I disagree strongly that its "throw away" land destined for surface parking. It's a cohesive 10-12 block square that has much more potential for density than the land west of the park, which will be more removed from the core of Downtown/Bricktown.

You can argue that it's a good site for the convention center, and I agree, but if it is not to be that, I think there is lots of potential for mixed use here, and I don't understand why you couldn't have mid-rise residential up and down the park with offices/hotels behind those buildings stretching east to Shields. Or vice versa. Or some combination of the two. And you still could, even with this underwhelming motel-in-a-box.

I apologize, Teo. Just re-read your post and you were not arguing FOR surface parking. I'm sorry that I implied that.

I do think it is easy to lose track of the fact that all of a sudden there is commercial development interest in action by C2S in an area that otherwise has been the land of the lost. Downtown OKC is exploding out of its previous limited area. And, activity begets activity.

Killer. Someone get something out on PR Newswire quick. We're getting a Best Western! Woo!

:Smiley122

Please no, not another brick/stucco 4 story hotel.

I hope the DDRC really looks over this about a dozen times before it gets approved. It needs to be done right.

Please no, not another brick/stucco 4 story hotel.

I see this sentiment posted frequently; what exterior finish would you prefer?

There are some interesting comments about this hotel and the Fairfield Inn in Steve's interview with Cathy O'Connor.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5424724&headline=Downtown%20Oklahoma%20City%20hotel%20plan s%20cloud%20future%20of%20potential%20convention%2 0center%20site


Cathy O’Connor, who leads the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, questioned Tuesday whether either hotel is a good fit for the city’s plans to revive the area.
O’Connor said Tuesday she was uncertain whether the two hotels will kill the “East Park” option for the convention center, but added she doubts the city can stop the projects from moving forward. She said Oklahoma City could follow the steps taken by other cities in such scenarios and declare a moratorium on building permits in the area designated as “Core to Shore.”

O’Connor said the hotels also may complicate efforts to develop a 500-room to 700-room convention center hotel.



In short, she is in complete agreement with most of our naysayers.

Not in that quote she isn't, at least not in the reasons for it. She's pretty clearly concerned about the CC east park option, it says nothing about the design of the hotel.

Cathy O'Connor and economic development have absolutely nothing to do with this hotel.

Cathy and her group only get involved when there are public incentives, like TIF funds.

And depending on where the convention center actually ends up being built, some of the proposed hotels in Bricktown would be closer than this one. And hotel proximity, if you pay any attention to the City's paid consultants, is a big positive and one of the main rating factors in picking a site.

Its not ideal, but with the amount of uncertainty regarding the area the big players do not to risk their money and reputation at this time. 10-20 years down the road if core to shore is successful the big sharks will eat up the smaller fish and put up higher value developments.

Don't expect to get any traction on here with that last sentence, Pete. I've beat that drum here forever and it's like shouting into the wind.

Don't expect to get any traction on here with that last sentence, Pete. I've beat that drum here forever and it's like shouting into the wind.

I'd say that's untrue. One of the first things that popped in to my head was that this site selection for a hotel makes any near site (east park, north park, on the park) for the convention center more desirable. I probably only had that thought because of the things you've said regarding proximity to hotels.

Definitely untrue, I'm pretty solidly in the Church of Urbanized as far as CC site selection goes. I don't think I've publicly said anything in support, but only because the explanations seem entirely sensible on their own without my one half cents.

On topic, see this tweet (https://twitter.com/Mecoy/status/606078470637023232) for an access link to Steve's article about the hotels, and it actually does talk about the design goals for the district a little bit further down.


“Limited-service hotels do impact the market for the new convention center hotel,” O’Connor said. “Further, hotels and any development the size and density of these limited-service hotels provide is not in keeping with preferred development plans for around the MAPS 3 park. They are not dense enough, not tall enough, and don’t create the kind of investment we think is essential for the success of the park.”

If they aren't tall enough or dense enough then why don't the zoning codes reflect the desired outcome? The City needs to implement the Smart Code in central OKC, and do it now! Of course, doing so will make Clayco, 499 Sheridan, the CC, and the CC hotel non-compliant because they are not dense enough either.

If they aren't tall enough or dense enough then why don't the zoning codes reflect the desired outcome? The City needs to implement the Smart Code in central OKC, and do it now! Of course, doing so will make Clayco, 499 Sheridan, the CC, and the CC hotel non-compliant because they are not dense enough either.

I said a long time ago that the city needs to enact strict codes and zoning requirements for the Core 2 Shore area separate from the rest of downtown if it is to ever become what it is envisioned to be. The need for that is evident now more than ever. While I can see the point that any development at all is a positive for this once-blighted neighborhood, this is also not 1990 anymore and I think downtown OKC has reached a point where it can and should be a little more selective.

Here is an excellent write-up by Steve.

No Special Effort at Design for Core to Shore? | News OK (http://newsok.com/no-special-effort-at-design-for-core-to-shore/article/5424727)

I have long argued for a Haussmann approach to Core to Shore. The City needs to define the OKC style and mandate its use in C2S. All that is left for the developer to do is determine the interior use. Problem solved.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris

I have long argued for a Haussmann approach to Core to Shore. The City needs to define the OKC style and mandate its use in C2S. All that is left for the developer to do is determine the interior use. Problem solved.

Haussmann's renovation of Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris)

I agree with this. The building style in Core 2 Shore should be based off of everything that was lost in urban renewal in my opinion. That is "OKC style." As we've seen from the new construction in Film Row it isn't difficult to pull off. Everything within the box from Reno down to the river and from Classen to Shields should be required to be constructed to that standard. There also needs to be mandated street interaction and first-floor vitality for commercial properties.

Like^

If they wanted different design standards for the area, they've had 10 years to do something about it.

And why not enact these stricter standards for all of downtown? Where was the complaining about design standards when scores of these hotels have already been built and approved in other urban districts?

The issue should be about higher urban standards in general. I don't get why Core to Shore is suddenly expected to live up to completely undocumented and arbitrary standards when there has been far more public investment in other areas.

The issue should be about higher urban standards in general. I don't get why Core to Shore is suddenly expected to live up to completely undocumented and arbitrary standards when there has been far more public investment in other areas.

I think its because for ten years a specific vision has been touted for what Core to Shore is supposed to become. Many public projects already in place or in process such as the park and Skydance Bridge were all based around this vision for Core to Shore. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of the other districts, including Lower Bricktown, had such a comprehensive vision laid out like Core to Shore did. Now the Core to Shore area is finally starting to catch the interest of developers but what is being proposed so far doesn't match what was envisioned. This is not unexpected. I have long been skeptical about Core to Shore because while there exists this grand vision, as Steve's article said it "has little connection to the realities of private development or the means to guide it."

If this city wants Core to Shore to actually look something like the pretty renderings released in the middle of last decade, now is the time to act by imposing standards to guide development in that direction.

Now the Core to Shore area is finally starting to catch the interest of developers but what is being proposed so far doesn't match what was envisioned. This is not unexpected. I have long been skeptical about Core to Shore because while there exists this grand vision

All the plans for Core to Shore show the convention center on the east side of the park and pretty much everything else to be low- to mid-rise.

Now we have two mid-rise hotels proposed for property that doesn't front the park, so how does this not fit the plans?

If anything, these two projects show that development of the area is far ahead of schedule. The first phase of the park hasn't even commenced, the streets are a disaster and nothing else is even down there and here you have two multi-million dollar hotels being proposed with zero public assistance.

There has also been a lot of property change hands at high prices all around the park.

Only a very small amount is owned by the City (along the boulevard, on the west side of the park) and the only thing to guide developers are the DDRC standards which apply to all of downtown.

The problem is, people want OKC to grow dense and tall in so many places all at once that the amount of development money and available demand to make it all happen at once would be staggering. People need to be realistic that OKC is not even 1.5 million people and it isn't the wealthiest city in the US...not even in the SW US. This "build it and they will come" attitude is not economically realistic and development companies and financial institutions don't stomach that much risk.

If they wanted different design standards for the area, they've had 10 years to do something about it.

And why not enact these stricter standards for all of downtown? Where was the complaining about design standards when scores of these hotels have already been built and approved in other urban districts?

The issue should be about higher urban standards in general. I don't get why Core to Shore is suddenly expected to live up to completely undocumented and arbitrary standards when there has been far more public investment in other areas.


There hasn't been much reason to complain about design standards in other districts. I think most people have nothing but raved about Midtowns development as well as Film Row, Automobile Ally and Uptown. I know I haven't been posting too long, but I have lurked and read for years. Almost EVERYTHING in the CBD and Bricktown have been heavily criticized on this board. At the very least, every hotel has been. Now there have been a few hotels that have been built that I think have totally exceeded expectations. But all of the since announced hotels are a bit underwhelming to me, personally. It's a variety of things, size, look, design, color, lack of lighting, etc.

East Bricktown has a TON of potential. If C2S resembles what East Bricktown should look like, I'll be okay with it. But it's looking like there may not be an identity south of the Boulevard, outside of the park. We have a real opportunity to create a totally unique district there.

I just worry that we are settling for any design. I get that with new construction come bigger better new construction. I don't want another lackluster area. Of course I will support it. I love this city. And it's easy for me to write what I feel/want, as I clearly don't have money to front the projects. I want people to visit OKC and go back home and tell friends about our Core 2 Shore area. Or Bricktown. Or anywhere in the state for that matter.

^

But people are complaining about building in Core to Shore what has already been built or approved dozens of times elsewhere.

Why would anybody reasonably expect an area with zero existing development and that largely looks like a third world country to have initial proposals that exceeded developments in districts that have taken decades to mature?


The bottom line is that if you want better development, set higher standards. And that should be for all of downtown, not just Core to Shore.

The problem is, people want OKC to grow dense and tall in so many places all at once that the amount of development money and available demand to make it all happen at once would be staggering. People need to be realistic that OKC is not even 1.5 million people and it isn't the wealthiest city in the US...not even in the SW US. This "build it and they will come" attitude is not economically realistic and development companies and financial institutions don't stomach that much risk.


This is a great point, something that I definitely fall prey to.

Why should C2S be held to a higher standard? Answer, because we want it to. That is the only answer needed. Now if someone wants to apply that standard to all +600 sq miles out of 'fairness' then count me in a supporter of that as well.

Also, the Haussmann model would save developers millions in architecture fees. Hey, now I know why some don't like the idea.

Why should C2S be held to a higher standard? Answer, because we want it to. That is the only answer needed.

Works great if you want to sit an ivory tower without changing a darn thing, then complain about the result.

Works great if you want to sit an ivory tower without changing a darn thing, then complain about the result.

Who is sitting around not wanting to change anything? I do get pieved at City and Public officials that complain about this because they were elected to lead. The Smart Code has been out for years and City Officials took the New Urbanism course. Dereliction of duty starts to come to mind.

The problem is, people want OKC to grow dense and tall in so many places all at once that the amount of development money and available demand to make it all happen at once would be staggering. People need to be realistic that OKC is not even 1.5 million people and it isn't the wealthiest city in the US...not even in the SW US. This "build it and they will come" attitude is not economically realistic and development companies and financial institutions don't stomach that much risk.

You do make good points here, which is another reason I am skeptical of Core to Shore and the validity of the master plan. Core to Shore is attempting to do something few cities have had to do - organically build a grand-scale dense urban district completely from scratch in the age of the automobile. With OKC's relatively small market size and moderate growth, doing this and doing it well is easier said than done. I am much more optimistic about the future of the other districts that already have momentum and at least some bones in place. I would personally rather see the public funds that the city is going to throw at Core 2 Shore be used elsewhere. The city is committed to the Core to Shore vision however so my hope is that it gets done right.

In C2S the developer should have bought the land, and the City should have handed him a set of plans and said "build this". The only thing the developer would have to figure out is 'use' and interior space. I don't care if its a mom and pop artist or 1000 room hotel or medical clinic or light industrial - the exterior design and site plan is predetermined. No variances needed, no review board, no nothing.

Rover is right. We all have a vision, but the only thing that matters is money and people. OKC is a fetus in that regard. You don't get Miami explosion without Miami.

I also second the notion that C2S needs higher standards, as does all of DT. But do the people who can make it happen, care enough? Or is it money? It's probably money....

In C2S the developer should have bought the land, and the City should have handed him a set of plans and said "build this". The only thing the developer would have to figure out is 'use' and interior space. I don't care if its a mom and pop artist or 1000 room hotel or medical clinic or light industrial - the exterior design and site plan is predetermined. No variances needed, no review board, no nothing.

What color is the sky in your world?

What color is the sky in your world?

It is done around the world all the time. Heck, the developer of this hotel had the whole set of plans handed to him by Best Western. All I am proposing is that he get the site plan and exterior plans from the City instead of Best Western.

They will conform to whatever they are told to conform to.

http://bestwestern.worldexecutive.com/pics/bestwestern/93569/93569_b1.jpg

The prototype plans were made available to him by Best Western to use at his discretion, not forced upon him.

Pretty big difference.

So he then conforms to whatever the design criteria is for the part of town he wants to locate in, but the City is still telling him what the criteria are regadless of where he picks.

It is done around the world all the time. Heck, the developer of this hotel had the whole set of plans handed to him by Best Western. All I am proposing is that he get the site plan and exterior plans from the City instead of Best Western.

They will conform to whatever they are told to conform to.

http://bestwestern.worldexecutive.com/pics/bestwestern/93569/93569_b1.jpg

I can tell you unequivocally it is not done all over the world. I am starting to think you have no concept of how the business of private development is done, or what the economics actually are.

That said, I am working on a downtown project in Ft. Worth and the downtown design committee has great impact. They are requiring things that are not based in code, yet if you want approval you comply. It isn't nearly as much as some on here want here (we don't have to add stories or change the architectural look to last century, make it look like the adjoining building, or anything like that), but they hold a fair amount of discretionary power.

I think we all might be talking about 2 different things. I'm not talking about construction plans. I have some examples I'll post later.

On edit - As an example, here is the pattern book for residential homes in Roanoke, VA. If you want build a new house, remodel an existing house, or make an addition - this book tells you what it has to look like and how it has to set on the lot.

http://www.roanokeva.gov/85256A8D0062AF37/vwContentByKey/C209EC71F1EA98F48525796B00632B9C/$File/PatternBook.pdf

I would like to congratulate the developer, because we can finally have something for which a convention center is legitimately a higher and better use.

OKC needs something like this: Design Review - Program - Seattle Department of Planning and Development (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/aboutus/whoweare/designreview/program/)

i would like to congratulate the developer, because we can finally have something for which a convention center is legitimately a higher and better use.

lolz

I would like to congratulate the developer, because we can finally have something for which a convention center is legitimately a higher and better use.

Hopefully this is not a clever ploy on the part of someone to say, "I guess that means the east park site is no longer an option."

What color is the sky in your world?

Hrm.. I'm in the middle. My neighborhood tells you what type and color of bricks you can use, what type and color of roofing tiles, layout, size, structure, and more you can use, and keeps it pretty uniform. Why is it so different with business districts?

So, we want a czar of style to tell everyone what their $50 (or $3) million investment has to LOOK like?

I would think in your neighborhood the style restrictions and covenants were set up by the developer and not the city...still a private decision. If you are asking the city to design the look of all the buildings downtown that would be a disaster.

Hrm.. I'm in the middle. My neighborhood tells you what type and color of bricks you can use, what type and color of roofing tiles, layout, size, structure, and more you can use, and keeps it pretty uniform. Why is it so different with business districts?

Because that is a homeowners association, not the government.

So, we want a czar of style to tell everyone what their $50 million investment has to LOOK like?

We already do that. Or am I missing what the DDRC is for?

They don't style the building out for everyone. If I want to build a super modern glass tower or brick clad old-world building they won't tell me I can't. They certainly have controls to make sure something is appropriate, but to start making all the aesthetic decisions for developers isn't what they should be doing.

Because that is a homeowners association, not the government.

I realize that. But we have the DDRC and codes and such, so obviously it's not totally outrageous. We're just talking about degrees of control at this point, aren't we?

The way the City can and has controlled what specifically is developed on urban land is to first acquire it through OCURA then issue an RFP with specific guidelines, then select the best proposal.

They have done none of those things in this area, apart from shooting their whole $2.2 million budget on the Goodwill property, on which they actually spent $2.3 million.

The Core to Shore general plan has been around for 10 years and we've known for years that there would be a new MAPS 3 park in the area.

The time to control that area was 8-10 years ago, not now that most of the surrounding property has changed hands and thus greatly escalated in price.

I don't quite remember but wasn't the Fairfield Inn originally a really generic proposal kind of like the Best Western? I don't mind how the Fairfield turned out.

The way the City can and has controlled what specifically is developed on urban land is to first acquire it through OCURA then issue an RFP with specific guidelines, then select the best proposal.

They have done none of those things in this area, apart from shooting their whole $2.2 million budget on the Goodwill property, on which they actually spent $2.3 million.

The Core to Shore general plan has been around for 10 years and we've known for years that there would be a new MAPS 3 park in the area.

The time to control that area was 8-10 years ago, not now that most of the surrounding property has changed hands and thus greatly escalated in price.

Great points. I think the city dropped the ball on this big time by not doing what you mention here. Core to Shore has been in the city's long-term plans for over a decade.

To acquire land through OCURA doesn't the owner have to be in tax default?

To acquire land through OCURA doesn't the owner have to be in tax default?

No.

They acquire property all the time, either through a simple offer/accept transaction but also through eminent domain.

JTF - do you realize how unconstructive your contributions can sometimes be? Not all of them, but this thread is an example of the former..

What do you mean unconstructive? Wanting to establish a district that is unique to OKC isn't helpful, when City leaders themselves say that these 2 hotels don't fit the vision the City has for the area? If the City has a vision of what they want then show us a picture of it. It is called a pattern book and cities all over the world do it every day.

The only differnce between what I am proposing and say, wheeler District, is that my plan accomplishes the same objective while allowing individual developers to praticipate and removes the requirement for millions and millions of dollars in land assembly.

On second thought, isn't this exactly what Wheeler District is doing? Humphries came up with the vision of what he wants it to look like, but other developers are going to actually build it. They just have to conform to his pattern.

See, I'm glad I poked you a little bc that is more like it. Yes pattern books are legitimate documentation of design review guidelines... Most comp plans these days are going that way, including Plan OKC and especially Audtin's which is both the relevant exemplar OKC could benefit from following, as well as a national innovator.

On second thought, isn't this exactly what Wheeler District is doing? Humphries came up with the vision of what he wants it to look like, but other developers are going to actually build it. They just have to conform to his pattern.

What is happening in the Wheeler District is EXACTLY what should be done in Core to Shore.

In the Wheeler District, the property is all owned by one group.

Completely different situation.

Hopefully we can all agree that actual enforceable design standards, to PROTECT investment-backed expectations vis a vis the Penn Central 3-pronged legal framework, would be a nice thing to have downtown.

The slip ups are becoming the rule not the exception, and I for one am very very concerned about protecting the investments of those who do things the right way. Success attracts a lot of low life developers and national site locators for whom OKC just appeared on the radar (and their job is to get it back off and just move on to the next deal).

In the Wheeler District, the property is all owned by one group.

Completely different situation.

I don't know what to say Pete, the Supreme Court ruled cities can make whatever zoning rules they want.