Please don't patronize me.

If you are taking what I said as a personal insult, that's on you. I don't have the kind of free time to call everyone that is doing something I disagree with and voice my displeasure, and to me, it does sound childish.

So if I were you I'd take your own advice, because your comments are similarly insulting.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but let me get this straight: you described people participating in the process by calling Braums corporate "absurd" and "childish", and then, when another member who has done exactly that explains why they did it and feel its their responsibility, you think it is patronizing and similarly insulting? That seems unfair. If not personally, how else was someone supposed to take you describing their actions as childish and absurd?

Legally correct doesn't always mean morally or logically correct. Just because I can legally go do something doesn't always mean that I should. And I'd certainly argue that - barring insurmountable issues - destroying a building that is historically significant to the surrounding community is not in the best interests of that community or the owners, for that matter.

As for the "Why did he wait until now?" question - it's been mentioned in this thread a few times that various people have tried to purchase the Donnay building for years, but couldn't come to terms with the owner for various reasons - and they didn't seem to seriously entertain offers until suddenly the Braum's deal popped up out of nowhere.

100% agree with you on just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I definitely am not on the side that Braum's should do it, my stance is that once they own the properties the buildings are on, it's their legal right to do so and if that's what they choose to do so be it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but let me get this straight: you described people participating in the process by calling Braums corporate "absurd" and "childish", and then, when another member who has done exactly that explains why they did it and feel its their responsibility, you think it is patronizing and similarly insulting? That seems unfair. If not personally, how else was someone supposed to take you describing their actions as childish and absurd?

I stand by my comments, so I suppose yes, you are right, if he fits the bill of someone who called, then my comments apply. I'm not going through the thread and making a list of who fits my previous description. I actually really respect Dan, he contributes a lot of valuable information to this site, so my goal wasn't necessarily to insult him, but that up to him to decide if he was offended, which he has.

Likewise I find his details of telling me how the process works as condescending. He quoted me so I know they were directed at me.

Again it's up to the party being offended to decide if the statement was offensive. I did, so it is.

If you'd like to pick a fight with me, you can PM. Other than that I'd like to continue focusing on the topic at hand.

Hey, if you find what I wrote condescending then that's on you. Not writing to anyone in particular, but the offended people can self-identify. ;)



I kid, I kid. Not going to get caught up in an OKCTalk war of words because that would do no good and I have no hard feelings anyway. I certainly wasn't trying to be condescending, just explain my position after my post encouraging calling Braum's corporate office seemed to be belittled. Anyway, back to topic. Again, no hard feelings and thanks for the respect comment. I appreciate it.

Braums is dead to me now.

The Braums are from Oklahoma and have seen the positive changes this city has undergone, why plow over buildings with character just to put something up that one can see anywhere else. In short, why be a bad neighbor. Now if this was a company from out of state or something, I would understand more about their ignorance and lack of care. But Braums is from here. Too bad.

I've heard rumors that the entire thing is that there is some kind of personal connection between the owner of the building and the Braum family. In addition, I've heard that the Braum family, for their own reasons, have no sympathy towards or interest in the effort to save the Hi-Lo club.

I think a lot of people, and I mean a lot, are forgetting that a Braum's in this location would be fantastic for Bishop McGuinness students. Rather than speeding across town to Saturn Grille or La Baguette (and endangering the lives of countless citizens in the process, no doubt), they could simply walk to the new Braum's and enjoy a delicious burger and Cappuccino Chunky Chocolate Shake. Seems like that's a major win-win for everyone.

I think a lot of people, and I mean a lot, are forgetting that a Braum's in this location would be fantastic for Bishop McGuinness students. Rather than speeding across town to Saturn Grille or La Baguette (endangering the lives of countless citizens in the process, no doubt), they could simply walk to the new Braum's and enjoy a delicious burger and Cappuccino Chunky Chocolate Shake. Seems like that's a major win-win for everyone.

Do they have open campus for lunch?

I would think very few schools allow this anymore.

Do they have open campus for lunch?

I would think very few schools allow this anymore.

They did as of a few years ago. And I know that the kids drove like absolute maniacs to make it back in time for afternoon classes.

They did as of a few years ago. And I know that the kids drove like absolute maniacs to make it back in time for afternoon classes.

Just looked at their student handbook and open lunch is for seniors only.

https://www.thelostogle.com/2017/09/19/braums-moves-forward-with-plans-to-destroy-oklahoma-city-culture/

"A month or two ago, I received several emails from a former Braum’s insider containing gossip and details about Drew Braum, his business associates, and other members of the company’s executive team. The emails painted a picture of a frat house corporate culture that would make even the most experienced Oklahoma lawmaker blush.

At the time, I wasn’t sure if the tabloid accusations were worth covering or vetting, but for some reason, I now think it’s in our city’s best interests to pursue them. If you have any tips or details about Braum’s, their corporate culture, or the playboy lifestyle of Drew Braum, send them our way. We will pursue each lead, and if something comes from our investigation, the details will be released at a special “Community Meeting” at the Hilo. If Braum’s is going to destroy our community’s culture, we might as well go after theirs, too."

^

Holy cow.

I give them credit... The Lost Ogle really puts their necks out in a town where you generally get punished for doing so.

They are basically the counter-balance to the Oklahoman's "everything is fantastic! and we'll never say a discouraging word about local power brokers and big business".

Do they have open campus for lunch?

I would think very few schools allow this anymore.

I honestly thought the claim that one could purchase a delicious burger and shake from Braum's meant it was said in jest.

Just looked at their student handbook and open lunch is for seniors only.
How big is a senior class at McGuinness? 150 kids? There's not much business there to get.

How big is a senior class at McGuinness? 150 kids? There's not much business there to get.

They have an ADM of just under 700 kids in 4 grades, so your guess is probably darn close.

They are the smallest school in 5A.

Don’t read the Facebook comments from local news.

100% agree with you on just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I definitely am not on the side that Braum's should do it, my stance is that once they own the properties the buildings are on, it's their legal right to do so and if that's what they choose to do so be it.

Wow what a mind blowing take.

Don’t read the Facebook comments from local news.

I love those gold mines. Reminds me why I should vote.

I love those gold mines. Reminds me why I should vote.

Right, and I think too many people kid themselves about the true nature of a very large percentage of the population.

I always laugh when people go to the fair and are amazed at the crowd they see there. Just goes to show how sheltered most of us live.

Right, and I think too many people kid themselves about the true nature of a very large percentage of the population.

I always laugh when people go to the fair and are amazed at the crowd they see there. Just goes to show how sheltered most of us live.

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

I get amazed when people unfriend folks on Facebook or block them on Twitter because they disagree. Living in a social media bubble is, imo, a big problem for lots of people nowadays.

This is why we get results like the Braum's development, massive, unnecessary, ugly parking garages in prime downtown spots, a downtown boulevard that repeats the failures of the very roadway it replaced, etc. Many of us don't understand how other people think and live outside of our social circle. We don't fully comprehend the size of the population that truly sees these developments as progress (or they don't care).

This is very true. Central OKC has a very different culture compared to most of the state or even the metro.

I got enough friends to disagree with in real life. For me Facebook is mainly used for staying in touch with family scattered all around the world and good friends. It's about sharing what is happening in our lives and reading what is happening in theirs: work, kids, free time, etc.

For me, Facebook is not about sharing what pisses you off in politics today, why you think Obama/Trump are the devil, and being constantly bombarded with crap that you should know is fake if you spend even 5 seconds reading the article you are sharing. Those are the people that get either unfriended completely if they are friends, or unfollowed if they are family. Not because I disagree with them, but because I have better things to do than to get worked up about stupid crap on Facebook.

I get amazed when people unfriend folks on Facebook or block them on Twitter because they disagree. Living in a social media bubble is, imo, a big problem for lots of people nowadays.

I agree in general. I don't block people on Twitter, but I've unfriended a few distant friends who are clearly not interested in engaging in meaningful dialogue. If you're just going to rant conspiracy theories without considering other points of view or evidence then what is the point in continuing to engage? It's rare, but those are the people I've unfriended.

Facebook's algorithms have actually done more to create ideological filter bubbles than users' individual decisions.

Everyone uses social media differently. If you don't want to engage in political discussions on Facebook (hopefully you do elsewhere though) then it's a reasonable position to unfriend people who do. I agree that we should aim to learn from those with different views, but that doesn't mean people have to do it on Facebook. Having said that, filter bubbles are a legit problem.

For me, Facebook is not about sharing what pisses you off in politics today, why you think Obama/Trump are the devil, and being constantly bombarded with crap that you should know is fake if you spend even 5 seconds reading the article you are sharing. Those are the people that get either unfriended completely if they are friends, or unfollowed if they are family. Not because I disagree with them, but because I have better things to do than to get worked up about stupid crap on Facebook.

I agree with this. I have unfriended people for constantly sharing fake political news, but it's also always somebody from a past era of my life that I will never see or associate with again. Somebody from high school for instance. Most people who post that kind of stuff might get unfollowed but I won't unfriend them.

my stance is that once they own the properties the buildings are on, it's their legal right to do so and if that's what they choose to do so be it.

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

I see where you're coming from, but it must absolutely be their right to do so. Property rights are the backbone of real estate. Beginning to take individual property rights away would have significant unintended consequences.

It also can work in the opposite direction. For example (maybe not the best one), I (as well as probably plenty of people in Edmond) am disappointed that Edmond residents overturned the zoning change for a higher density, mixed use development near 15th and Bryant, but that doesn't mean I think we should take away their legal right to do so.

Somewhere there is a balance. You win some, you lose some, but taking rights away is not the solution.

But, should it be their legal right to do so?

I hear similar arguments all the time when demolition is proposed. That is, "well they own the land, they can do whatever they want with it". But it always seems that the closer it gets to where they live, the more exceptions to the philosophy they're willing to entertain, or even insist upon.

Technically speaking it isn't their legal right to do so, considering how zoning works.

For example, imagine that the Strawberry Fields development's real goal is to buy up all the property to the west of the new park and then put in a big pig farm. We'd find out real quick that just because you own the property, it doesn't mean you can freely implement whatever crazy idea you dream up without the say-so of the city.

Technically speaking it isn't their legal right to do so, considering how zoning works.

For example, imagine that the Strawberry Fields development's real goal is to buy up all the property to the west of the new park and then put in a big pig farm. We'd find out real quick that just because you own the property, it doesn't mean you can freely implement whatever crazy idea you dream up without the say-so of the city.

Right, because no one really believes in that right as an absolute one. None of my neighbors are going to argue that I should be able to scrape my house for Braum's because, well, I own it.


Somewhere there is a balance. You win some, you lose some, but taking rights away is not the solution.

Well, but that's how the balance is achieved. At some point the rights attached to pieces of land are restricted (i.e. removed).

I think I was being more academic with my comment and in context of this specific example, I can see how it sounded like I was saying we should take this specific land owner's rights away. I have lived in Oklahoma long enough to know that this one is a lost cause. But at some point, we should maybe reconsider how we can better achieve balance between development and community going forward. So, not proposing we take it away from this land owner specifically, but really just seeing if we're ready to look at future policies that can help mitigate it from happening again, either by restricting what can be done or more effectively encouraging development that doesn't default to demolition.

More than anything, I want to know the car count of people who are "going to Braum's" and end up half way Frontier City because that section of Expressway is among the very must confusing in the entire state.

Planning Commission just reached a stalemate on the Braum's rezoning issue.

It is automatically continued to next PC meeting.

Reminder that City Council will have the final say, whether the commission approves, disapproves or sends to council without recommendation.

Surprised the commission did not approve but lots of good discussion.

I just heard that too and was stunned. I have been looking online but cannot find anything on what the discussion centered around. Any details Pete?

I just heard that too and was stunned. I have been looking online but cannot find anything on what the discussion centered around. Any details Pete?

The main issue was that of proper use considering the OKC Plan and how this transitions into the neighborhood.

Reminder that the only thing to be decided is the rezoning of 3 residential lots.

Lots of concerns about the narrowness of 50th and how the project didn't fit into the area due to the immediately surrounding homes. Several mentions of curtailing the taking of homes along Western and converting to commercial use, often after owners let them sit in disrepair for a long time.

Once it became clear there would be a deadlock, the attorney for Braum's (Box) asked for them to send it to City Council without a recommendation. Typically, the Planning Commission either recommends for or against but they do have the option of sending it to the final decision by council without a recommendation one way or the other.

A vote was taken to send forward without opinion but that ended in a stalemate as well.

Box wanting to get this to City Council tells me he thinks they have the votes for approval there and no matter what happens at Planning Commission, their votes are the only ones that matter.

BTW, the attorney for the current building owners said they will demolish the current structures regardless of what happens with Braums.

I see that as a hollow threat and an attempt to bully the committee, as a new buyer may very well choose to keep and restore the buildings. They have paying tenants, after all.

The Braums sale is contingent on the rezoning so if that doesn't happen then no way they just demolish the buildings *then* try and find a buyer.

Just another ugly turn in this whole thing.

I found one of the most interesting points raised was when Janis Powers, who is against the development for many reasons, brought up the point that if it's going to be redeveloped then the entire side needs to be redeveloped, not just this plot in question. This gives credit to the fact that their job isn't to decide about demolition, it's about planning of the site. She and Asa Hightower also brought up many valid points about the traffic entering/exiting Classen and Expressway. Janis Powers said she drove around that area recently for an hour and was amazed at how impossible it was to get around in that intersection. Adding more traffic to this already confusing intersection would only make matters worse she added.

I was confused/irked at many points Box brought up but such is the case when someone is trying hard to push something like this forward. He commented that there are already traffic problems caused by the current businesses there at the intersection which was a first for me to hear about or even witness as I am around this intersection often.

I don't recall Box having any information about traffic plans that they had and it seemed like he had no information on anything outside of the plot. I think if Braum's would have had more planning to offer in terms of options for improving the traffic to/from Classen and Expressway, they may have had a chance to swing a vote like Hightower's.

This was the first PC meeting that I sat through in it's entirety and I'm glad I did but damn that was a long one. More people interested or who have issues with the choices they make should attend more meetings. You can really get insight into what they take into account with each application.

BTW, the attorney for the current building owners said they will demolish the current structures regardless of what happens with Braums.

I see that as a hollow threat and an attempt to bully the committee, as a new buyer may very well choose to keep and restore the buildings. They have paying tenants, after all.

The Braums sale is contingent on the rezoning so if that doesn't happen then no way they just demolish the buildings *then* try and find a buyer.

Just another ugly turn in this whole thing.

I watched the meeting and that argument was the one that didn't set well with me. it was uncomfortable and really did feel like he was bullying the committee and making threats. he mentioned several times that if you change this zoning you get a Braums, If you don't then who knows what you get it could be much much worse and the building is getting dozed anyway. Just didn't sit well with me.

I watched the meeting and that argument was the one that didn't set well with me. it was uncomfortable and really did feel like he was bullying the committee and making threats. he mentioned several times that if you change this zoning you get a Braums, If you don't then who knows what you get it could be much much worse and the building is getting dozed anyway. Just didn't sit well with me.

It didn't make sense to me either... Beyond being a threat, If I'm the city, I'd be like ok.... do I want a braums surrounded by parking or do I want to wait and get something that is higher and better use?

I felt as though box was grasping at straws the whole time when trying to justify this project. They have the legal advantage but they don't have the common sense advantage. For example, at one time box was trying to make the argument that building a braums surrounded by a sea of parking would make the area more pedestrian friendly because their plan would include building sidewalks around the perifery lol... shoutout to Asa Highsmith for not putting up with that bs, asking good questions, and referencing the city's comprehensive plan. Also, I appreciated the Ward 6 commissioner being open, honest, and questioning braum's motivations.

I felt as though box was grasping at straws the whole time when trying to justify this project. They have the legal advantage but they don't have the common sense advantage. For example, at one time box was trying to make the argument that building a braums surrounded by a sea of parking would make the area more pedestrian friendly because their plan would include building sidewalks around the perifery lol... shoutout to Asa Highsmith for not putting up with that bs, asking good questions, and referencing the city's comprehensive plan. Also, I appreciated the Ward 6 commissioner being open, honest, and questioning braum's motivations.

I laughed when Box spoke out against planokc (https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/comprehensive-plan) not being the law or a city ordinance planokc (https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/comprehensive-plan) and Asa came back with you're right but what it is is a set of guidelines that we're required to use in cases like this.

It didn't make sense to me either... Beyond being a threat, If I'm the city, I'd be like ok.... do I want a braums surrounded by parking or do I want to wait and get something that is higher and better use?

The higher and better use argument is so compelling. I wish there were a way to properly codify it. While I personally would like to see this building retained, I also believe there is a tipping point where redevelopment of the site COULD be a net benefit to the neighborhood and to the City, but a fast food box in a sea of surface parking is not it. The traffic impact concern is also extremely valid, and one area where the PC does indeed have defensible purview.

The community at large has an actual BUSINESS interest in retaining structures like this and seeing them be properly maintained instead of being victims of a structured "too far gone to fix" argument via owner-deferred maintenance. This is such an intellectually dishonest approach, and easy to refute now thanks to a large number of recent and highly successful small scale rehabilitation projects in the core.

The other business interest the city has is in tax generation, although again I'm not sure there is an enforcement mechanism. I don't have data to back this up, but I would strongly suspect that the building as currently occupied actually generates more sales tax than will a Braum's, employs more people than does a Braum's, and possibly even generates more ad valorem than would a Braum's. Keep in mind that a Braum's by nature is a disposable structure with a planned life of maybe 20 years and all of that parking does virtually zero for property tax value.

An intangible business interest the city has is the loss of cultural impact. I know we should probably take lists and rankings with a grain of salt, but it's harder to dismiss accolades like the recent article in Food & Wine (http://www.foodandwine.com/travel/we-cant-believe-how-cool-oklahoma-city-being-right-now). Just as OKC is gaining some ground from a reputation standpoint - this despite how much stories from the state at large lately continue reinforce stereotypes - we are forced to make decisions like this that cause us to backslide.

Literally ZERO of our positive national recognition comes about because of how many convenient Braum's locations we have. That is not a knock on Braum's which of course itself serves a valid purpose. But the places that drive national reputation, the places that bring us "cool factor," the things that convince bright and creative people to relocate and invest in our city and convince OKC-born-and-raised college graduates to stay, all usually have common DNA. Read the stories. These "cool factor" places are almost universally places born of adaptive reuse of interesting old buildings. They are authentic. They are cultural touchstones.

This one doesn't even have to be adapted; the businesses are already there. The place just needs TLC and an owner who gives a **** about any of the stuff I wrote above. The fact that previous offers have been made on the place and ignored by the owner only proves the point that this is STRUCTURED maintenance deferral with a demolition end game. The fact that previous offers have been made and ignored ALSO demonstrates that the "if you care so much about this place you should have bought it yourself" argument is a straw man and completely disingenuous.

The whole thing - which at this point is just a replay of many other fights like this - is getting really , really tiresome and discouraging.

^^^^:congrats:^^^^

^^^ Well said, and yep, agreed, and what really gets me about this (and many, many, many other things) is that the average citizen has pretty much no say in anything at all about it - it's all done by the lawyers, CEOs, owners, rich folks, etc. (yeah, I know citizens have *some* say in *some* things, but not nearly enough). Basically, it's just one of many symptoms of the whole "screw the people, they don't matter, history doesn't matter, culture doesn't matter, all that matters is making a whole sh*tload of money for us", which is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo prevalent in the USA now, and will most likely lead to some horrible things in the future.

Having said that, is there *anything* the average citizen can do about this? I'm going to write my councilman, even though he's already opposed to the Braum's deal (Shadid), but that's about all that I can think of doing and that won't even help that much.

Intentional neglect in aid of future demolition is a common tactic in OKC and employed by even some of the most respected urban developers.

The various committees should call out the owners when they attempt to make such a claim and I suspect the public admonishment would discourage this behavior in the future.

The higher and better use argument is so compelling. I wish there were a way to properly codify it. While I personally would like to see this building retained, I also believe there is a tipping point where redevelopment of the site COULD be a net benefit to the neighborhood and to the City, but a fast food box in a sea of surface parking is not it. The traffic impact concern is also extremely valid, and one area where the PC does indeed have defensible purview.

The community at large has an actual BUSINESS interest in retaining structures like this and seeing them be properly maintained instead of being victims of a structured "too far gone to fix" argument via owner-deferred maintenance. This is such an intellectually dishonest approach, and easy to refute now thanks to a large number of recent and highly successful small scale rehabilitation projects in the core.

The other business interest the city has is in tax generation, although again I'm not sure there is an enforcement mechanism. I don't have data to back this up, but I would strongly suspect that the building as currently occupied actually generates more sales tax than will a Braum's, employs more people than does a Braum's, and possibly even generates more ad valorem than would a Braum's. Keep in mind that a Braum's by nature is a disposable structure with a planned life of maybe 20 years and all of that parking does virtually zero for property tax value.

An intangible business interest the city has is the loss of cultural impact. I know we should probably take lists and rankings with a grain of salt, but it's harder to dismiss accolades like the recent article in Food & Wine (http://www.foodandwine.com/travel/we-cant-believe-how-cool-oklahoma-city-being-right-now). Just as OKC is gaining some ground from a reputation standpoint - this despite how much stories from the state at large lately continue reinforce stereotypes - we are forced to make decisions like this that cause us to backslide.

Literally ZERO of our positive national recognition comes about because of how many convenient Braum's locations we have. That is not a knock on Braum's which of course itself serves a valid purpose. But the places that drive national reputation, the places that bring us "cool factor," the things that convince bright and creative people to relocate and invest in our city and convince OKC-born-and-raised college graduates to stay, all usually have common DNA. Read the stories. These "cool factor" places are almost universally places born of adaptive reuse of interesting old buildings. They are authentic. They are cultural touchstones.

This one doesn't even have to be adapted; the businesses are already there. The place just needs TLC and an owner who gives a **** about any of the stuff I wrote above. The fact that previous offers have been made on the place and ignored by the owner only proves the point that this is STRUCTURED maintenance deferral with a demolition end game. The fact that previous offers have been made and ignored ALSO demonstrates that the "if you care so much about this place you should have bought it yourself" argument is a straw man and completely disingenuous.

The whole thing - which at this point is just a replay of many other fights like this - is getting really , really tiresome and discouraging.

I agree with most all of this. But when it comes down to it this building has nothing to do with the rezoning application.

This is simply about rezoning adjacent residential lots next to c4 commercial zoning

To be clear the owners can demo the building with 0 public process whatsoever

Yesterday’s meeting will actually encourage less of a public process. If the applicant hid there grand plans and identity this application would have flown through the rezoning

^

It's not like they were intentionally open.

They were outed by us through the open records process.

Are all the tenants in this building, which there seem to be several, all on short term leases? If not, this building isn't getting demoed immediately.

As for repairs to the building, if these repairs require a city permit, are there cost prohibitive ADA issues that need to be addressed?

Are all the tenants in this building, which there seem to be several, all on short term leases? If not, this building isn't getting demoed immediately.

Yes, the leases can be terminated on 30-day notice I believe.

An intangible business interest the city has is the loss of cultural impact. I know we should probably take lists and rankings with a grain of salt, but it's harder to dismiss accolades like the recent article in Food & Wine (http://www.foodandwine.com/travel/we-cant-believe-how-cool-oklahoma-city-being-right-now). Just as OKC is gaining some ground from a reputation standpoint - this despite how much stories from the state at large lately continue reinforce stereotypes - we are forced to make decisions like this that cause us to backslide.

Literally ZERO of our positive national recognition comes about because of how many convenient Braum's locations we have. That is not a knock on Braum's which of course itself serves a valid purpose. But the places that drive national reputation, the places that bring us "cool factor," the things that convince bright and creative people to relocate and invest in our city and convince OKC-born-and-raised college graduates to stay, all usually have common DNA. Read the stories. These "cool factor" places are almost universally places born of adaptive reuse of interesting old buildings. They are authentic. They are cultural touchstones.


This is the biggest issue for me. It's a shame that the city might be losing a genuinely "cool" destination for a generic fast food restaurant. While it's become a lot better in recent years than it used to be, OKC still needs to preserve every "cool" gem that it has because as you say, those are the kind of things that are going to keep young people from leaving as well as make OKC more attractive for transplants. They increase the quality of life for people who live in the surrounding area. Nobody cares how many Braum's, Sonics, McDonalds, or Taco Bells OKC has. They do care about unique, interesting places to hang out like the Hi-Lo Club and the other establishments in that area.

Also, if Braum's really wanted to invest in the community and make their PR problem surrounding this go away, they could make this a unique location that fits in the neighborhood rather than a generic fast food restaurant surrounded by parking. Just look at what another local chain, Hideaway, is doing a few blocks away on Western.

I agree with most all of this. But when it comes down to it this building has nothing to do with the rezoning application.

This is simply about rezoning adjacent residential lots next to c4 commercial zoning

To be clear the owners can demo the building with 0 public process whatsoever...g

Yes I'm not disagreeing with this. Note that I said I wish some of my points could be codified; not that they WERE codified. The most solid ground the PC is on for this issue is related to traffic generation and access. Honestly, the location just doesn't even make THAT much sense for the intended use. The neighborhood impact will be severe.

I forgot to mention from the community meeting previously that I was surprised that a resident of an upstairs unit was in attendance because I didn't think there were occupants up there. Unless I misunderstood that. Someone else that was there please chime in.

How long until this goes to city council?

How long until this goes to city council?

It goes back to Planning Commission again first; a week from tomorrow.

Then, it goes to Council about two weeks after that.

I forgot to mention from the community meeting previously that I was surprised that a resident of an upstairs unit was in attendance because I didn't think there were occupants up there. Unless I misunderstood that. Someone else that was there please chime in.

There are a handful of residents. The apartments are mostly tiiiiiiny cinder block efficiencies, as in motel rooms with a cook top, except for Stoney's old place which I think has been empty for years. Greg's 2 car bay conversion. And the super funky atrium space made up of like 5 other spaces (and I believe the legend of the defunct upstairs of the HiLo) where Jason used to live that takes up most of the second floor frontage on the west side. Jimmy (one of the owners of the HiLo) leased it and cleaned it up after Jason moved away with rumor that he intended to open a restaurant. But I don't think he realized it would need an elevator. EVERY SINGLE commercial/residential unit sans the west side and courtyards would face serious ADA issues if you tried to "renovate" or even open a new business in any of the spaces. God forbid, if the HiLo were to close and someone were to reopen it as "The HiLo" the ADA would have to be addressed. It's stairs at both ends.

I am NOT tryin to come off as an advocate for knocking down this building or anything. I love this old place, lots of memories. It's deplorable that the owners let it fall to such disrepair that tenants even have keep the building from crumbling, I see the HiLo has kept the plywood bandaids nailed to the sides of the building and painted them pretty in the last couple years. But any serious developer looking at the property would see that there's not much that can be done to bring that thing up to code, not for a return on investment anyway. The owners probably know that too, which might be why they held out for a buyer that just wanted the dirt. Sad.

Ed Shadid posted that Braums has withdrawn it's application to purchase the land now.

Ed Shadid posted that Braums has withdrawn it's application to purchase the land now.

Just spoke to the City's planning commission rep who told me yesterday they received a letter from Braum's asking to remove their request to rezone from consideration.

So, looks like their purchase is now off and the owner will be seeking another buyer.

As the attorney for the owner threatened, they could still completely bulldoze all those properties without any approvals.


I need to find out who is behind that LLC so they don't sit in the shadows and end up doing something really crappy out of spite.

Ed Shadid posted that Braums has withdrawn it's application to purchase the land now.

Hasn't the owner said that the plans to demo the building will continue even if the sale falls through?

Just spoke to the City's planning commission rep who told me yesterday they received a letter from Braum's asking to remove their request to rezone from consideration.

So, looks like their purchase is now off and the owner will be seeking another buyer.

As the attorney for the owner threatened, they could still completely bulldoze all those properties without any approvals.


I need to find out who is behind that LLC so they don't sit in the shadows and end up doing something really crappy out of spite.
That is my worry. That out of spite they will just doze the buildings. I don't know that the buildings will ever be saved to be honest but would be nice if someone did purchase and save them.

Hasn't the owner said that the plans to demo the building will continue even if the sale falls through?

Yeah, but that's a common developer tactic to get their proposal passed. Let's hope this building gets sold to someone who will invest in it.