This is a crazy insane thought, but maybe Elliot doesn't like the fact this project may be better than his ?

It actually kind of pisses me off that this guy is getting the run around when he is begging to invest in a quality development.

my take and I could be way off:

rand seems to be butt-hurt that he did not get the project and is wielding his perceived power to make it as difficult as possible. from the outside, it sure seems like the owner and architect are trying to comply as best they can without ruining the functionality of the building for their future tenants.

The city and committee needs to be careful here because they could end getting sued over this.

They are there only to make sure the guidelines are followed for the downtown area, and there are none that are specific to Auto Alley.

I don't recall ever seeing anything about not allowing balconies, so they can't just arbitrarily not approve because they don't happen to like the look, or because they are being influenced by Rand or anyone else.

As hard as the developer is trying here, he may just try and go around the DDRC and he would probably be successful doing so.

The guidelines about a bldg being no more than 25% higher than its neighboring bldgs seems arbitrary and kind of stupid. 5 stories doesn't seem excessive and would fit right in to the rest of AA's architecture, I believe - aren't the Buick, Hudson, and other similar bldgs about 4-5 stories (or 3, at least, and Steve's article says this - "...the design committee acknowledged Thursday zoning actually required a height of at least three stories.")? Rand seems to be kind of a dick about this, agreed...

I find this situation maddening. The developer is trying to build an amazing property, and the arbitrary opposition smacks of favoritism, if not subtle racism.

It's very maddening, especially considering what else has been approved in the immediate area without any backlash. Hopefully it doesn't jeopardize the project getting built.

I want to like Rand Elliott, but the dude makes it soooooooo hard.

I really hope Safdar just gives the finger to the DDRC and goes straight to City Hall who should be able to see through the political antics of the DDRC and do their job which is to approve quality development.

I hope someone reaches out to him and tells him of other successful developments that have been able to ignore silly Design Review committees to provide development that will greatly benefit this city.

I have a lot of respect for Rand Elliot's work, but since when does he understand placemaking or district identity/coherence? He mis-designed Classen Curve as a walkable shopping that is so sprawled out that it largely fails in its function. It's basically a suburban shopping center. And now he's criticizing others for being suburban. And that's aside from Oklahoma Contemporary which is 100% disconnected from everything around it (which I'm okay with). C'mon. The design should be approved. Rand really comes off looking bad in this deal.

I want to like Rand Elliott, but the dude makes it soooooooo hard.

Oh, if you only knew the half of it... He has gotten way to big for his own britches.

The guidelines about a bldg being no more than 25% higher than its neighboring bldgs seems arbitrary and kind of stupid. 5 stories doesn't seem excessive and would fit right in to the rest of AA's architecture, I believe - aren't the Buick, Hudson, and other similar bldgs about 4-5 stories (or 3, at least, and Steve's article says this - "...the design committee acknowledged Thursday zoning actually required a height of at least three stories.")? Rand seems to be kind of a dick about this, agreed...

Buick basically right across the street is 5 stories. The height here is actually a benefit to the neighborhood. It extends the block to the north, and despite what Rand thinks, helps make the green space at Oklahoma Contemporary feel more like green space, and less like a random open lot by the railroad tracks.

There is literally no reason this shouldn't be approved. DDRC needs to hear displeasure from the public. Total crap has been approved without question, while this, a key lot with a solid plan in an area primed to boom, gets raked over the coals.

This issue really has nothing to do with the architecture as much as it does about the politics and personalities. It's predominately a bully type scenario.......not an uncommon move for the the one blocking this development. I have no dog in the fight either way and have nothing against either side, just commenting on what's been seen before in the past on various issues.

Mr. Elliott has been the Godfather of AA since it's beginning, we all should know that. One would have to know the personalities of the firms and individuals involved to totally understand some of the likely behind the scene dynamics. My guess is the developer will have to go around the DDRC.

This is a good ole boy town, and in a weird twist of fate, Rand Elliott is now one of the good ole boys and this developer is a perceived "outsider," despite the fact he is respecting the process and is a successful businessman. It's really pretty disgusting.

So what are the chances this project actually gets killed because of this?

None, I met one of the owners of this proposed development today and he told me in no way are they backing down .

None, I met one of the owners of this proposed development today and he told me in no way are they backing down .

Good for them.

None, I met one of the owners of this proposed development today and he told me in no way are they backing down .

Awesome. I think if Rand Elliott is that concerned about Broadway Park stealing the limelight from the Oklahoma Contemporary Museum as the entryway to Automobile Alley, he should go back to the drawing board and come back with a better proposal. Competition is a good thing because it raises standards. Trying to backhandedly kill the competition because your proposal is mediocre is ridiculous.

Awesome. I think if Rand Elliott is that concerned about Broadway Park stealing the limelight from the Oklahoma Contemporary Museum as the entryway to Automobile Alley, he should go back to the drawing board and come back with a better proposal. Competition is a good thing because it raises standards. Trying to backhandedly kill the competition because your proposal is mediocre is ridiculous.+1

+2

Molly Fleming (https://twitter.com/JR_MollzFlem) with the Journal Record is tweeting out updates to this right now.


The 4-story building planned for #autoalley is on today's DDRC agenda. Rand Elliott is here. He previously spoke against the project.

Rand once again disagreed with the proposed 1122 N. Broadway building design. He said it doesn't fit the #autoalley design guidelines.

The debate on 1122 is about the balconies. DDRC is going back and forth on brick balconies versus a metal, open look.

1122 N. Broadway building was not approved.

Interesting tidbit: DDRC committee member Chuck Ainsworth recused himself from the vote. He and Rand have worked together on projects.

How immensely disappointing.

What a d!ck... He is building that monstrosity called the Contemporary and he has an issue with balconies one block over?

The Auto Alley design guidelines have exactly zero impact on anything, especially not the DDRC approval.

The City could easily get sued over this. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing in this design that does not fit the DDRC's guidelines.

Nm

This makes me sick, does Elliott have that much pull over the committee? Or are they all just ignorant?

Interestingly, the DDRC Staff Report recommended approval. Reading through their report (PDF (https://agenda.okc.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=3220923)), in Section D, objections were noted to the balconies along the west and north elevation, the height of the building, the color of the window openings on the first floor, and location of the garage exit stairwell; the strongest disagreement seems to be with the balconies, but they note, "In the revised design, the applicant has reduced the overall length of balconies on the west façade." All of the other items had considerations that clearly supported approval of the design; for instance, the height issue defers to the Downtown Development Framework's recommendation of 3-5 stories on this site, the window opening color issue notes that existing guidelines do not specify appropriate or inappropriate colors and that colored window systems are not unheard of in Automobile Alley, and the stairwell issue is mostly moot as the garage is reserved for the tenants.

Here are a few screencaps of new renderings from their presentation to the DDRC (https://agenda.okc.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=3220925) today:
12701127021270312704

This is infuriating. What a bunch of spineless nitwits.

These appointed boards are completely out of line and don't seem to know their role. Guyutes was a complete travesty as well. Cost those boys a fortune and a lot of sleepless nights for no justifiable reason.

Since Rand was there to lend his disapproval of the project, I'm curious if anyone was there to dispute Rand and lend their support? If so, then I agree that the city might be vulnerable to lawsuit in that preferential treatment is being given to Bland (I mean Rand); among other reasons.

If there was no counter to Rand at the meeting then THIS is what needs to change. We can't just sit on a forum and voice our approval of design, we need to show up particularly when we KNOW someone like Rand is going to try to get it blocked. At least if there is somebody in REASON to speak against the idiot NYMBYS or folks like Rand who think they are the ONLY architect for OKC. If I were in OKC I surely would make it a priority, hopefully we can assemble folks from the forum who can as well.

Seriously, I totally think the DDRC needs to be revamped with real city planners who know urban design and encourage all schools of thought (at least in the downtown core) and not just be a rubber stamp for the status quo - which sometimes is counter-productive as is in this case.

What if OKCTalk organized a group of people committed to quality urban standards and design and then someone representing the group could make any important meetings. If you can get 15 or so members then it's really not a huge commitment. Hash through the issues to come to a reasonable consensus on the board and then 1-2 people show up to speak.

That would be awesome. If I were in OKC I'd be on board.

I hope folks can organize and we at least speak the voice of OKC Talk consensus at these things and hopefully the status quo and back room boys club won't keep holding this city back.

What a disgrace.

Balcony battle: Downtown review committee rejects Automobile Alley building again
By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record June 16, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – Banta Properties broker Chad Elmore arrived a few minutes after the Downtown Design Review Committee meeting started Thursday morning.

“I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be a good meeting,” he whispered to Muhammad Safdar, the owner of 1122 N. Broadway Ave.

By 11 a.m., Elmore and Safdar felt differently. The DDRC did not approve Safdar’s four-story building. GSB Inc. architect Haven Mankin said he will appeal the committee’s decision, which would send the project to the Board of Adjustment.

“I came in with a positive attitude,” Mankin said. “I thought (the design) would work this time. I expected it to get approved. I’m quite shocked they brought up new ideas that they didn’t before.”

At Thursday’s meeting, the committee took notice of planned balconies, as it did at a May meeting. This time, they were looking at the design rather than their existence.

The city Planning Department staff’s review of the building in regard to the downtown business district guidelines states that balconies are not consistent with Automobile Alley’s character.

A rendering shows a metal rail balcony, with the area below the railing being all-metal woven fencing. Some committee members supported the balconies’ designs because they allowed a better view of the windows. Automobile Alley has several buildings with large windows.

Architect Rand Elliott, representing the Automobile Alley district design group, proposed closing the open metal railings and making them brick. Committee chairwoman Betsy Brunstetter disagreed with Elliott’s proposal; she later cast the tying vote on the application, meaning the application was not approved.

The DDRC is a seven-person committee, and all members were present. But committee member Chuck Ainsworth recused himself from the vote and the hearing on the project. Ainsworth and Elliott worked together on redeveloping the flatiron building at NE Fifth Street and N. Harrison Avenue.

At the May DDRC meeting, the committee did not mention the balcony materials. Members discussed how many balconies the building had. Mankin said at Thursday’s meeting that he had eliminated the second-floor balcony on the north and south sides. He also eliminated 10 spaces in the attached parking garage to create more leasable area on the third floor. He said the balcony remained on the fourth floor because it helps with the area’s flow.

Even with those changes, committee member Cory Baitz said balconies do not align with Automobile Alley’s character. Committee member Connie Scothorn said she’d suggest the balconies being made from brick and metal.

Mankin said the brick balconies would block the windows’ interaction with the street.

“We think Automobile Alley is a sensitive area,” he said. “We’re trying to build a building that brings services to all the housing in the area. The services need to have exposure, but the only way to expose them to open up the building more.”

The committee discussed approving the application if the balconies were changed, but Brunstetter said she would want to see that kind of change before approving it.

Mankin said he didn’t want to come back to the DDRC.

“We have a building that works,” he said.

The Auto Alley design guidelines have exactly zero impact on anything, especially not the DDRC approval.

The City could easily get sued over this. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing in this design that does not fit the DDRC's guidelines.
Automobile Alley has no official district design guidelines, but the district - and this building - is in the DBD planning boundary. Those guidelines call for new buildings to be architecturally sensitive to their surroundings. In this case due to the strong surrounding building stock to the south it should be taking its design cues from Automobile Alley, which has multiple blocks of intact fabric, almost all of which is clearly related to a building type, purpose and time frame. This building doesn't do a good job yet of drawing on the design elements of its neighbors to the south, and I think that criticism is valid.

The problem is that I don't think Planning communicated this clearly and early enough in the process. And since then they have deferred to Rand and given undue weight to an un-appointed committee that doesn't have purview. I know what I am talking about here; I used to chair that very committee. That said, I think the vilification of Rand is unfair. He is trying to fill a vacuum here, since Planning really didn't seem to give enough guidance to this project's architects. They are letting Rand be the heavy instead, which is unfortunate for him and for everyone else concerned. Though I haven't discussed it with him, I honestly think his motivation is to protect Automobile Alley's architectural theme and fabric rather than having anything to do with his Oklahoma Contemporary project, as has been alleged here. He is EXTREMELY passionate and caring about AA's historically-oriented architectural legacy.

Also, the Oklahoma Contemporary comparison is a total red herring; they might be right across the street from one another, but they are in different design districts. This project is DBD (downtown business district), while OC is in DTD-1 (downtown transitional district). As such, this project is once again supposed to draw its design cues from the neighborhood it is in (Automobile Alley), while DTD-1 transitions between the urban and the suburban, so has much more design latitude. This is very much on purpose, and founded on longstanding principles of urban planning.

^

Yes, but that "must be architecturally sensitive to their surroundings" clause is nebulous and has been in effect for quite a while, and still this committee applied that standard and still passed Chase Bank, the Dowell Garage and a ton of other pretty awful projects that didn't even approach this standard.


BTW, the OK Contemporary project is out of compliance with several of the guidelines that apply to it, like the severe lack of windows.

We'll see how the committee regards that.

I think everyone knows that who you are has a great deal of influence on these types of decisions.

This is very disappointing. Very disappointing. These boards are out of control.

What a d!ck... He is building that monstrosity called the Contemporary and he has an issue with balconies one block over?

Absolutely asinine. This proposed building will do more for the district than his enclosed suburban box with no windows.

Very disappointing indeed and quite honestly, this makes me loose respect for Ran Elliott, who I usually support.

Does the DDRC know how they're regarded in this (the OKCTalk and general pro-OKC development) community? Say, after this and the Chase branch decisions?

Does the DDRC know how they're regarded in this (the OKCTalk and general pro-OKC development) community? Say, after this and the Chase branch decisions?

I wonder how many citizens showed up to the Chase decision and this one and let them know their thoughts...

The makeup of that group rotates and they are generally civic minded types who are volunteering their time to help make OKC a better place.

They are often put in a tough position and these issues are usually more complex than most realize.

Anybody who wishes to deny this application based on how it fits into the overall makeup of Automobile Alley should be rightfully accused of overly-pedantic hubris and hystrionics based on this reality right here:

12709

This being right across the street ends all rational arguments about a development like this. Sure if this were a 20 story office tower, or a CNG fill up station with an ATM, or a snow cone stand. Fine.

We're talking about a quality urban proposal (by OKC standards) in a place that even if it were a carbon copy of some building that was the objective definition of Automobile Alley would still not feel like Automobile Alley. Why? Because look above.

And let's forget the fact that a quick trip on Google street view from Park Place to NW 4th demonstrates at least 4 or 5 other buildings that don't remotely look like they belong in the district.

I simply don't care where Rand or the Committe's hearts are. Their collective heads are anywhere but where they ought to be. Rationality is what we're looking for and what we need. Many of us could pick apart the design and urbanism issues till the cows come home, but this is respectable development in the majority of US cities and a step up from a lot of stuff that has been approved in OKC's urban core in the last 5 years.

I believe it is a red herring to suggest people should have to drop what they do -- or skip work -- to do what these appointed individuals should be able to do without huge public protest. Keep in mind most of us aren't independently wealthy, with the luxury to set our own schedules -- or not show up at work at all -- as most people appointed to boards in this good ole boy city can.

Also, the Oklahoma Contemporary comparison is a total red herring; they might be right across the street from one another, but they are in different design districts. This project is DBD (downtown business district), while OC is in DTD-1 (downtown transitional district). As such, this project is once again supposed to draw its design cues from the neighborhood it is in (Automobile Alley), while DTD-1 transitions between the urban and the suburban, so has much more design latitude. This is very much on purpose, and founded on longstanding principles of urban planning.

Obviously, we're knee deep in subjective, but as for Contemporary being in a "transitional" district, it fails at that as well. It's a complete departure from what's to the south. I'm really not advocating either way, but if the DTD-1's objective it to be transitional, then either Contemporary should be denied based on that criteria, or the district should better rewrite their guidelines to better reflect that objective.

^^^^^^^^
Criticism of Oklahoma Contemporary is totally fair...and so is criticism of Broadway Park. I'm saying they are subject to different guidelines, which is fact.

And using bad decisions on Chase and Dowell stuff to justify a wrong decision here is not good logic. Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps Elliot has interest in this corner and is using his position on the committee to influence a sale.

[/tinfoil]

^^^^^^^^
Criticism of Oklahoma Contemporary is totally fair...and so is criticism of Broadway Park. I'm saying they are subject to different guidelines, which is fact.

And using bad decisions on Chase and Dowell stuff to justify a wrong decision here is not good logic. Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right.

The issue seems to be, that no one other than Rand and a few board members see this is as a wrong. It looks like a very attractive development to me, and does not seem so different to the rest of the area to warrant a denial. We're not talking about a Taco Bell with a drive thru here, we're talking about a dense 4-story mixed use development.

Perhaps Elliot has interest in this corner and is using his position on the committee to influence a sale.

[/tinfoil]

It's fine to disagree with his design opinions or his approach to this issue, but he is a pillar of the community who committed to downtown WAAAY before it was cool to do so, who has volunteered thousands of hours to our community, and who is in my experience a thoughtful, decent person. I think unsubstaniated suggestions of impropriety just because someone disagrees with someone else's opinions should be way out of bounds on this board. JMO. Disparaging individuals just because someone disagrees with them is a very bad look for OKCTalk. I think we should be above that.

The issue seems to be, that no one other than Rand and a few board members see this is as a wrong. It looks like a very attractive development to me, and does not seem so different to the rest of the area to warrant a denial. We're not talking about a Taco Bell with a drive thru here, we're talking about a dense 4-story mixed use development.

I think in this particular case it is a question of appropriate district-sensitive architectural style rather than attractiveness (which is very subjective), land use or adherence to urban principles. That's how I read it, anyway. And it seems to be the best leg to stand on if opposing it.

Urbanized, if you were on the committee how would you have voted?

^^^^^^^^
Criticism of Oklahoma Contemporary is totally fair...and so is criticism of Broadway Park. I'm saying they are subject to different guidelines, which is fact.

And using bad decisions on Chase and Dowell stuff to justify a wrong decision here is not good logic. Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right.

Just saying that particular standard that they seem to be applying in this instance has been the most loosely enforced of them all.

Urbanized, if you were on the committee how would you have voted?
It's a tough question. I don't really think I can find fault here with the architect, the client, or even necessarily with committee member for voting in EITHER direction. I really think the problem here is that City staff (who generally does a good job) didn't seem to give a whole lot of direction. If you will go back to page one of this thread, you will see that within the first several posts I predicted that it would get design review pushback. That was just a gut feeling, because I understand the boundaries and general intent of the ordinance, and the building is a bit of a sore thumb if you look at the rest of the district, which is overall quite consistent in historic architectural style. This building would be straight-up MURDERED if it were proposed for a true HP district. But of course, AA is NOT an HP district from a design ordinance standpoint.

I think the thing that is important here is that Planning should invest some time in some more comprehensive design recommendations for sub-districts of the larger design districts. Especially places like AA and Film Row, which have very cohesive existing fabric. I'm not suggesting creation of new districts or committees, heaven forbid; only saying there should be more guidance available up-front. In AA's case it should emphasize scale, window openings, retail windows, street relationship, etc.

When Automobile Alley was a Main Street program there actually WERE such guidelines available from Planning. As in, you could go in and get a booklet that almost looked like a coloring book, with a breakdown of the district's history, its overall design characteristics, and recommendations. For instance: "Automobile Alley's existing architecture emphasizes the horizontal rather than the vertical. Buildings between __________ stories and _________ stories would be encouraged; buildings above that height would be discouraged." or "Automobile Alley's historic use emphasized large retail windows that related to the sidewalk. Therefore first story retail windows would be encouraged, while windowless walls would be discouraged..." Brick encouraged, tilt-up prohibited, etc. etc. There were some for other districts too.

Such resources let the architect or developer know where they stand up front. If they deviate too far they can be sure they will have issues. If they have questions they consult staff before ever submitting. It also gives committee members more guidelines to stand on besides a staff recommendation, a gut instinct, or "taste," which is a SUPER slippery slope.

There were similar books for other districts. I mentioned them to someone from Planning the other day, and I think they have gone by the wayside. This was 20 years ago, of course. But I think I still have one somewhere. Would be interesting to find it, and to share here and/or with Planning staff if they don't still have them or know about them.

Anyway, not sure how I would have voted. Committee members were really put in a tough spot by other people, I think. Sometimes things are not as cut and dried, black/white as we think they are when we read about them or post about them.

Interesting that Rand's Oklahoma Contemporary was also on the same docket (right?) as this proposal. If this is true, then it is clear what Rand's motives are in speaking against this development.

Assuming this is true, then it is the same good ole boy type of system in that someone developing/approval or is seen as a good ole boy (RAND) and civic person can control what gets developed or not given his stature and that alone. Since Rand spoke, then the committee followed without providing any true or real fact that this development would go against a Downtown or Automobile Alley Master Development plan. Seems eeriely similar to Larry's oversight of the CC (and that part of downtown) as well as the streetcar - although I am fine with it not being so on-the-wire since that is new (and now) cheap technology (but in the beginning it seemed like he didn't want wires near Devon tower exclusively).

As was said a million times, I don't see anything wrong with this proposal that would pro-port it from being approved by the Downtown Design Review committee. I hope we can get a group of folks to make these meetings to ENSURE that there's a reasonable counter to the good ole boy protectionism or at least get more transparency on the process and why the committee would deny an otherwise acceptable project.

It's fine to disagree with his design opinions or his approach to this issue, but he is a pillar of the community who committed to downtown WAAAY before it was cool to do so, who has volunteered thousands of hours to our community, and who is in my experience a thoughtful, decent person. I think unsubstaniated suggestions of impropriety just because someone disagrees with someone else's opinions should be way out of bounds on this board. JMO. Disparaging individuals just because someone disagrees with them is a very bad look for OKCTalk. I think we should be above that.

Don't care, RE is a dinosaur. OKC needs another or several more architectural visionaries, doesn't this city have more architectural firms or individuals from which to receiver building design ideas. Tired of Rand Elliot running roughshod over OKC design options

Again, I think assigning clear, self-interested motives borders on reckless character assassination. I've known Rand for a long time and believe it's pretty likely that he was wearing his Automobile Alley hat here rather than his Oklahoma Contemporary one. There is little he is more passionate about than Broadway Avenue. I also believe that calling this "good ole boy" politics is not correct. Rand himself has been on the wrong end of good ole boy politics. Again, just because you don't agree with someone's opinion or their decisions doesn't make it fair to go straight for the juglar and start denigrating them personally.

Again, I think assigning clear, self-interested motives borders on reckless character assassination. I've known Rand for a long time and believe it's pretty likely that he was wearing his Automobile Alley hat here rather than his Oklahoma Contemporary one. There is little he is more passionate about than Broadway Avenue. I also believe that calling this "good ole boy" politics is not correct. Rand himself has been on the wrong end of good ole boy politics. Again, just because you don't agree with someone's opinion or their decisions doesn't make it fair to go straight for the juglar and start denigrating them personally.

It is preposterous to think about the numerous horrific developments that have been green lighted in this city over the past few years, the historic buildings that have been razed without firm replacements. Then, you have someone outside the club propose a quality development that would add life and value to a district that frankly needs more energy, and he is shot down by insiders. Not a good look.

^^^^^^^^
Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

^^^^^^^^
Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

I think many are counting this projects disapproval as the second wrong.

Honestly, I don't understand the disdain for the balconies. I know that new buildings are supposed to take their cues from the surrounding architecture, but does that really mean it shouldn't have any new design elements. Why are balconies such a sticking point? Seems to me they are an extension of the intent to create a vibrant district through design, so, imo, it's the example of a justifiable variance. Are they afraid some will try and add them to existing structures?

I think that's why the other approvals get brought up. Some of what they approved didn't even try to integrate the design into the district or follow guidelines, They actually kind of fly in the face of them. This one clearly was a good faith effort to be more conforming, but it's getting picked apart. So that's kind of frustrating.

I agree. Like I said, I don't think the balconies will be an issue at all. I don't think anyone is going to look at this amazing building and think "hmmm, this building has balconies and others don't." Yet I bet people have looked at the parking garage by Dowel and thought it was ugly.

I am going to comment in both the Oklahoma Contemporary thread and on this subject.

We are a close neighbor to the areas affected as our office is half a block down in 1015 where Coffee Slingers is located. Our company has been there for many years at this point and our group of employees and friends has had the chance to be exposed to what is right and what is wrong with Auto Alley.

The big problem with Auto Alley is scale and the lack of architecture which generates activity. The street itself is too wide, the sidewalks are excessively sloped in areas. The front forward angle parking instead of back-in parking is incredibly dangerous. At night, activity is only stimulated by restaurants. There are no 'eyes on the street' due to the absence of residential building frontage.

This building proposal is in a unique location because it is essentially transitional. The street goes from no vertical frontage due to the park and the vacant land to fairly consistent vertical frontage all the way south to fourth street.

I believe that balconies would help facilitate energy in the area and help enable 'eyes on the street'. Quite frankly they are needed there with the park potentially being more activated than it currently is. Plus, the balconies break the building down more and the massing becomes more transitional from a visual standpoint.

The trouble with the DDRC is it is made up with a great many egos who want to legislate design and demonstrate their social influence from the bench. Auto Alley design guidelines (if they exist in legal form) should be reevaluated to help stimulate urbanity and energy. Many of the buildings have been renovated or restored. Perhaps it's time to move our neighborhood into the next phase of development... one that is welcoming to the human scale.