with the bridge to the peake and the plaza the public part of the project will cost more than their TIF ask ...

Don't come into my neighborhood and demand a parking space for yourself on the off chance you may come downtown and i wont go to your neighborhood and demand density and walkability.
This is a downtown public facility ... not yours personally. It’s this separationist attitude that turns people off to supporting downtown investment.

That said, I too am against this parking proposal.

None of this is public.

It's property they plan to buy and control.

Open space is not the same as public space. They can and will close it off when desired and will pocket all associated revenue.

Sorry... thought the city now owns it and is helping decide what goes there. Thought they were trying to enable something that enhances the public’s interest in the arena, convention center, park, boulevard, et al

Sorry... thought the city now owns it and is helping decide what goes there. Thought they were trying to enable something that enhances the public’s interest in the arena, convention center, park, boulevard, et al

Was referring to BoulderSooner's post, not yours. We cross-posted.

Parking revenue is part of the business plan...................... sheesh.

Ok, so this looks to be a brewery/restaurant which eases my concern. I do wonder about the operators. Maybe just a mini D&B would do better for longevity. Would a corporate brand be willing to pay the insurance (NNN) of the entire Thunder Alley complex? This could be an issue for finding a tenet.
I quite like the basketball structure -- it looks nice. However, considering we are trying to be innovative, a buffalo type fixture would've been more unique.

Was referring to BoulderSooner's post, not yours. We cross-posted.

the center section that will have a road/bridge is clearly public the sidewalks along both robinson and blvd also are clearly public ..

reminder the sidewalk in front houses in most cases is privaitly owned property but it is also in the public ROW infact in lots of cases property owners own to the middle line of streets ..

Randy Hogan should be held to account for his past handling of OCURA land before being allowed to buy/develop more. While I'm not entirely unappreciative of what we have in Lower Bricktown (or his general contributions to the city), it is a far cry short of what was initially promised, but he got a killer deal for all that land, the majority of which is now surface parking (still hasn't been developed into a higher use 20 years later). Imagine for a second that we end up getting a fraction of what is promised here (as was done in LBT), and that it becomes mostly surface parking for 20+ years. We should learn from that experience.

^^^If I understand correctly, there is some kind of contract prohibiting those surface lots from being developed, which IMO is even worse. But I agree with you 100%

So your position is to give millionaires more handouts and build surface parking downtown because... the Thunder have been good for OKC? Not sure I'm following your civic or business rationale here.

Lets look at this a different way. We gave Cosco incentive money to build here yet we are not arguing over how they build their store or parking lot. We gave many other businesses money too and yet I never saw the outrage.

I think some are using the excuse of TIF money to rail on the project. What I mean is if no TIF money was given those same people would still be just as upset whoch is fine. So to me we should not use that they get TIF money as a reason to dislike it. Its ok to dislike it unrelated to TIF money.

Having said all that I understand we have zoning and planning boards to approve or disapprove of buildings in downtown, a HOA type setup so to speak. And thats great for buildings. I don’t think parking lots are covered other than maybe surrounding trees and foliage and other things to obscure it.

I understand some folk want the city built a certain way but I doubt there will ever be complete agreememt on what is best. Every city has this same argument too. I can see the value of having surface parking in a premo future area and others can’t. Its fine to disagree and not hate each other too. I am trying to show another point of view on a message board where it seems mlst posters are pro downtown and less supportive of out of downtown, so I get a lot of static by providing other points of view.

The SC is not efficient for me so I am glad to see se extra parking added in thos area. When the park is done I plan on visiting it and am hoping this parking is open to public, as its in a great location imo.

One comment, everyone is so focused on parking lot.

But what about the open part of the building? This could become a haven for the homeless after hours since its covered. Does it have retractable doors to seal off at night? This is a key area and will have much visibility to tourists nad other visitors (OMNI, Convention center, Peake and Park). Not sure how would be handled nor if it will ever be a problem. But its worth mentioning

I think some are using the excuse of TIF money to rail on the project. What I mean is if no TIF money was given those same people would still be just as upset whoch is fine. So to me we should not use that they get TIF money as a reason to dislike it. Its ok to dislike it unrelated to TIF money..

Don't assume that people are using the TIF money as an excuse. Also, it is okay to dislike it because of the TIF money because you are not the arbiter of how and why people are allowed to like or dislike things. If anyone is Pete is, and his comment a page ago was:


This is a discussion forum.

If you don't like people debating these types of issues, then you should probably go elsewhere.

Don't assume that people are using the TIF money as an excuse. Also, it is okay to dislike it because of the TIF money because you are not the arbiter of how and why people are allowed to like or dislike things. If anyone is Pete is, and his comment a page ago was:

Are you saying no one complained about TIF money?

And I like the project and have been expressing my point of view. Why is my points less valid than others? Is it because more folks don’t like it so that invalidates my views? I don’t run the board and have no control on others views and would not want anyone to stop expressing them.

On this project I am for it and get lambasted

On Streetcar I am against it and get lambasted

Is there a place here where I am supposed go check with someone on what my view should be and if it doesn’t match means I should not post in that topic? I am talking through posts on a board called OKC Talk. But if I need to ask what opinions are allowed please direct me to that rule or person to check with. I have not attacked posters first only repsonded in kind when attacked. I have been name called and not returned the favor. This place seems very clickish.

Thanks

Oh come on. You literally just said:


I think some are using the excuse of TIF money to rail on the project. What I mean is if no TIF money was given those same people would still be just as upset whoch is fine.

Pushing back against that is not you getting lambasted for your opinion, that is pushing back against you characterizing other people's opinions as being fundamentally dishonest. Feel free to express your own opinions of the project if you want, but that is not what just happened.

Oh come on. You literally just said:



Pushing back against that is not you getting lambasted for your opinion, that is pushing back against you characterizing other people's opinions as being fundamentally dishonest. Feel free to express your own opinions of the project if you want, but that is not what just happened.

No. What I am saying is some folks are against it and I am ok with that its their right. But a few added in the caveat because of TIF making it seem to validate their opinion more.

I think of against it then you are against it. TIF money should jave nothing to do with it we give TIF to lots of businesses.

I also expressed there are zoning and other boards needing to approve it so the business can’t just create something awful either. Some may not like it but at least it will have to pass some type of scrutiny.

Then I brought up a valid question asking if the open part can be closed otherwise it might become haven, and promptly got 2 troll replies. And then you go after me. And my question is topic related and valid. This is a high visibility corner and if the covered part is not closeable it “may” become a homeless or vagrant shelter. I have nothing against them either but if it happens that could be a detraction for those at OMNI, Convention or even Park. Again its a valid question and I stared of its closeable then its not an issue.

To repeat its ok to to disagree and its healthy to discuss things. If we are all supposed to have the same view thats where it is not healthy imo.

TIF money requests is an completely valid critique of a project, why do you keep insisting that it should not be? As you keep repeating, other people get to have opinions.

TIF money requests is an completely valid critique of a project, why do you keep insisting that it should not be? As you keep repeating, other people get to have opinions.

We all pay taxes on everything in this city including roads and other infrastructure yet get no or litte input. I know this is a business but TIF is set up to incentivize business to build or move or improve. Without it some projects may not even happen. And its ok to complain about it my take it has no relevence as we give TIF and jncentives to many businesses like Costco. I am betting without paying Costco they don’t come here. In my opinion it will pay for the extra incentives by drawing shoppers from other than OKC. So the extra tax collections over time will more than pay for it. And not to mention construction spending and workers who neither would be there without incentives. Its a huge ripple. Even though this Peake land project is not to the same scale its still a vaid use of money and adds value to the city. I saw lots less complaining about Costco getting money but to note some did complain about getting it. The Peake complaint is different they are not complaining they are getting TIF as much as saying because they get TIF then that better justifies complaints. My take is with or without TIF some would not approve because of design. All I’m trying to do is seperate the two. If people hate it they hate it and its their right to hate it. And I am not stopping anyone from not liking it again its my opinion.

I think we beat this one to death. I’d like to hear more about the open part and of its closeable or not and the potiential problems of its always open yet covered. I’ll let you have the last word.

TIF money requests is an completely valid critique of a project, why do you keep insisting that it should not be? As you keep repeating, other people get to have opinions.

David let me do you a large favor and quote this post:


This message is hidden because OKC Guy is on your ignore list.

David let me do you a large favor and quote this post:

Another post adding nothing to discussion.

Another post adding nothing to discussion.

How's the weather in Moscow this morning?

Let's please get back to the topic at hand.

General rule of thumb: Debate the posts (opinion) and not the poster (making it personal).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iaE-33HKdo

Thunder Alley entertainment complex proposed for downtown OKC

The Oklahoman
Published on Apr 3, 2019

The Oklahoma City Thunder is teaming up with Hogan Property Co., developer of Lower Bricktown, to build Thunder Alley, an entertainment and dining complex proposed for the former Interstate 40 right-of-way just south of Chesapeake Energy Arena.

Let's please get back to the topic at hand.

General rule of thumb: Debate the posts (opinion) and not the poster (making it personal).

Great advice and not just for this thread.

Pete, out of curiosity is there a handy dandy list of who has received TIF or other incentive money in the past 5 years? If so is it in order of how much for each recipient? I was curious if this data is compiled somewhere and if not it would be good info to have. Not surexjow hard it would be nor where to go to gather it all either. If we do find it maybe a pinned thread somewhere listing the info for reference material would be handy.

^

Read this summary article I wrote a couple of years ago, which needs to be updated:

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=39599


You'll see that almost all TIF awards fall into the range of 5-8% in terms of total development costs.

This project is asking for fully 15%. Also, I'm not aware of TIF money (or any public assistance) being used for what is primarily a food and drink establishment.

^

Read this summary article I wrote a couple of years ago, which needs to be updated:

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=39599


You'll see that almost all TIF awards fall into the range of 5-8% in terms of total development costs.

This project is asking for fully 15%. Also, I'm not aware of TIF money (or any public assistance) being used for what is primarily a food and drink establishment.

Thanks for the link thats great info.

Maybe if TIF was capped at say 7.5% of project value would be a good rule to implement. I agree this one is a much higher percentage and I was not aware until now so the info you posted does put it in better perspective. I am still for the project but would like to see TIF capped at 7.5%, and if higher would need a vote.

One thing I noticed it seems pretty interesting how these all come up:

“After the TIF District is established, City staff alone decides which projects are worthy of further consideration. If staff decides a project application isn't worthy of TIF funds, the process stops there. Where an application has been brought for council vote, 100% have been approved”

So who is this “staff” that decide and how are they vetted?

Thats getting away from the topic some but since its 15% vs the the typical less than 10% - why did they agree on so much more above even other highs? I will caution the data is not updated so there may be other projects in this range since, but if not this does seem awfully high in comparison. The much higher value does have the feel of an insider or “knowing someone” to it.

We have 2 seperate yet related topics here it seems:

1. Like or not like actual project

2. Why so high of TIF percentage compared to norms.

I am for the project but against the amount of TIF which is an interesting position. I’d like to see who apprved that much and any connections they have to recipients of money.

Don't come into my neighborhood and demand a parking space for yourself on the off chance you may come downtown and i wont go to your neighborhood and demand density and walkability.
Oh please... that is such weak logic. If everyone operated that way nothing would get done. Mind you most people in OKC fund sales tax live in the suburbs so don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

This project has nothing to do with your neighborhood as it isn’t in an established neighborhood nor are there any housing units near here.

There will be housing units directly across the street. Just sayin.

There will be housing units directly across the street. Just sayin.

Which would have never been build without parking being built for the tenants...just sayin

There's nothing wrong with appropriately applied structured parking. The issue we're having here is surface parking.

Lets look at this a different way. We gave Cosco incentive money to build here yet we are not arguing over how they build their store or parking lot. We gave many other businesses money too and yet I never saw the outrage.

Maybe it's not what you meant to say, but your analogy is solid. Giving Costco public incentives to build here without any qualifications on how they build their store or parking lot(s) is not a good idea.

You may not have seen outrage. They may not have tweeted or posted their concerns on the internet , but I know that plenty of well established, long standing local businesses, that never received a "Gift of the State" to do business here, but will now have to compete with Costco, that aren't really happy about it, even if on principle alone.

So, the public tax incentive financing is a factor. It's the whole reason people have justification in having a voice in what is being built and how. Most of the posts seem to understand this. Even those that hate the 70+ space surface parking lot seem nuanced on this point.. Even if they don't like the lot, most seem to contain the sentiment that if the developer pays the full market value for the land without any government hand out, then, well, then they get to lay down some asphalt where they want and stripe it any way they want.

But that's not what is happening here. Or with Costco.

They're both projects where the investors have asked the state to decide if they're worthy of a publicly financed economic advantage over other interests. And, because of that, people will feel the right to discuss the worthiness of a few dozen parking spaces associated with the project.

There's nothing wrong with appropriately applied structured parking. The issue we're having here is surface parking.

There’s something not being mentioned that I think is very pertinent... Over 5.7 million is being spent on a restaurant(s) that is going to have to be viable on more than just game days... That parking may very well be the difference in if that’s possible or not...

There’s something not being mentioned that I think is very pertinent... Over 5.7 million is being spent on a restaurant(s) that is going to have to be viable on more than just game days... That parking may very well be the difference in if that’s possible or not...

The restaurant part of this is very, very vague in their application.

It's barely mentioned and there isn't even a project site plan that shows how it will be situated, let alone conceptual renderings.

It seems to be a big and important part of this development but there are almost no details other than a mention and a budget line item.

If that is a such a big and important piece, I find it strange there is almost no information or even some breezy blurbs like, "The multi-million dollar restaurant will be a destination year-round" or "Parking will help serve the impressive restaurant operation on non-event days".

They may be planning to operate only when something is happening at the arena.

There will be housing units directly across the street. Just sayin.
You missed the entire point of what I was saying.

As for the housing units, that’s great. I bet more gets announced soon.

Oh please... that is such weak logic. If everyone operated that way nothing would get done. Mind you most people in OKC fund sales tax live in the suburbs so don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

This project has nothing to do with your neighborhood as it isn’t in an established neighborhood nor are there any housing units near here.

You are completely missing the point. What I am arguing is that massive surface parking lots destroy areas. I am not advocating that every corner of the city should begin a war on parking. I’m saying there should be specific areas that emphasize walkability over parking. The CBD is one of them.

Want proof that parking ruins areas? Everyday people drive from the suburbs to the plaza. They pass literally thousands of empty parking lots on their trip to get to the plaza and complain about lack of parking lol.

This is because The plaza is walkable, scaled to people, and doesn’t have massive parking craters in the district.

Most people like this aspect, but most people do not understand why they like it. They don’t comprehend that they like it because of the lack of parking.

So people who understand that dynamic want to keep it. We do not need every area of the city to be 8 lane roads sith massive parking lots in front of every business. We have more than enough of that to go around.

You are completely missing the point. What I am arguing is that massive surface parking lots destroy areas. I am not advocating that every corner of the city should begin a war on parking. I’m saying there should be specific areas that emphasize walkability over parking. The CBD is one of them.

Want proof that parking ruins areas? Everyday people drive from the suburbs to the plaza. They pass literally thousands of empty parking lots on their trip to get to the plaza and complain about lack of parking lol.

This is because The plaza is walkable, scaled to people, and doesn’t have massive parking craters in the district.

Most people like this aspect, but most people do not understand why they like it. They don’t comprehend that they like it because of the lack of parking.

So people who understand that dynamic want to keep it. We do not need every area of the city to be 8 lane roads sith massive parking lots in front of every business. We have more than enough of that to go around.
Scaled to people? Please define exactly what that means because I hear that used all the time and it is ridiculous. It’s so subjective and quite frankly doesn’t make sense.

As for the “they pass 1,000s of parking spaces argument,” what are you trying to say here? They are going to their destination. If their destination is at the Plaza District then why would they park somewhere like Nichols Hills assuming that area is where one of the “thousands of parking spaces” are? How exactly is that proof parking ruins areas? Are you just trolling? Please explain to me then how the Grove(one of the most successful shopping centers in the US) has tons of parking yet by your standards it would be considered ruined? Or just about every single area in the US with few exceptions where parking is plentiful.

No one has said every road in the city needs to be 8 lanes and massive parking lots in front of every business, but nice strawman there.

You also imply that people are idiots and don’t know what they want or why they like something. All I can say to that is good luck ever engaging people with that sort of mentality.

I’m pretty sure people know why they like the Plaza district and a) there is no problem with parking at the plaza district(the only place I’ve ever heard someone complain about that is on this forum and it was like one or two posters) and b) if a nice high capacity parking garage were to be built it would strengthen the districts resiliency by ensuring those with cars and want parking will continue to invest their money into the districts businesses AND likely open up existing surface parking to be developing which would create more density.

I suppose with your logic of “they like it but don’t know why” I could turn that around and tell you that you like parking and don’t know why because my opinion is the right one and since you can’t see that you are just confused. See how that works? I basically just called you an idiot without saying it. It isn’t the right thing to do. So I will say I am not being serious with that rather than just making a point.

Those two arguments(that people like things for a reason they don’t know why and are too stupid to realize it and people pass parking spaces on the way to their destination so there shouldn’t be ample parking at their destination which is the way I took it and why I want clarification to what you really mean by that) are just as weak as the last argument you presented which Rover correctly pointed out is one of separationist POV.

PS, I’m not going to name names, but something tells me you are using two accounts on OKCTalk. That would seem to fit other narratives about you if my theory is correct but I won’t say anymore about it.

PPS, I agree that the CBD should emphasize walkability. I’ll take it a step further and emphasize the entire city needs to do a better job on it. I’m not against walkability.

I don't really care about this project one way or the other. It's purely "okay", nothing really special about it at all. There's a little strip of land here, and if nothing gets built on it, it doesn't matter. The project is certainly not TIF worthy though. They're fishing for free money.

No I do not have multiple accounts on okc talk. I’m just a guy who enjoys the progress of our city and am passionate about doing it the right way. OKC has hurt itself for years with sprawl and bad design. I am proud of the progress we have made and want it to continue. Parking lots will not move the core forward in any positive way.

My name is GoGators because I own in Gatewood after living in the core for several years (CBD, Deep Deuce, Midtown)

(The soon to be closed Gatewood Elementary’s mascot are the Gators)

As far as parking goes, large parking lots in the middle of urban areas make it easier to get there, but it means there's less stuff to do within easy walking distance. OKC isn't going to become some New Urbanist's dream overnight, where we outlaw cars and everybody bikes everywhere. But we've already got more than enough surface parking downtown. 70 more spots are not going to make it easier for mom and dad to drive in from Yukon to go to a Thunder game.

My guess is they'll plan to rent those spaces out on game days or for concerts and other events as VIP spots at $40 a space or something. It's easy cash. It's certainly not the highest and best use, particularly given the Omni that's going in across the street. If the city would wait 5 years, we'd probably get a ton more responses to the RFP from people who wanted to build something better. Definitely not worth TIF money.

No I do not have multiple accounts on okc talk. I’m just a guy who enjoys the progress of our city and am passionate about doing it the right way. OKC has hurt itself for years with sprawl and bad design. I am proud of the progress we have made and want it to continue. Parking lots will not move the core forward in any positive way.

My name is GoGators because I own in Gatewood after living in the core for several years (CBD, Deep Deuce, Midtown)

(The soon to be closed Gatewood Elementary’s mascot are the Gators)
Okay well my bad then but your posting style is just eerily similar to that of someone else’s.

Anyways, how has sprawl hurt OKC? I would really like to know. OKC is consistently ranked as one of the best cities to live, most affordable, best quality of life, etc. Funny enough, cities that are more restrictive on sprawl like LA(yes LA being more dense than NYC and having some of the least freeway lane miles of any city is extremely restrictive on sprawl and if you wish I’ll provide data to back this up) NYC being extremely unaffordable with high poverty rates. Please explain how exactly sprawl has hurt OKC. Last I checked, OKC is doing fine.

Downtown is reviving during a time when the city still continues to sprawl out and with all of that the roads are bridges across the entire city and state are seeing near record investment and getting better everyday.

There are also tons of parking lots and vacant land being developed. I encourage you to look at the development map on google and see how many parking lots are being replaced or have been in the past 5 years. There is nothing here than gravel. So you think this development is worse than that?

BTW, my take on this is that I’d like to wait and see more about it. I’d like to see more detailed plans. The renderings look fine and ideally I’d like to not have surface parking but it’s not that big of a deal as it doesn’t take up much of the developments footprint and can be developed later.

This seems like a good place that pedestrians will gather which will make pedestrian presence known to drivers on the Boulevard and can make a case for more pedestrian improvements when the city takes over the roadway.

As far as parking goes, large parking lots in the middle of urban areas make it easier to get there, but it means there's less stuff to do within easy walking distance. OKC isn't going to become some New Urbanist's dream overnight, where we outlaw cars and everybody bikes everywhere. But we've already got more than enough surface parking downtown. 70 more spots are not going to make it easier for mom and dad to drive in from Yukon to go to a Thunder game.

My guess is they'll plan to rent those spaces out on game days or for concerts and other events as VIP spots at $40 a space or something. It's easy cash. It's certainly not the highest and best use, particularly given the Omni that's going in across the street. If the city would wait 5 years, we'd probably get a ton more responses to the RFP from people who wanted to build something better. Definitely not worth TIF money.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but New Urbanism is “new” as it specifically includes cars in the design aspect of urbanism whereas “old” urbanism didn’t. It’s not to make a city car friendly. That’s how I see New Urbanism anyways.

As far as parking goes, large parking lots in the middle of urban areas make it easier to get there, but it means there's less stuff to do within easy walking distance. OKC isn't going to become some New Urbanist's dream overnight, where we outlaw cars and everybody bikes everywhere. But we've already got more than enough surface parking downtown. 70 more spots are not going to make it easier for mom and dad to drive in from Yukon to go to a Thunder game.

My guess is they'll plan to rent those spaces out on game days or for concerts and other events as VIP spots at $40 a space or something. It's easy cash. It's certainly not the highest and best use, particularly given the Omni that's going in across the street. If the city would wait 5 years, we'd probably get a ton more responses to the RFP from people who wanted to build something better. Definitely not worth TIF money.

while i very much agree with the first half of you post other than the parking i think this a great project and is worth the TIF if the parking lot goes away ...

Scaled to people? Please define exactly what that means because I hear that used all the time and it is ridiculous. It’s so subjective and quite frankly doesn’t make sense.

The phrase "Scaled to People" is really quite easy to understand when you think about it. A development or area that is scaled to people is one where centers of human activity are clustered together, and not widely spread out. Places like the Plaza District is scaled to people because you can (relatively) quickly and easily walk to a large number of businesses from any given point, without having to traverse large expanses of nothingness like parking lots - and because of the density, it helps make you want to walk. Automobile Alley is another good example of this in many ways. Inversely, while developments such as University North Park do have some elements that are human-scaled, the majority of the development is too spread out to realistically be able to walk wherever you needed to go (and want to make that walk, for that matter). For instance, let's say on your visit to UNP that you needed to get some cash from Bank of Oklahoma, pay a phone bill at the AT&T store, buy some groceries from Crest, and also wanted to do a little bit of browsing at Vintage Stock. UNP can handle all of those needs, but the design of the development does not encourage you to walk to accomplish these tasks. To go from store to store in this scenario, you have to cross large parking lots and a busy street, and in many cases there are no dedicated pedestrian pathways between these businesses. It's easier and safer for you to just drive everywhere. That's an example of something not scaled to people.

So, in short: if a development is dense and encourages people to walk to their destination, that's human scaled. If it makes you feel like you have to drive everywhere to get to your destination, that's not human scaled. Does that help that phrase make more sense for you?

I take it there were no competing proposals to be considered. Big asks are more difficult if there are competing offers. If the city wants this developed, at the current time this is their option and they negotiate from weakness. Alternative is to just say no and leave it to be developed later if some sort of adequate demand develops. So, how important it this?

I wonder if another RFP submitted in another year or two with the park, the CC, and the Omni all up and running would get better responses.

The phrase "Scaled to People" is really quite easy to understand when you think about it. A development or area that is scaled to people is one where centers of human activity are clustered together, and not widely spread out. Places like the Plaza District is scaled to people because you can (relatively) quickly and easily walk to a large number of businesses from any given point, without having to traverse large expanses of nothingness like parking lots - and because of the density, it helps make you want to walk. Automobile Alley is another good example of this in many ways. Inversely, while developments such as University North Park do have some elements that are human-scaled, the majority of the development is too spread out to realistically be able to walk wherever you needed to go (and want to make that walk, for that matter). For instance, let's say on your visit to UNP that you needed to get some cash from Bank of Oklahoma, pay a phone bill at the AT&T store, buy some groceries from Crest, and also wanted to do a little bit of browsing at Vintage Stock. UNP can handle all of those needs, but the design of the development does not encourage you to walk to accomplish these tasks. To go from store to store in this scenario, you have to cross large parking lots and a busy street, and in many cases there are no dedicated pedestrian pathways between these businesses. It's easier and safer for you to just drive everywhere. That's an example of something not scaled to people.

So, in short: if a development is dense and encourages people to walk to their destination, that's human scaled. If it makes you feel like you have to drive everywhere to get to your destination, that's not human scaled. Does that help that phrase make more sense for you?

I understand what the phrase implies, but I think it is a misnomer(for a lack of a better term) and very subjective. It just seems like another meaningless phrase to further degrade developments that new urbanist don't like. It also kind of goes against the core premise of new urbanism in that NU is against sprawl because it is too "unsustainable" yet larger than life skyscrapers(even those that are designed well at street level) come under fire.


Places like the Plaza District is scaled to people because you can (relatively) quickly and easily walk to a large number of businesses from any given point, without having to traverse large expanses of nothingness like parking lots - and because of the density, it helps make you want to walk.

I disagree with this. You have to walk no matter what. You are not driving your car into the store, so no matter what, you have to walk. I don't see the Plaza District anymore scaled to people than Midwest City Town Center and arguably I'd say you have to access to much more in that shopping center than what the Plaza District offers. I have no issue walking around and the parking lots do nothing to detract from that. I want to walk regardless and contrary to what I've seen posted about such developments, it is a very social place and I've conversed many times with random people while walking from one store to another just as I have in the Plaza District.

UNP serves its purpose for the city of Norman in its own right. It doesn't need to be designed around people walking from one end to the other as that would impede vehicular travel of which the majority of Norman residents rely on. This isn't a bad thing. It's serving a niche and it does it well. UNP is an excellent development. I will agree OKC needs more walkable developments and we're getting them. Apart from the various districts around downtown that are constantly being improved, there are already existing developments like Penn Square and Quail Springs that are walkable allowing people to comfortable walk from end to other completing most of their shopping needs.

Again, I understand what the phrase is supposed to mean. I just don't like it. I don't like it because it's subjective and I find it doesn't make sense when you really think about it. That's my opinion of course. As a reminder, there are people in cars and without them the cars wouldn't go anywhere. Acting like humans in cars mean a development that relies on a car to get around is designed for cars could be in the same argument as a development that relies on bikes to get around isn't human scaled because it is designed around bicycles and not humans.

Scaled to people? Please define exactly what that means because I hear that used all the time and it is ridiculous.


The phrase "Scaled to People" is really quite easy to understand when you think about it. A development or area that is scaled to people is one where centers of human activity are clustered together, and not widely spread out.


Again, I understand what the phrase is supposed to mean. I just don't like it.

So why ask the question?

So why ask the question?

Because you brought it up. I want to know what developments you think are not human scaled.

The restaurant part of this is very, very vague in their application.

It's barely mentioned and there isn't even a project site plan that shows how it will be situated, let alone conceptual renderings.

It seems to be a big and important part of this development but there are almost no details other than a mention and a budget line item.

If that is a such a big and important piece, I find it strange there is almost no information or even some breezy blurbs like, "The multi-million dollar restaurant will be a destination year-round" or "Parking will help serve the impressive restaurant operation on non-event days".

They may be planning to operate only when something is happening at the arena.

We are obviously both just speculating but vague and lacking details or not, what is clear is that they are budgeting 5.7 million dollars on the restaurant part of this development... It’s actually an excellent location for a restaurant once the housing and Omni are built across the street but again, the difference between it being successful or not could very well be available parking in reasonable proximity...

It seems they want to downplay the restaurant because that is not a stated use for TIF and although that doesn't prohibit an allocation, it has not been done in the past.

This is being promoted as an "entertainment district" when it, in reality, it could be not much more than a gathering place before and after events with a large restaurant and bar. Still may be a good use, just very strange the way this is being pitched.

Lackmeyer said this in his chat today:

"The other issue with the $1.5 million TIF request is that the downtown framework guidelines established by the city council require a minimum of seven stories for any development to get TIF assistance in that area."

So basically it should never even get considered for TIF assistance, ever, they should just laugh Hogan right out of the room. But we'll see....

Hogan is just a consultant.

The owners would be the same as the Thunder ownership, which are the richest, most powerful people in the state.

Hogan is just a consultant.

The owners would be the same as the Thunder ownership, which are the richest, most powerful people in the state.

Like I said earlier, there is basically no chance in Hades that this doesn't get built as proposed. What the Thunder owners want, they will get, and no bylaws or guidelines will stop them.

So business as usual, plutocracy/oligarchy wins again, yay. :kicking:

another note of this is that the better we make the peake for the current ownership group the further and further we push the possibility of a new stadium into the future ..


also this land is not really appropriate for a 7 story building this really is an extention of the arena complex .. .


all that being said the surface parking still should not a allowed

another note of this is that the better we make the peake for the current ownership group the further and further we push the possibility of a new stadium into the future ..


also this land is not really appropriate for a 7 story building this really is an extention of the arena complex .. .


all that being said the surface parking still should not a allowed

Agree with all of that, I was just saying that the guidelines don't allow for a 1-story bldg to get TIF assistance, but it's apparently just a guideline and can be broken anytime for whatever reason if the ones that wrote the guidelines are in your pocket.

Agree with all of that, I was just saying that the guidelines don't allow for a 1-story bldg to get TIF assistance, but it's apparently just a guideline and can be broken anytime for whatever reason if the ones that wrote the guidelines are in your pocket.

I wonder. Is the work around for the TIF assistance in calling this an "entertainment district" instead of a building? Semantics and such. If you guys are all saying that it is pretty obvious that the TIF shouldn't be considered due to the building height, I wonder if Hogan, the consultant, pointed that out during their discussions.

As far as I am concerned (whatever THAT is worth lol) this is merely another piece of the puzzle to keep the arena viable. Clearly the Thunder ownership wants this and it would most definitely "clean up" the facility for gamedays... no more having to close Reno for Thunder Alley events.

Personally, the $1.5 million TIF is a very, very small price to pay to keep the Thunder owners happy and help keep the 'Peake as a viable money making NBA venue. I mean, they could just as easily be asking for a new arena.... As crazy as that sounds, it's a pretty standard move in that realm. We are a very small market, yet Thunder ownership does a lot to keep our franchise at the forefront. They are not cheap by any stretch and aren't the type of owners to simply field a team to get the writeoffs. They are very good stewards for the community as NBA owners and we are very fortunate to have owners that care about more than just their bottom line. Is a $1.5 million dollar TIF really that out of scope when you consider the big picture? Personally I don't believe so.

OKC tax payers pay approx. $4mm towards subsidizing the Thunder's payroll. They are doing just fine.

As far as I am concerned (whatever THAT is worth lol) this is merely another piece of the puzzle to keep the arena viable. Clearly the Thunder ownership wants this and it would most definitely "clean up" the facility for gamedays... no more having to close Reno for Thunder Alley events.

Personally, the $1.5 million TIF is a very, very small price to pay to keep the Thunder owners happy and help keep the 'Peake as a viable money making NBA venue. I mean, they could just as easily be asking for a new arena.... As crazy as that sounds, it's a pretty standard move in that realm. We are a very small market, yet Thunder ownership does a lot to keep our franchise at the forefront. They are not cheap by any stretch and aren't the type of owners to simply field a team to get the writeoffs. They are very good stewards for the community as NBA owners and we are very fortunate to have owners that care about more than just their bottom line. Is a $1.5 million dollar TIF really that out of scope when you consider the big picture? Personally I don't believe so.

Well said. And taking it a step further they do a ton of community work. The Peake has probably added more value to our growth than others combined. Thunder made us bigtime compared to having no pro team. Even the OK taxes paid by players must be huge.

I like the project and it will add to the area.

As far as I am concerned (whatever THAT is worth lol) this is merely another piece of the puzzle to keep the arena viable. Clearly the Thunder ownership wants this and it would most definitely "clean up" the facility for gamedays... no more having to close Reno for Thunder Alley events.

Personally, the $1.5 million TIF is a very, very small price to pay to keep the Thunder owners happy and help keep the 'Peake as a viable money making NBA venue. I mean, they could just as easily be asking for a new arena.... As crazy as that sounds, it's a pretty standard move in that realm. We are a very small market, yet Thunder ownership does a lot to keep our franchise at the forefront. They are not cheap by any stretch and aren't the type of owners to simply field a team to get the writeoffs. They are very good stewards for the community as NBA owners and we are very fortunate to have owners that care about more than just their bottom line. Is a $1.5 million dollar TIF really that out of scope when you consider the big picture? Personally I don't believe so.

It kinda hit me wrong when I saw they were requesting TIF for this but then I saw the budget that Pete posted and the giant basketball art piece and the west plaza are about the same amount as the TIF request. I don't have a problem with it...