iRUwSFRX8q8&feature=youtu.be

What stage of the process is this in? Speculation? Moving forward?

Here's an image from the video:

13757

While I think Rand's designs are not usually functional because he ignores context and builds his own art, I do commend him for his creativity. This building will look pretty cool and I love that he's fitting these units on such a small row of land. It just seems like a missed opportunity to have the walkway so thin that all residents can really do is stand there. There doesn't seem to be room for chairs or anything. In other words, he's created a shared social space that's not really designed with people in mind. But that's kind of his thing - design over function. Anyway, it's still pretty cool and unique.

Very cool!

10 lofts.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fullmoon1b.jpg


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

No planning docs or building permits have been filed as of yet.

I suppose that would be classified as a "balcony"? Does this meet all of the appropriate Midtown balcony guidelines and restrictions? Maybe we should send it back to Rand with another architects rendition of what it should look like.

I suppose that would be classified as a "balcony"? Does this meet all of the appropriate Midtown balcony guidelines and restrictions? Maybe we should send it back to Rand with another architects rendition of what it should look like.

That was Auto Alley. :)

That was Auto Alley. :)

Oh, I know. But I'm still never going to pass up an opportunity to pick on Rand.

The design shown is likely to be well outside the design guidelines and it will be interesting to see how the committee handles this.

Interesting that the video was removed. Wonder why...

I really do hope this gets built largely as is. This really could serve as a unique symbol of that part of Midtown.

Interesting that the video was removed. Wonder why...

I really do hope this gets built largely as is. This really could serve as a unique symbol of that part of Midtown.

https://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5398676216001#gsc.tab=0

I love the design, as much crap as I give Rand. I'd love to see this go up as is.

Looks like the cat got out of the bag too quickly on this one....

I love the design, as much crap as I give Rand. I'd love to see this go up as is.

This looks like a cool project. But after watching that video...let's just say I pray to God that I never end up cornered at a cocktail party having to talk to that guy.

"LET ME RECITE FOR YOU MY WORD PAINTINGS."

Kill me now.

Looks like a cigar guillotine.

Will be interesting to see it completed.

Curious as to the long term viability of that. If buildings are built on either side of it, you won't even be able to see the building.

http://newsok.com/full-moon-to-rise-in-midtown-oklahoma-city/article/5545569

i don't know if i'd like the window situation. you have one on the outside and one looking into the moon. and you would probably close the blinds on the latter rather frequently to prevent the other astronauts in the building from seeing your full moon!

http://newsok.com/full-moon-to-rise-in-midtown-oklahoma-city/article/5545569

You should really get credits. �� I tend to find local news here first, then newsok, the TLO.

The original video in this thread was from the Oklahoman's youtube site.

The original video in this thread was from the Oklahoman's youtube site.

Ah. My apologies. But you do seem to be more on the ball on these things than them often.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fullmoon1b.jpg
Full moon looks like a great project (in fill) ready to be developed. Rand Elliott thinks outside the box of architectural design.

As among many optimists on this board, my fear is that by the time they break ground & finish, we'll be lucky to have a HALF MOON if not a TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE.

Sure it looks cool, as does most of his work, but as mentioned already, will it be functional? No parking? Some of the 800-1000sf units are multilevel? And you know this won't be a cheap build so are rental rates going to be reasonable? As with the classen curve, residents are likely to thinklike the retailers there, they are less concerned with the "art" they reside in and more concerned functionality and price of rent.

Also mentioned above, it's going to be fun watching him fight anything that might get built east or west of it.

Sure it looks cool, as does most of his work, but as mentioned already, will it be functional? No parking? Some of the 800-1000sf units are multilevel? And you know this won't be a cheap build so are rental rates going to be reasonable? As with the classen curve, residents are likely to thinklike the retailers there, they are less concerned with the "art" they reside in and more concerned functionality and price of rent.

Also mentioned above, it's going to be fun watching him fight anything that might get built east or west of it.


This is another case of Rand ignoring the street and sidewalk and making his focus away from the street. I guarantee he will fight anything built ont he adjacent lots that disrupt the view of his artwork.

Hudson Park to the immediate west is already approved.

To the east is the Wesley retirement complex and their parking lot abuts this property.

I have been curious as to what the other side of the building looks like...

Don't know why creativity and something truly different draws such ire from this community.

I approve of this project!

25' wide and 5 stories tall...it probably needs the hole just to keep from blowing over. :D

Don't know why creativity and something truly different draws such ire from this community.

Is it drawing that much ire? There's a number of positive comments, some questions, and the critiques are mostly reasonable. Other critical comments have more to do with Rand's critique of others' developments.

This COULD be very cool. The renderings are pretty fantastic. We will see as this moves through the process.

I have been curious as to what the other side of the building looks like...

The dark side of the moon?

The dark side of the moon?

Good one!

^^^

I would love to see this built. It's different, but it's unique and will add flavor to Midtown. When exploring a city on foot, it's buildings like this that will stand out.

“FULL MOON” RISING
Luminous Loft Living near Downtown OKC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

April 18, 2017

Oklahoma City, OK—The application for a dramatic and sophisticated concept in urban living was submitted to the Oklahoma City Downtown Design Review Committee Tuesday, April 18. It is designed by the celebrated architect Rand Elliott.

“Full Moon” is the name inspired by the 42-foot oculus, the structure’s signature. Spanning the oculus is the Skywalk, a vantage point for skywatching.

For passersby, the development turns a remnant piece of land – and an eyesore – into a district- defining asset. For residents, Full Moon sets the stage for day-to-day experiences sprung from spectacular views and the play of light within the interior spaces. Sunrise, sunset, stars, storms and near-360° views include downtown and other urban skylines.

Eight Full Moon lofts – and two garden flats – are planned, available for leasing later this year. Each floor plan affords the resident a unique perspective of the oculus and the outdoors. Given the level of detail in the design, each will be a work of art.

OKC’s new transit line will feature a stop on the same block, on NW 11th Street. Residents will share an enclosed ground-level courtyard and garden. Reserved resident parking will be across the street.

Elliott + Associates is the project architect and Lingo Construction Services is the contractor. For more, visit FullMoonOKC.com (fullmoonokc.com)


“What if you could take something nobody wanted and turn it into a beautiful, original piece of architecture you could call home? The property at 322 NW 12th was described as unusable and largely discarded.

But the narrow nature of the lot created opportunities. It demanded creative answers and careful attention to detail to ensure a sense of luxury and livability. The oculus creates a soaring feeling. It will be exciting.” Rand Elliott, FAIA, Elliott + Associates

iRUwSFRX8q8&feature=youtu.be

http://m.newsok.com/full-moon-project-plans-approved-construction-to-start-within-90-days-in-oklahoma-city/article/5549679

This project is amazing. It will be one of the more architecturally significant buildings in okc. There isn't much else like it here or anywhere.

I like this building. It will be great to see online, but the fact that he has ensured no surrounding density so that his art can be appreciated is... a disservice to the city at the very least.


The only concern voiced by the committee was the prospect of structures being built to the east or west of the Full Moon that would hurt the building's appeal and hide its dramatic facades. Elliott responded he has met with owners of the surrounding properties and is not worried about the surrounding lots being cleared for a higher density development.

I like this building. It will be great to see online, but the fact that he has ensured no surrounding density so that his art can be appreciated is... a disservice to the city at the very least.

:mad:

This is very angering.

But there is nothing from keeping those lots from being developed into higher density, right? Nothing to get upset about, at least for the time being. It's just formal agreement unless this pr|ck buys the lots.

Isn't there a diner going right next to this building? Sort of like the pump bar... God I hate Rand Elliot with a passion. Go back to Tulsa dude... seriously

I suspect rand would use the full force of his influence and possibly file a law suit similar to those folks in SOSA if anything were going to get built to obstruct his art.

13858

Going on this strip of grass between the Wesley (which itself is three stories so a bit of an obstruction) parking lot and the former Foodies lot which is getting developed, so yes, true it's unlikely to have any competition in the height department. But in the unlikely event, some years down the line, someone bought the foodies lot and wanted to build a mid-rise, Rand would try to stop it.

And I predict he would be successful in his efforts to stop any development covering his art.

I want to be a fan of his -- all of his designs are interesting, and most of them are appealing to the eye. However, in every single one of his designs he completely ignores the street and the pedestrian, and his designs are only successful on large, lots with a lot of empty space around. His designs just don't fit in with general urban principles. If this design were on a corner, or oriented in a way to face the street everyone would win: the pedestrian would maintain good urban form and benefit from interesting views during walking, Rand would never have to worry about an adjacent development destroying the view of his design. Right now this development will be good for everyone in the short term, but a huge problem for everyone involved when land prices go up and that parking lot gets in the hand of someone who wants to build a 4-5 story building there. Rand will be pissed, we will be pissed that Rand is putting up a fight, and the new property owners will be pissed a "Good 'Ol Boy" is about to get his way.

We seem to cheer for the demise of people who do things creatively different. It is our Okie heritage. We predict and hope for failure for unique and interesting projects but cheer cheaply built and same-o-same designs.

We seem to cheer for the demise of people who do things creatively different. It is our Okie heritage. We predict and hope for failure for unique and interesting projects but cheer cheaply built and same-o-same designs.

I appreciate creative design but not at the expense of the greater good.

We seem to cheer for the demise of people who do things creatively different. It is our Okie heritage. We predict and hope for failure for unique and interesting projects but cheer cheaply built and same-o-same designs.

Sometimes, maybe. But with anything Rand does, you're totally off base here. I absolutely LOVE the looks of the things Rand creates. His buildings LOOK awesome. I love the look of the Underground. I love the use of color in his works, the materials he uses, the modern designs, everything. EXCEPT the interactions of his buildings with the area. He is a fantastic aesthetic architect. Any city would be proud to have his look throughout their city. But he straight up SUCKS at street and pedestrian interaction. I think jut about everyone loves this building. Its totally unique. Its just placed horribly.

I love this building. Im excited for it. But it sucks that he has totally hamstrung the adjacent properties because you know he will fight tooth and nail to detract any development adjacent to this. I think, realistically, it's going to be fine and it will never be a problem. However, this creates a possible problem. Maybe it will never come to fruition. We will see.

Catch... +1 on your posts. He could just as easily build these things in the suburbs and they'd be great.

Catch... +1 on your posts. He could just as easily build these things in the suburbs and they'd be great.
Please feel free to show this kind of building in the suburbs. This seems to be the remark when legitimate criticism can't be concocted.." .oh, it should be in a suburb". You need to do better than that.

I appreciate creative design but not at the expense of the greater good.
So, who gets to decide the "greater good"?

We seem to cheer for the demise of people who do things creatively different. It is our Okie heritage. We predict and hope for failure for unique and interesting projects but cheer cheaply built and same-o-same designs.

Nice straw man there, chief. Ridiculous.

This building belongs in an urban environment. It's being built densely on a small lot. Of course, Elliott can't expect for nothing with height to be built next door, but I got the sense that he just didn't expect that there is any density forthcoming when he chose this lot. He's probably right too. The senior parking isn't going away and the plan for the Foodie's lot doesn't look like it's adding height any time soon. I wish Rand would consider people and context more in his designs and I wish he'd been less demanding in the Automobile Alley case, but he does very interesting work. Ideally, this building would be on a corner lot so development with height would never be a concern. But we don't have to swing from one extreme to the other when discussing people on this board. I think this could be an iconic building for OKC.

Please feel free to show this kind of building in the suburbs. This seems to be the remark when legitimate criticism can't be concocted.." .oh, it should be in a suburb". You need to do better than that.oh I don't know, any other city besides OKC has these kinds of buildings spread out in various areas around the suburbs.

You seem to misinterpret my stance on this building. It isn't because I don't like it that it should be in the suburbs, it's that if the architect wants to prevent future developments from being around it that it belongs in the suburbs. This isn't some work of art, it's standard architecture here in LA. But have fun salivating over this, Rover.

Of course, Elliott can't expect for nothing with height to be built next door, but I got the sense that he just didn't expect that there is any density forthcoming when he chose this lot.

That's what I was thinking. It's not like he's plopping this thing right between two lots that are prime for mid-rise development with the intention of fighting anything getting in the way of his precious masterpiece. Judging from his comments about the lot's characteristics and the prospect of future adjacent development it seems like his choice to pursue this design direction was informed in part by a reasonable expectation that the views of/from the building aren't likely to be obstructed any time soon. That doesn't necessarily mean that if that turns out not to be the case he won't try to keep someone else from building next door, but I'd just as soon let that issue play out in the future where it belongs and enjoy a nice addition to Midtown in the meantime. I'm admittedly ignorant of any similar past behavior/attitude from Rand Elliot, but in general I try (and don't always succeed) to assume good intentions from someone until there's a reason to think otherwise.

I'm not a huge fan of Elliot's work (not necessarily because it's not good), and there are definitely issues with this design, but I applaud his effort to make effective use of a relatively narrow plot. Most people would look at it and see very little opportunity.

Of course, the real solution to the problem of future projects getting in the way of the view is to build two more identical buildings west to the corner of Hudson.

…in every single one of his designs he completely ignores the street and the pedestrian…

What about this design is not considerate of pedestrians and doesn't fit with good urban principles?

Disclaimer because trying to have a good conversation online sucks: I'm not trying to suggest that you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

oh I don't know, any other city besides OKC has these kinds of buildings spread out in various areas around the suburbs.

You seem to misinterpret my stance on this building. It isn't because I don't like it that it should be in the suburbs, it's that if the architect wants to prevent future developments from being around it that it belongs in the suburbs. This isn't some work of art, it's standard architecture here in LA. But have fun salivating over this, Rover.
So now, LA is you bible on things urban or suburban? First, LA has more of about everything than OKC and most cities. Second, OKC has been a small city with virtually no really creative architects or architecture EVER. Love or hate his style, Rand has stretched the art of architecture here and has added much needed visual diversity to an otherwise pretty boring scope of buildings. His peers recognize him nationally and internationally for good reason.
That said, he doesn't design boring buildings that serve strict new urbanism principals, and I get that. That makes him a target to many on here. But we will get a visually stimulating building. If it gets covered up, then he will be proved wrong I guess. In the meantime, I hope the snarking stops. We should celebrate some chances being taken to make this a more interesting city to live in.

What about this design is not considerate of pedestrians and doesn't fit with good urban principles?

Disclaimer because trying to have a good conversation online sucks: I'm not trying to suggest that you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today. It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests. Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.

Can we not have like one thread not poisoned by useless negativity?

The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today. It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests. Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.

Ok, Obviously Rand has influence and has been involved in some annoying situations. Admittedly he doesn't always build the most pedestrian friendly designs. However, it's totally unfair to bash him like this.

He has worked closely with the developers of Hudson Park and they are working to streamline the two lots. He also said that he hopes to be a friendly neighbor and work togetherwith whoever decides to develop the parking lot to the east should that ever happen. He was asked at the DDRC meeting what he'd do if these lots were developed and he said he didn't think they would be for a long time, hence why he designed the building like he did, and that he'd try to work civilly with his neighbors to come up with compromises should anything happen next door.

It's easy to make some people out to be bad guys. And too often we make assumptions about things on the board we know little about. Rand has done some stuff I don't appreciate, sure, but he isn't a bad guy and we're lucky to have him in our city.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

it's totally unfair to bash him like this.

IMO this part was very objective and factual and not bashing of Rand.


The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today.

You can argue that this part was bashing (however if the "bully" part had been taken out, I doubt you could), but it's based in reality. Rand has gotten his way in scenarios you or I would not have, and Catch is not the only one to point this out. Steve has as well.


It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests.

Back to a very solid point.


Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.