People are focused on the layout because the layout is bad.

Correct. Even if you truly do need THAT many parking spaces (sigh), why can't they be wrapped around the back? Why can't there be a more urban design despite being a chain restaurant? Sure this is outside of the downtown review zone but it is mere blocks from the streetcar, which should be promoting walkable development. Walking past massive parking lots is just not appealing, and it seems obvious from the originally proposed plans that the developers know this spot deserves better design. Sigh.

Correct. Even if you truly do need THAT many parking spaces (sigh), why can't they be wrapped around the back? Why can't there be a more urban design despite being a chain restaurant? Sure this is outside of the downtown review zone but it is mere blocks from the streetcar, which should be promoting walkable development. Walking past massive parking lots is just not appealing, and it seems obvious from the originally proposed plans that the developers know this spot deserves better design. Sigh.

The reason is a successful business model trumps someone dream of an urban utopia. We can have great urban design before the market demands it and potentially have shuttered businesses lining the streets. Unfortunately, the reality is people come with a dream and no business plan as is the case with everyone focused/complaining about surface parking.

The CBD is as close as we have to a NYC environment and most places are closed on Sunday. Due to the inconvenience and lack of foot traffic at this point. It’s ludicrous to have people hitting up the contact us form of a successful business that wants to locate a restaurant in an otherwise empty field and suggesting they know more about how they should layout their location than the operators.

The layout is bad? Why, because it’s aesthetically displeasing to someone who desires urban design outside of a densely packed area. Tell me again how they’ll pay their employees and not end up an empty building with the new plans everyone desires…

I urge anyone complaining to check maps and drive the area with your own 2 eyes. I did that Friday, on the way to the baseball game. Broadway north of 11th isn't urban dense, and isn't going to be anytime soon. 13th and Broadway has an old Used Car Sales office that has been converted to some financial business, with about 100 parking spaces for a 4,000 ft building. 16th and Broadway isn't realistically part of the urban core, and has no reason to be. I-235 and the railroad tracks wall off the east side and the Heritage Hills East neighborhood blocks the west. Heritage Hills East does not allow entrance from Broadway, and only allows exit to the south at Broadway. I don't think the streetcar will ever be closer than 3 blocks away, and there is almost zero need for walkability. And I'm not aware of any plans to make Alley North so dense that it creates a true walkable area that is economically sustaining.

And I'm not aware of any plans to make Alley North so dense that it creates a true walkable area that is economically sustaining.

The initial renderings for Alley North showed exactly this so getting a giant surface parking lot instead is what is making a lot of people upset.

So TIF should only be given to projects under some design review committee? Seems a bit unfair, and elitist, to me. But what do I know.

Yes. TIF or any other public incentive should not be unconditional. That's not elitist. That's just sensible. I don't know what you do or don't know.

The reason is a successful business model trumps someone dream of an urban utopia. We can have great urban design before the market demands it and potentially have shuttered businesses lining the streets. Unfortunately, the reality is people come with a dream and no business plan as is the case with everyone focused/complaining about surface parking.

There is absolutely no good reason to think that shifting the parking behind the building will hurt business.

I urge anyone complaining to check maps and drive the area with your own 2 eyes. I did that Friday, on the way to the baseball game. Broadway north of 11th isn't urban dense, and isn't going to be anytime soon. 13th and Broadway has an old Used Car Sales office that has been converted to some financial business, with about 100 parking spaces for a 4,000 ft building. 16th and Broadway isn't realistically part of the urban core, and has no reason to be. I-235 and the railroad tracks wall off the east side and the Heritage Hills East neighborhood blocks the west. Heritage Hills East does not allow entrance from Broadway, and only allows exit to the south at Broadway. I don't think the streetcar will ever be closer than 3 blocks away, and there is almost zero need for walkability. And I'm not aware of any plans to make Alley North so dense that it creates a true walkable area that is economically sustaining.

Same could have been said about midtown around 15 years ago. Just because it isn't urban dense now doesn't mean it should be open season to do whatever. There is only so much land in the urban core to develop. Nearly every vacant lot in that vicinity has plans on being developed.

Same could have been said about midtown around 15 years ago. Just because it isn't urban dense now doesn't mean it should be open season to do whatever. There is only so much land in the urban core to develop. Nearly every vacant lot in that vicinity has plans on being developed.
Look at the area personally, study the maps, and then tell us how this is such a precious part of the urban core. It just is not an area of density within the next 50 years.

The initial renderings for Alley North showed exactly this so getting a giant surface parking lot instead is what is making a lot of people upset.

The initial renderings would not make a dense area at the level it would be self contained, walkable, vibrant area.

Same could have been said about midtown around 15 years ago. Just because it isn't urban dense now doesn't mean it should be open season to do whatever. There is only so much land in the urban core to develop. Nearly every vacant lot in that vicinity has plans on being developed.

The same could have been said for Bricktown 30 years ago.

The initial renderings would not make a dense area at the level it would be self contained, walkable, vibrant area.

19160

This would have been denser and more walkable than like 90+% of all developments in the city.

Although I am now looking forward to the impending Tex Mex restaurant with surface parking announcement now.

19160

This would have been denser and more walkable than like 90+% of all developments in the city.

Although I am now looking forward to the impending Tex Mex restaurant with surface parking announcement now.

Since we’re throwing around bad examples. It sounds like most people want Steelyard 2.0??? It’s a pleasure walking past empty and vacant store fronts. How about Devon Tower retail that makes for such an inviting stroll….

Please point me to the area of Midtown that isn’t loaded with surface parking…

Since we’re throwing around bad examples. It sounds like most people want Steelyard 2.0??? It’s a pleasure walking past empty and vacant store fronts. How about Devon Tower retail that makes for such an inviting stroll….

Please point me to the area of Midtown that isn’t loaded with surface parking…

I’m confused as to what the argument is? Since Midtown and the CBD have areas that aren’t very walkable that means a suburban style development in the core like this is okay? The reason those places aren’t super fun to walk in the first place (although Devon may be a bad example being by the Botanical Gardens and all) is because of canyons of parking garages and surface lots like this one.

How is a restaurant supposed to stay in business if they can't get lots of customers? Sure, there will be a few people that can walk there, but this is OKC, not NYC. A vast majority of people here drive (in OKC, not this forum, apparently). My guess, it will be many years before the split is even 50/50 walking/driving. I am glad a restaurant of this caliber came to OKC (even though I don't like seafood and won't likely visit often). I would say it's a big risk for an "up-scale" restaurant to be surrounded on three sides by Opportunity Zones. They probably should have put it in a nicer part of the city if you ask me, but... time will tell.

I wouldn't argue that this place shouldn't include surface parking. I would argue that it shouldn't be in a big donut surrounding the building.

I wouldn't argue that this place shouldn't include surface parking. I would argue that it shouldn't be in a big donut surrounding the building.

You could push it more north (toward 16th), but with the easement to the west (no building) and the railroad to the east (need buffer from that noise), what are their real options?

Simplest thing to do would be push it to the southern edge of that lot so that it is more homogenous with the rest of the development. The ideal would be to make the building a little wider and an little less deep so that it fits between broadway and the easement.

Simplest thing to do would be push it to the southern edge of that lot so that it is more homogenous with the rest of the development. The ideal would be to make the building a little wider and an little less deep so that it fits between broadway and the easement.It's highly doubtful that this will happen, as there does not appear to be enough space west of the easement.

How is a restaurant supposed to stay in business if they can't get lots of customers? Sure, there will be a few people that can walk there, but this is OKC, not NYC. A vast majority of people here drive (in OKC, not this forum, apparently). My guess, it will be many years before the split is even 50/50 walking/driving. I am glad a restaurant of this caliber came to OKC (even though I don't like seafood and won't likely visit often). I would say it's a big risk for an "up-scale" restaurant to be surrounded on three sides by Opportunity Zones. They probably should have put it in a nicer part of the city if you ask me, but... time will tell.

No one is saying most of their customers must walk there. You can add parking in many ways and maintain a more walkable environment. People have pointed out how to do it throughout this thread.

All this talk about walking reminds me of the good ol' days in the mall parking lots when people would slow roll waiting for someone to leave. Eventually we are all going to be walking even if we bring our cars. That parking lot is huge.

The same could have been said for Bricktown 30 years ago.

The same was said about bricktown. And midtown, and plaza district, and paseo, etc.

They would never work and the reason given was usually a combination of: 'not enough parking' and 'buildings are too old', with sprinkles of 'Oklahomans don't walk' and 'that area is scary'.

19160

This would have been denser and more walkable than like 90+% of all developments in the city.

Although I am now looking forward to the impending Tex Mex restaurant with surface parking announcement now.

Would have? Isn't most of this development still moving forward as designed? From Pete's coverage and the Oklahoman stories it sounds like the vast majority of this remains the same (dense, walkable, etc), except for Pappadeaux island on the northern-most lot.

No one is saying most of their customers must walk there. You can add parking in many ways and maintain a more walkable environment. People have pointed out how to do it throughout this thread.

Yeah I agree…I don’t really understand why these are being treated as mutually exclusive. Stick the thing on the SW corner of the property or at 16th and Broadway (or really anywhere fronting Broadway) and add as much parking as you want on the rest of the tract. That doesn’t change anything other than just making it slightly more walkable and create some continuity between the urban development we’re supposedly getting to the south as well as AA.

It’s their property and is outside of any design review district so by all means they can do whatever they want (and on a personal note…hell yeah! I love Pappadeaux and all of their concepts!) but a slightly altered site plan seems like a win for everyone.

Would have? Isn't most of this development still moving forward as designed? From Pete's coverage and the Oklahoman stories it sounds like the vast majority of this remains the same (dense, walkable, etc), except for Pappadeaux island on the northern-most lot.

Hopefully so, although like you mentioned the giant parking island impacts things. Who knows, maybe the rest is built entirely as the renderings show and The Hub development takes off next to it too. Then the area will have some nice density and the Pappadeux inexplicably not being on the corner will seem even more bizarre.

Would have? Isn't most of this development still moving forward as designed? From Pete's coverage and the Oklahoman stories it sounds like the vast majority of this remains the same (dense, walkable, etc), except for Pappadeaux island on the northern-most lot.

Given their willingness to compromise on having any amount of urban design for the Pappadeaux portion of the development I would not bet on the rest of it being built as originally proposed either.

I wonder how many on here kvetching and screaming have contacted their city councilor letting them know they want it to be more urban?

This still has to be approved by them, so you can at least try to let them know your perspective.

I wonder how many on here kvetching and screaming have contacted their city councilor letting them know they want it to be more urban?

This still has to be approved by them, so you can at least try to let them know your perspective.

no it really doesn't ..

a denial by them would have no legal ground to stand on ..

no it really doesn't ..

a denial by them would have no legal ground to stand on ..

Why? They have to submit a whole new site plan through the Planning Commission. If they say no, then there is no legal ground for them to stand on.

They submitted plans for a highly urban development, then changed to this. It WILL require a new application through Planning and then City Council.

Rather than speculation, does anyone on here actually know what if any obstacles this piece of development (restaurant with parking) might face with the city? I believe the zoning is okay for the use. It isn't in any design district I can see. It doesn't create environmental changes (runoff, etc.). Can the city legally stop them from building this?

I'm guessing the easement prevents them from building on the western side of the property. The Alley North people might not want it butting up to their development on the south. How would it fit on the property then?

Rather than speculation, does anyone on here actually know what if any obstacles this piece of development (restaurant with parking) might face with the city? I believe the zoning is okay for the use. It isn't in any design district I can see. It doesn't create environmental changes (runoff, etc.). Can the city legally stop them from building this?

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they could build a Braum's there if they wanted. And it would probably do well, too. I think the only administrative question is whether it should get TIF assistance. Not sure if it's been carved out of the $4.5 million ask.

There is still the formality of city council approval which means citizens could reach out to their council person and even go speak at the meeting.

But in reality, no, there aren't any barriers when something falls outside of design review boundaries. It's the same with demolition; just file a permit and it gets instantly approved (often same day).

I also posted this on the other thread but on the photograph and rendering Pete posted of the Pappadeaux's parcel there is a large powerline and easement between Broadway and the restaurant building. Without a complete redesign, l don't think the proposed structure would fit between Broadway and the easement.

I could care less what it looks like. All I know is I'm one step closer to "pasta Mardi Gras" and a "purple voodoo" ��

Those are awesome!!

I drove by NW 13th and Broadway yesterday and the former Dolese building on this space was being demolished.

I love being able to park in a garage compared to surface lots for the extra layer of protection against the weather, but it really isn't necessary in OKC yet. For the record I am not saying a lot of downtown surface parking is good. However, I will say that we are nowhere near the level of development as a city that would necessitate the additional cost of structured parking everywhere. I think collectively we should just appreciate what we have. I am not a construction expert, but I imagine developing a lot that is a parking garage is not all that harder than developing one that is an open field. I imagine they both have positives and negatives, but I am not an expert by any means.

I drove by NW 13th and Broadway yesterday and the former Dolese building on this space was being demolished.

I drove by it this morning, and they are back at it. That building should be entirely down by the end of the day.

Some additional context for how the surface-parked Pappadeux's fits into a reworked site plan on CBRE's dedicated project website. My guess is that the +/-500 multifamily project becomes something more like 250-300 units and the retail gets scaled back a bit. Pivot can still fit that program in the remaining assemblage.

https://alley-north.cbre-properties.com/site-plan/

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424d.jpg

It's a little difficult to tell from the exhibits, but it looks as if the view terminus at the end of NW 14th Street is now the hotel rather than the community gathering space with the bandshell.

19189

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424c.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleynorth092424d.jpg

How will this ever work without a surface lot large enough for a small arena surrounding it?

What does the 100 keys mean?

74,000 SF at 65' x 56' would be 20 stories. Is that the weird hotel with 100 rooms (5-6 rooms per floor, depending on ground floor)? Maybe a typo, looks more like 165'x156' or something?

What does the 100 keys mean?

74,000 SF at 65' x 56' would be 20 stories. Is that the weird hotel with 100 rooms (5-6 rooms per floor, depending on ground floor)? Maybe a typo, looks more like 165'x156' or something?

Yes, Key means room.

Also, I'm a little confused by the 4,500 SF Med Office or Retail in the bottom right... 60' x 133' = ~8,000 SF, a little over double. What's that plan, a 4500 SF building with 3500 SF parking or something? That does not appear to be consistent with how they labeled the other areas.

Yes, Key means room.

Thank you.

The dimensions still don't add up to me...

What does the 100 keys mean?

74,000 SF at 65' x 56' would be 20 stories. Is that the weird hotel with 100 rooms (5-6 rooms per floor, depending on ground floor)? Maybe a typo, looks more like 165'x156' or something?It looks like it should read "165' x 56'.

According to Evan Onstot @ KOCO, today Pappadeaux pulled out of plans to come to OKC due to "site concerns". Have you heard anything about this Pete?

According to Evan Onstot @ KOCO, today Pappadeaux pulled out of plans to come to OKC due to "site concerns". Have you heard anything about this Pete?

I'm not sure what was said at the planning meeting, but it sounds like they showed a little bit of backbone and Pappadeaux threw a fit and withdrew.

they still own land north where it’d fit in with their layout better..

I'm not sure what was said at the planning meeting, but it sounds like they showed a little bit of backbone and Pappadeaux threw a fit and withdrew.

This was already approved by the Planning Commission.

Just yesterday, City Council approved closing some easements as part of this project.

Not sure where KOCO is getting their info. Not saying they are wrong, I just haven't been able to find anything about this.


This site has never made much sense for Pappadeaux so if something happened, let's hope their demonstrated interest in OKC means they land in a more logical location. If not the property they own at Memorial & Portland, I'm sure The Half would perform backflips to get them.

Seems like the current location isn't a good fit. So this might be for the good. Pappadeux's is a better fit for The Half, Chisholm Creek, or even The Oak.

Wish we could get a Pappasitos in the old Abuelo’s space downtown. Would be a great spot for it.

Seems like the current location isn't a good fit. So this might be for the good. Pappadeux's is a better fit for The Half, Chisholm Creek, or even The Oak.

Yet we had all sorts of people when this was announced claiming it was a great fit and would always be packed. The only place it would remotely make sense downtown is in Bricktown. Sounds like they must not have done much research until after the fact.

People would have to pay for parking or get a voucher in Bricktown. The horror!

If they move anywhere, it they will have a large parking lot of their own.

Yet we had all sorts of people when this was announced claiming it was a great fit and would always be packed. The only place it would remotely make sense downtown is in Bricktown. Sounds like they must not have done much research until after the fact.

I mean, just because it may be a better fit elsewhere does NOT mean it wouldn't be packed every night if it were here. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

I mean, just because it may be a better fit elsewhere does NOT mean it wouldn't be packed every night if it were here. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

It was almost criminal to pass up a prime Chisholm Creek spot. Alley north deserves density not a Home Depot sized parking lot

I would expect that Razzoo's at Chisholm Creek has an exclusivity agreement that would prohibit Pappadeaux.

Pappadeaux's property at Memorial & Portland still makes a lot of sense as would The Half.

The Half has very ambitious plans, not only for the huge expansion to the south, but they should soon be starting work on the hotel along the lake along with 3-4 restaurant spots near the water.

According to Evan Onstot @ KOCO, today Pappadeaux pulled out of plans to come to OKC due to "site concerns". Have you heard anything about this Pete?

Any change the rest of this development (particularly toward 13th St) has "site concerns" and pulls out? Asking for a friend...

Any change the rest of this development (particularly toward 13th St) has "site concerns" and pulls out? Asking for a friend...I would rate this as "doubtful." The development appears to be well-capitalized, they are continuing with site work, and they have tenants already identified.

I would rate this as "doubtful." The development appears to be well-capitalized, they are continuing with site work, and they have tenants already identified.

The only occupant that has been made known is Guernsey.