Ainsworth fellow who "argued in favor of the demolition, saying the targeted buildings 'are functionally obsolete.'"

Weren't these buildings being fully used before tenants were kicked out? How are they "functionally obsolete?"

"Functionally obsolete" is just an arbitrary term. Some people think vinyl records are "Functionally obsolete". I think they have a richer sound. I think CD's are "Functionally obsolete" because there are better ways to store digital music at the same quality level. I can express my opinions using this term, but it doesn't carry any weight on the absolute truth. So if a person tells you that a substantial structure is "Functionally obsolete" it most likely is just a personal judgement call, and is not an absolute fact.

OMG! I can't believe I called it the Clayco project in the email, I don't know what I was thinking, and I didn't think she was going to read it aloud in the meeting. Lol. I hope the architects truly take it to heart though.

Chuck Ainsworth is a longtime real estate broker and developer in OKC, who has been involved in - among other places - Automobile Alley and Bricktown. Notably he was a partner in and oversaw renovations of the Kingman Building (Bourbon Street) and the Oklahoma Hardware Building (now ACM@UCO) along with his then-brother-in-law French Hickman. I believe he was also was instrumental in putting Standley Systems together with the Sherman Ironworks Building (Andy Burnett and Zach Martin's deal though). He's no stranger to old buildings, and for better or worse his opinion carries weight in this discussion.

I do agree that it is arbitrary. As an example, the Skirvin was functionally obsolete as a hotel. However, it was heavily reconfigured to modern room size standards during renovation. The Braniff Building was functionally obsolete as an office building. We've all seen how THAT turned out. In most cases, functional obsolescence just means you really need to WANT to renovate a building. It would require actual hard work and investment.

Per Steve's article, who is this Chuck Ainsworth fellow who "argued in favor of the demolition, saying the targeted buildings 'are functionally obsolete.'"

Weren't these buildings being fully used before tenants were kicked out? How are they "functionally obsolete?"

Unfortunately, some of the people who are on these committees don't really have the mission of the committee has their guiding principle. They participate in these groups as a stepping stone to something else or for the business connections they facilitate and so are easily influenced (often willingly) by people and companies that the committee is essentially supposed to be regulating. I wish these committees were stacked only with people who actual believed in the core mission the committee is tasked with. Alas, these people are political appointees so what can you do.

You assume a lot. Unless you know someone you can't really know their motivations, can you?

I'm happy to hear that Jane spoke at the meeting and voiced, rather closely, the same opinions that I would have voiced.

Hopefully the developer and designers take some of the suggestions to heart and come up with the best solution(s) for this part of downtown.

I would encourage people to watch the video from the meeting yesterday rather than rely on my account or Steve's:

SIRE Public Access (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3104&doctype=AGENDA)

Click on video on upper right corner; right click and you can zoom to bigger size.

Pickard's presentation starts at 39:00; KayneMo's letter is read at 1:19 and the committee makes comments after that.

You assume a lot. Unless you know someone you can't really know their motivations, can you?But didn't you know? Debbie Downer is all knowing!

Unfortunately, some of the people who are on these committees don't really have the mission of the committee has their guiding principle. They participate in these groups as a stepping stone to something else or for the business connections they facilitate and so are easily influenced (often willingly) by people and companies that the committee is essentially supposed to be regulating. I wish these committees were stacked only with people who actual believed in the core mission the committee is tasked with. Alas, these people are political appointees so what can you do.

I may not agree with some (even a lot) of their decisions but this is taking things too far IMO.

i may not agree with some (even a lot) of their decisions but this is taking things too far imo.

^this

I'm happy to hear that Jane spoke at the meeting and voiced, rather closely, the same opinions that I would have voiced.

Hopefully the developer and designers take some of the suggestions to heart and come up with the best solution(s) for this part of downtown.
I agree. I'm proud of Jane for standing up to defend walkability and good urban planning principles. She did so at some personal risk, as it is no secret her board members are largely comprised of people who - while largely much better-intentioned than some give them credit for in this forum - will generally always come down on the side of business over optimal urbanism. I think a huge task over the next few years is to convince some of these people that great urbanism in your downtown IS great for business, and that the two are not somehow mutually exclusive.

You assume a lot. Unless you know someone you can't really know their motivations, can you?

Absolutely correct. All you can really do is look at what a person does in respect to what they are supposed to be doing. If one is tasked with ensuring downtown development complies with design requirements and long-term objectives but yet support companies NOT complying then that individual's motivation needs to be questioned. Non-compliance is only supposed to be granted when no other alternatives are available, not just because the developer doesn't want to comply.

Anyhow, this isn't unique to OKC.

I actually like the tilt of the building. It makes it interesting. Also the current building design can't go out to that corner. With out a total redesign. A simple rectangle is uninteresting this building is not.

I also don't really see this as a set back "plaza". It is more of an expanded sidewalk.

I actually like the tilt of the building. It makes it interesting. Also the current building design can't go out to that corner. With out a total redesign. A simple rectangle is uninteresting this building is not.

I also don't really see this as a set back "plaza". It is more of an expanded sidewalk.

^^^ I have the same sentiments ^^^ It's not a box, it's not a square and it's not a rectangle. The Western side is also offset to break it up. I think when the crown is lit it'll be outstanding.

Reading the downtown design committees response has put me in a great mood today. Gives me a strong sense of hope! I like how they pointed out all the flaws, and while not all of them will be fixed, they were surely be used to negotiate a better outcome.

Good to see the downtown review committee cares about the lack of underground parking and the blatent disrespect for preservation. I could care less about height this is basically a nice filler the design is decent it obviously doesnt stick out. It think this would be a lot better if they didn't have to demolish the former black hotel the rest of the buildings could go it would still bother me but at least we saved one of them(the best one). I do hope they opt for more under ground parking. As always Devon tower will keep telling everyone in to **** off for awhile.

Here are some new images that show how they hope to integrate some of the old building elements into the new project:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow12.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow13.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow14.jpg

And a ton more new images:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow1.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow3.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow4.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow5.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow6.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow7.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow8.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow9.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow10.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinesnow11.jpg

I would rather eat at a retro 1950s style diner in an existing building than pass by and look at the blue exterior after I park my car.

I love how they put all of the pedestrians in the street, and not in the skywalk. It's like they now they are bad for urbanism, put deceptively make an active street in the renderings when we all know those people will be in the Skybridge.

What is the deal with replacing irreplaceable structures with bushes and grass?

I wouldn't mind the Carpenter Square Building as a parking garage at all as long as the kept the entire original facade. Why couldn't they do that? That's a perfectly good compromise.

I for one like this tower. It will be even better after there are modifications to the parking garages per the downtown design review committee's request.

This tower, no matter what changes are made, will never meet JTF's impossible standard of urbanism. Nor will any other project proposed in OKC.

If there is LED lighting similar to what Devon Tower has, it would go a long way to make it more appealing at night. Pete, do you know if they are focusing on the crown lighting more than any on the outside surface?

I actually like the tilt of the building. It makes it interesting. Also the current building design can't go out to that corner. With out a total redesign. A simple rectangle is uninteresting this building is not.

I also don't really see this as a set back "plaza". It is more of an expanded sidewalk.

Ha, rotating a building by a few degrees all of a sudden makes it interesting? I guess I dont see how some slight rotation takes something from uninteresting to interesting. Its just wasting space IMO and adds nothing to the look of the building. Is the Colcord uninteresting? Would it become that much better if it was "cranked" a bit? I'd say its lazy designing if they are relying on turning it slightly to make it "interesting."

And you have the entire Myriad Gardens for your expanded sidewalk and plaza, you dont need it on the NW corner of the intersection. As Jane said at the hearing, make the gardens your plaza.

As I said before, I wouldnt be too thrilled with this if I were Clayco. This does nothing to enhance the desirableness of their residential towers. Not sure I would want to pay $300/ft for something surrounded by parking garages.

Post # 139, 3rd pic from the bottom. OGE Tower will also be impressive.

I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by how the DDRC reacted to this project. I'm not expecting that it will change very much, and I certainly don't think any of these buildings will be saved, but just the fact that that the DDRC is considering the impact the parking massing will have on the area is encouraging. The skeptic in me still thinks this block will ultimately be mostly a parking monolith with little character or human elements, but this could be the project that motivates the DDRC and other committees tasked with design review to come up with some standards for parking garages that insure future downtown development does not result in over 50% of the real estate being comprised of lifeless parking garages and that the garages that do get built contain elements to mitigate the fragmentation of the urban landscape that occurs when large chunks of real estate are committed to parking.

I understand that these projects need parking, but as people continue to lament that it's not a bigger building, I'm truly beginning to think these things should be smaller if things of this scale require this much destruction of existing assets and the dedication of over 50% of the land to parking. I'd much rather see walker and hudson be a contiguous string of low rise buildings from SW 3rd to NW 10th, than it just be a scattering of one mid rise building each block with the rest being parking garages.

Despite the encouraging thoughts by the committee as a whole, Ainsworth's comment that the buildings are "functionally obsolete" is very disappointing, but not surprising. This is basically the default justification we hear anytime anyone wants to tear something down. Meanwhile we have had several buildings in worse shape that were unused for longer periods of time that have been or are currently being made functional. Most of these buildings on this block were in use less than 5 years ago. I really don't know what it is going to take to eliminate this kind of thinking from the city's development oversight bureaucracy. Downtown's resurgence is in large part due to the buildings formally thought of as obsolete being turned into vibrant functional facets of Oklahoma City's downtown scene and identity. I mean, if you just don't care about the city's past or simply think this is a better use for this land, then say that, but don't tell me they're obsolete.

From the Journal Record:

Cloud in the skyline: Review committee notes problems with downtown tower design

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record December 18, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The newest planned tower in the city’s skyline will have to go through some revisions before it is approved by the Downtown Design Review Committee, though the building already has one prominent tenant.

Architect Jon Pickard presented the design for the 499 Sheridan Ave. building during Thursday’s DDRC meeting. The project will include a 692,000-square-foot, 27-story mixed-use tower and two parking garages totaling 757,000 square feet. The tower will sit at the corner of Hudson and Sheridan avenues, with one parking garage at Sheridan and Walker avenues, and another Main Street and Hudson Avenue. The tower’s first floor will have retail spaces and the second floor will have a restaurant and fitness center for the building’s employees. The remaining floors are planned for office tenants.

Pickard said one of the building’s tenants will be Devon Energy, which occupies approximately 250,000 square feet in three buildings outside the Devon Energy Center. Devon Media Relations Manager John Porretto confirmed that the company will occupy space in the building.

“Due to strong production growth, our employee base has continued to expand,” Alan Marcum, Devon’s executive vice president of administration, said via email. “Leasing this new, high-quality office space across from Devon Energy Center will allow us to consolidate our employees into a more collaborative work environment, without incurring the capital cost of constructing a new building ourselves.”

But Devon and other future tenants are a long way from moving into the space. First, four existing buildings must be removed from the site surrounded by Sheridan, Walker and Hudson avenues and Main Street. The existing buildings are One North Hudson Avenue, the former Motor Hotel, the Union Bus Station, and Carpenter Square. Pickard’s plan includes integrating architectural features from each building into the new structures, including the blue tile on the Union Bus Station. Betsy Brunsteter, DDRC chairwoman, said she wants to see more consideration given to the existing buildings before they are removed. Pickard’s presentation did not contain any evaluations about costs or feasibility to restore the existing structures.

“There are a couple of missed opportunities here,” she said. “Even though you make an attempt to save the various portions of the existing buildings, there has not been the truest attempt to save any of the buildings. And I think that is a concern.”

Brunsteter said she was also concerned about the parking garage at Sheridan and Walker avenues, across from the new John Rex Charter Elementary School. She said the corner is very important in downtown and she would like to see more activity in the area.

“If there was some way to even create a placeholder for a building in that location, that would really please me,” she said.

Other DDRC committee members echoed Brunsteter’s concern about the parking garage at Sheridan and Walker. Committee member Connie Scothorn said the new building presents an opportunity to bring the corner back to life.

Committee Vice Chairwoman Gigi Faulkner said she’s concerned about the amount of parking and its proximity to the planned OGE Energy Corp. parking garage, the existing Devon Energy parking buildings and the city’s new Arts District parking garage. She also wasn’t pleased with how little space was dedicated to retail, with only 6,000 square feet planned in the tower’s first floor, and another 2,600 square feet in the west parking garage. Brunsteter voiced an opinion on the retail space as well, saying the spaces need to be deeper than 20 feet for retail to work.

“The depth of less than 20 feet is not going to cut it,” Brunsteter said.

Jane Jenkins addressed the committee, and said she would rather see more connection to the Myriad Botanical Gardens than to create another plaza area that is not utilized. She said many buildings in downtown have plaza spaces that just sit empty. She said she doesn’t want this building to fall in the same pattern since it has a nearby garden.

Jenkins is the president and CEO of Downtown OKC Inc., but she stressed that she was speaking only as a resident.

Pickard said she thought the DDRC’s comments were excellent.

“All of the comments will be carefully considered,” he said.

Pickard will have the chance to present revised plans for a vote in 2015.

I hope at some point they need a few more floors so they add them and the height is adjusted to 499 feet.

They plan to start very soon.

There may be some subtle tweaks but this is not like the Devon Tower project that went on for a couple of years between the reveal and start of construction.

I'm told this project is funded and ready to start bulldozing buildings. And as mentioned, they are seeking approval to do that next month.

I hope at some point they need a few more floors so they add them and the height is adjusted to 499 feet.

Do not say that, by doing so it literally makes a few people on here explode and act like immature little kids. Keep in mind, people can say what they want about how they disagree with TIF's (which they act as if they are paying it themselves), street interaction, parking garage debates until it makes your head explode, etc. However, if you want to hammer a point home about increased height of these midrises (also a word that makes their blood boil) they respond with attacks and one guy even sent me a personal message acting like a little teenage girl screaming at me.

Listen, I know I have made comments wishing for more height. I do so hoping to gain momentum that others believe it should be higher as well. In the meeting they gave a shout out to OKC talk, so appparently they do read this stuff and get a feel for what we are thinking. If they feel that many on here expect something a little more grand, then that feedback does get back to them. Whether they care or not, who knows but it does get back. If people are happy with OKC having a big Devon Tower and only one other tower that is 500 foot in this city and it looking silly because it looks like the only real skyscraper, then so be it. I and others who have commented to me think it looks odd. To post those photos of cities with super tall compared to the others was even more silly. They all have one thing in common, lots of other buildings with good height. OKC has basically none, that is my point.

Bottom line is people all are going to focus on whatever they think is important or bothers them about DT. For some it's TIF's, parking garages, street interaction, the park, the boulevard, etc. For me it this project and to an extent the Stage block. I just can't wrap my brain around the fact that this city can't build something taller than the Cotter Ranch Tower. I would rather have 3 buildings in the 35-40 range than 5 of them in the 20-27 foot range and its a no brainer to me. I don't get on here when some posters are posting over and over about how they hate things I mentioned above, I just read it or scroll on past it. Perhaps some should do the same.

soondoc -

You ever watch the movie 'Ground Hog Day' ?

I think your point would be more receptive if you didn't hammer so much every single day. I'd say most people on this board would like more height, but it's not up to us or the city for that matter. It's all about business's and their needs.

^^Exactamundo!

“At the end of the day, those buildings, charming as they are, do not allow us to meet current business needs,” Pickard said.

The folks working on the designs don't and won't be living here with us. I agree its a complex Rubik's cube of a puzzle that no one has truly solved yet.

To take that quote by John Pickard, that same argument could be made for any building anywhere any time.

It's always easier to build new but that is far from the lone consideration, of course.

This tower, no matter what changes are made, will never meet JTF's impossible standard of urbanism. Nor will any other project proposed in OKC.

Not true. I would be completely happy with KayneMo's version. Alas, there is a book that anyone can buy that shows them step by step, topic by topic, how to build walkable urbanism. If I thought the 499 Sheridan developers would read it would buy them a copy (or they could even have my copy).

New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide, Fourth Edition: Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon, Special Contributors: 9780974502168: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Urbanism-Practices-Fourth-Edition/dp/0974502162)


The definitive reference for new urban ideas, practices, and projects. Expanded and completely revised from the 3rd edition, with new chapters on Architectural Styles and Building Types, Land Development, Parking, Health and Aging, and Landscape Design, and revised chapters on Principles, Shaping the Region, New Urbanism in the New Millennium, Revitalizing Cities and Towns, Urban Retail, The Human-Scale Workplace, Planning and Transit, Streets, Civic Building and Spaces, Codes, Legal Issues, Charrettes, Finding the Market, Finance, Building, Affordable Placemaking, Marketing, Building Community, Environment, and Policy, and New Urbanism Abroad. Fully indexed.

In the meeting they gave a shout out to OKC talk, so appparently they do read this stuff and get a feel for what we are thinking. If they feel that many on here expect something a little more grand, then that feedback does get back to them. Whether they care or not, who knows but it does get back.



I'm sure everyone would like more height on all the towers. City leaders reference OKC talk and mention thinks about walkability, retail, garage etc. They don't mention height because no one has any say on how tall these will be other than the developers and the companies they are building it for. If we all signed a petition and got 100,000 signatures asking them to add 10 floors, it wouldn't matter unless 1 of those 100,000 signatures had a company with enough employees to lease out the space.

I get you're passionate about height but constantly moaning about the height and referring to this and the OGE towers as midrise when countless people have shown you that by definiton they're highrise (by a long shot) is really tiresome for everyone.

I'm sure everyone would like more height on all the towers.

Not if it meant more parking garages like these.

With regards to height, I wouldn't be upset if they cut this building in half and placed it on two different blocks. At least it was spread the traffic out a little bit. There is no reason Devon and BOK need to be in the same building. Heck, for the amount of space BOK is taking up they could move into a remodeled Hotel Black and AutoHotel. If they want to create some community goodwill there would be awesome place to start.

This is my first post to OKC Talk so my question may be naive. There are large parking lots south of the arena. Why can't these parking garages be built on these lots? A shuttle could take people to their individual buildings. The parking garages could be used for event parking in the evening and on weekends. Do people really have to park within 100 feet of their offices?

Heck, for the amount of space BOK is taking up they could move into a remodeled Hotel Black and AutoHotel. If they want to create some community goodwill there would be awesome place to start.

That ship has sailed. A new tower is going to be built. The only thing that is currently in question is the placement of the parking garages. I personally wish the tower was a tad higher but the current height is what the developer has determined is economical. I am not worried about the skywalk discouraging pedestrian activity. Calgary is an amazing urban city and it has one of the biggest skywalk networks in the world.

This is my first post to OKC Talk so my question may be naive. There are large parking lots south of the arena. Why can't these parking garages be built on these lots? A shuttle could take people to their individual buildings. The parking garages could be used for event parking in the evening and on weekends. Do people really have to park within 100 feet of their offices?

1. The blvd and central park is going in these spots.

2. No, but if your spending the money to build a tower your going to want your employees as happy as they can be.

This is my first post to OKC Talk so my question may be naive. There are large parking lots south of the arena. Why can't these parking garages be built on these lots? A shuttle could take people to their individual buildings. The parking garages could be used for event parking in the evening and on weekends. Do people really have to park within 100 feet of their offices?

Welcome to the site!

Please post more.

Sigh, what's wrong with building a box like this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9746003,-93.2723299,3a,75y,302.46h,128.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7BnGjmW-ykZBoCxbQ7FwUQ!2e0

I'll take a picture from my room later tonight so you can see the different floors. It just works. Nothing complicated about it and it allows for the entire block to be utilized. All parking should be handled ONSITE and should be above or below the streetlevel floor.

Come on! You don't need to twist it, you don't need offsite parking. This building is just like the one to the right of it. Retail (permeable base), then parking, then something useful like commercial or residential. Two buildings in Downtown Minneapolis built exactly like this one should be built.

Nailed it, Sid. Would be too easy.

Do not say that, by doing so it literally makes a few people on here explode and act like immature little kids. Keep in mind, people can say what they want about how they disagree with TIF's (which they act as if they are paying it themselves), street interaction, parking garage debates until it makes your head explode, etc. However, if you want to hammer a point home about increased height of these midrises (also a word that makes their blood boil) they respond with attacks and one guy even sent me a personal message acting like a little teenage girl screaming at me.

Listen, I know I have made comments wishing for more height. I do so hoping to gain momentum that others believe it should be higher as well. In the meeting they gave a shout out to OKC talk, so appparently they do read this stuff and get a feel for what we are thinking. If they feel that many on here expect something a little more grand, then that feedback does get back to them. Whether they care or not, who knows but it does get back. If people are happy with OKC having a big Devon Tower and only one other tower that is 500 foot in this city and it looking silly because it looks like the only real skyscraper, then so be it. I and others who have commented to me think it looks odd. To post those photos of cities with super tall compared to the others was even more silly. They all have one thing in common, lots of other buildings with good height. OKC has basically none, that is my point.

Bottom line is people all are going to focus on whatever they think is important or bothers them about DT. For some it's TIF's, parking garages, street interaction, the park, the boulevard, etc. For me it this project and to an extent the Stage block. I just can't wrap my brain around the fact that this city can't build something taller than the Cotter Ranch Tower. I would rather have 3 buildings in the 35-40 range than 5 of them in the 20-27 foot range and its a no brainer to me. I don't get on here when some posters are posting over and over about how they hate things I mentioned above, I just read it or scroll on past it. Perhaps some should do the same.
It was actually more to watch your head explode when it comes in 1 foot short of your arbitrary and ridiculous 500 ft requirement for all buildings.

I like the sky bridge down the street even more.

I like the sky bridge down the street even more.

If you look close in all directions, you can see 3 or4 sky bridges on that one street.

I would encourage people to watch the video from the meeting yesterday rather than rely on my account or Steve's:

SIRE Public Access (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=3104&doctype=AGENDA)

Click on video on upper right corner; right click and you can zoom to bigger size.

Pickard's presentation starts at 39:00; KayneMo's letter is read at 1:19 and the committee makes comments after that.

I caught some of the HUB meeting before the presentation started, kind of ironic he highlights that ODOT's contribution to the HUB is a parking lot

Not true. I would be completely happy with KayneMo's version. Alas, there is a book that anyone can buy that shows them step by step, topic by topic, how to build walkable urbanism. If I thought the 499 Sheridan developers would read it would buy them a copy (or they could even have my copy).

New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide, Fourth Edition: Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon, Special Contributors: 9780974502168: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/New-Urbanism-Practices-Fourth-Edition/dp/0974502162)

Hines(and most other large out of state developers) doesn't give a flip about urbanism, they are in the business of making money not building better cities. That said, I don't think the building is that bad. Most cities have a couple of stand-out buildings and a ton of filler. This is fine for that purpose. Of course demolishing the historic buildings is a different issue.

Once this development is constructed and lit up, this discussion will be over. We'll all be impressed...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf0jHoqvN2abLeQZ28O4xZWQntqaWmR q0IuKbl8VSO7-wYtKvk8A
499 Sheridan Tower at 433 ft., in height will be more visible than the 110 West 7th Building in Tulsa at 388 ft. as it appears in the bottom left of the pic above.

Below grade isn't really cost-effective in this part of downtown, Sid. If this development were 4 blocks north, absolutely. But this is effectively river bottom and the water table is about 15' to 20' below grade, max. Move it to 4th and Walker and it's more like 40' below grade.

I agree that it can be better screened by the buildings. Sorry, I didn't look at your shots; was merely responding to your oft-promoted idea of all parking going below grade.

Hines(and most other large out of state developers) doesn't give a flip about urbanism, they are in the business of making money not building better cities. That said, I don't think the building is that bad. Most cities have a couple of stand-out buildings and a ton of filler. This is fine for that purpose. Of course demolishing the historic buildings is a different issue.

Like.

I also agree that the building isn't near as bad as people are making it out to be. I myself am looking forward to seeing it in the skyline. I think getting the Devon Tower has really spoiled OKC. A project on that level is unusual in a city the size of OKC. Imagine if Devon would have never happened. People would be totally ecstatic about this tower as well as the Clayco towers.

9801

Hines is developing this in Denver, also above ground parking and retail an afterthought.

Here is one of the better on-site parking garages I have personally seen. This is the 100 North Tampa building in Tampa, FL. The ground floor is a bank lobby and then everything up to the window grid is parking garage. The spiral drive on each end of the parking allows people to go to directly to their floor and not wind through the whole garage.

http://www.tampasdowntown.com/userfiles/images/100ntampa.jpg

^^^

I like that. I wouldn't mind seeing a few buildings like that here.

Why are we bringing other cities into this?


^

Very good point about mitigating the impact of the garages. We clearly have to have them and plenty more are coming.

Perhaps this is a good use for TIF dollars: to provide incentives to put some parking underground; to make them look very nice; and to provide as much street interaction as possible.

In that case, perhaps the city should offer TIF dollars to Hines for these purposes as it pertains to this project. Might be money well spent.

This is the problem when you (we, OKC) don't have any standards for how TIF money is awarded and subsequently spent.

They plan to start very soon.

There may be some subtle tweaks but this is not like the Devon Tower project that went on for a couple of years between the reveal and start of construction.

I'm told this project is funded and ready to start bulldozing buildings. And as mentioned, they are seeking approval to do that next month.

So? Clearly whether they are "ready to start" or not, they are going to be forced to respect the downtown development process. Thank God. Anyone making this major of an investment in downtown should especially support design standards to protect their investment in the future.

Otherwise, we should throw up a Motel 6 across the street just because its "ready to start" with "financing" or however Motel 6's get built.