Keep in mind NYC was laid out long before cars were a thing. The culture is way different.

This is just admitting that cars ruined cities.

This is just admitting that cars ruined cities.

I guess you’ve never been to NYC and seen or been in their car traffic. Yeah, it was probably much better with horses crapping in the streets. Lol

I guess you’ve never been to NYC and seen or been in their car traffic. Yeah, it was probably much better with horses crapping in the streets. Lol
Statements like “cars ruined cities”’are hilarious.

I guess you’ve never been to NYC and seen or been in their car traffic. Yeah, it was probably much better with horses crapping in the streets. Lol

I was talking about how cities were designed pre and post car.look back at the post I was responding to. Its basically saying a city had to be designed before cars to have inviting, safe pedestrian experiences. That would imply that designing for cars caused cities to suck. But thanks for the info about there being cars in New York. Learned something new today.

Statements like “cars ruined cities”’are hilarious.

The auto industry is the comedian and we’re all the punchline.


https://youtu.be/oOttvpjJvAo

maximum height of 300 feet for this development. For reference Omni hotel is 214 feet, Regency Tower is 288 feet, The Classen is 287 feet. Great opportunity to see some skyline changing buildings added to our downtown

Knowing and ignoring are two different things. There were different kinds of pedestrian obstacles pre cars. There has always been need for transportation, horses, streetcars, buggies, busses. All are pedestrian obstacles. This constant drone of “evil cars” ignores realities and how modern transportation has enabled growth and prosperity, even in the beloved crowded cities. Cheap land and desire to leave the crowd led to many modern cities. Transportation improvements enabled it.

Btw, the LA Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers. They were given that name for people dodging street cars. Urbanists love street cars. Lol.

Knowing and ignoring are two different things. There were different kinds of pedestrian obstacles pre cars. There has always been need for transportation, horses, streetcars, buggies, busses. All are pedestrian obstacles. This constant drone of “evil cars” ignores realities and how modern transportation has enabled growth and prosperity, even in the beloved crowded cities. Cheap land and desire to leave the crowd led to many modern cities. Transportation improvements enabled it.

Btw, the LA Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers. They were given that name for people dodging street cars. Urbanists love street cars. Lol.

I'm confused. Are you making the argument that that places like OKC shouldn't want nice areas to live in because we need parking?

I'm confused. Are you making the argument that that places like OKC shouldn't want nice areas to live in because we need parking?

THAT is your response? LOLROF. Schoolyard logic..

The auto industry is the comedian and we’re all the punchline.


https://youtu.be/oOttvpjJvAo

Its more about suburb vs city people. I'm sure people that lived in the suburbs had a different "American Dream" than those that stayed in the city. This was just a continuation of "manifest destiny". The automakers just took advantage of this urge to leave big cities behind.

Its more about suburb vs city people. I'm sure people that lived in the suburbs had a different "American Dream" than those that stayed in the city. This was just a continuation of "manifest destiny". The automakers just took advantage of this urge to leave big cities behind.

That's not true.

The government built mega-highways and provided subsidies and continued bail-outs for both the oil and auto industries.

There are countries that are bigger geographically (like Canada and Australia) that were not developed in the same way simply because their plans weren't driven by the interests of the auto and energy industries. Not coincidentally, those two countries have great public transit where you don't even need a car in most places, and not just the city core.

I stayed with good friends in Sydney who live in what we would consider the suburbs and they didn't own a car at all. The busses, trains and water ferries were awesome; I used them all with no problems. It's the same way in Canadian cities.

In fact, there is no other country on earth where most cities were developed with the automobile as the first priority and it's all due to the pandering to big business in the U.S.

That's not true.

The government built mega-highways and provided subsidies and continued bail-outs for both the oil and auto industries.

There are countries that are bigger geographically (like Canada and Australia) that were not developed in the same way simply because their plans weren't driven by the interests of the auto and energy industries. Not coincidentally, those two countries have great public transit where you don't even need a car in most places, and not just the city core.

I stayed with good friends in Sydney who live in what we would consider the suburbs and they didn't own a car at all. The busses, trains and water ferries were awesome; I used them all with no problems. It's the same way in Canadian cities.

In fact, there is no other country on earth where most cities were developed with the automobile as the first priority and it's all due to the pandering to big business in the U.S.

Sydney is more like NYC. However, I spent a fair amount of time in Melbourne and it is much more like OKC. Overall, Australia relies on the car and truck pretty heavily, though no one does as much as the US. The free movement and individualistic nature of Americans has driven the US economy like no other in the world.

It wasn't just the auto and fossil fuel industry that was boosted, but the steel industry, rubber and plastics industry, hospitality industry (inns and restaurants), construction (millions of workers building roads, bridges, and businesses that followed), etc., etc. Ignoring what the combustion engine and cars did for the economic development of our country is blind. That said, I do believe our infrastructure in public transportation needs to be rebalanced and invested in for the economies of scale and public service they create.

Sydney is more like NYC. However, I spent a fair amount of time in Melbourne and it is much more like OKC. Overall, Australia relies on the car and truck pretty heavily, though no one does as much as the US. The free movement and individualistic nature of Americans has driven the US economy like no other in the world.

I visited friends in Melbourne as well who never owned a car. It's nothing like OKC. Way, way more dense.

I just looked it up: Melbourne 8,648 people per square mile; OKC 1,104.

Melbourne is embarking on same MASSIVE freeway projects as well as a huge LRT orbital line which I think would be useful in OKC.

Sydney also just completed a large segment of their underground tollway network with more routes planned, IIRC. There are speed cameras that not just take your speed but track your car and determine your speed based on the amount of time it takes you to go from one camera to the next.

Melbourne is embarking on same MASSIVE freeway projects as well as a huge LRT orbital line which I think would be useful in OKC.

Sydney also just completed a large segment of their underground tollway network with more routes planned, IIRC. There are speed cameras that not just take your speed but track your car and determine your speed based on the amount of time it takes you to go from one camera to the next.

Still, neither has even a small fraction of the highway system when compared to OKC, and are much larger cities; both have populations over 5 million.

Still, neither has even a small fraction of the highway system when compared to OKC, and are much larger cities; both have populations over 5 million.
The key here is offering alternative transportation as opposed to OKC only offering cars as a practical mode. To me that’s the biggest difference though I have never been to Australia, besides Japan and the Scandinavia region, Australia seems like a cool place.

I visited friends in Melbourne as well who never owned a car. It's nothing like OKC. Way, way more dense.

I just looked it up: Melbourne 8,648 people per square mile; OKC 1,104.

Central Melbourne is now much larger and denser, but Melbourne has huge urban sprawl. 92% of their households own cars, with 16% having 3 or more cars. I spent a fair amount of time in Melbourne and suburbs are suburbs..... except they drive on the other side :)

^

Still loads of people take public transportation and that city still has 8x the density of OKC.

It's almost impossible to live ANYWHERE in OKC without a car. That's a huge difference and it's silly to compare almost any U.S. city to anyplace outside of this country.

you can live downtown and parts of the inner north city areas without a car in OKC today, this will be particularly enhanced as the grocery store options recently announced (and if 711 would get off their behind and put in convenience stores, downtown).

But outside of downtown and plaza/uptown/OCU and Classen/NHP areas, I agree you NEED a car in OKC.

you can live downtown and parts of the inner north city areas without a car in OKC today, this will be particularly enhanced as the grocery store options recently announced (and if 711 would get off their behind and put in convenience stores, downtown).

Practically speaking, you can't. I know, I lived down there.

There is no grocery store and even if you work downtown, you still need a car for meetings.

I drove far more often than I would have preferred.


There are a handful of people who live in the core without a car, but it's a huge sacrifice on their part and nothing like living in any other city outside the U.S. Just try relying on the OKC bus system sometime; read the blog of council member Jo Beth Hamon who goes out of her way not to own a car and how incredibly difficult it is in OKC; and she lives in Regency Tower (or did).

^

Still loads of people take public transportation and that city still has 8x the density of OKC.

It's almost impossible to live ANYWHERE in OKC without a car. That's a huge difference and it's silly to compare almost any U.S. city to anyplace outside of this country.

Mostly what you say is true, however I just looked at a list for world cities with best public transportation and Chicago was #6 and NYC #11. The rest of the cities on the list, well the US citizens, and OKC in particular, would never pay the level of taxes in those cities and countries. When people are willing to trade higher taxes for the cost of 2nd cars, and willing to give up their big yards, then we might make progress. Til then, it is mostly lip service.

That said, for this project, some design choices can be made to enhance it, but OKC isn't changing their car culture in time for this project to move forward. Developers build what sells, they don't change cultures.

Chicago, New York and SF and maybe Seattle are exceptions.

But we aren't talking about exceptions, we're talking about how American cities were completely designed around the car. And fixing the problem after the fact is what would cause the huge tax bill rather than designing properly at the outset.

Chicago, New York and SF and maybe Seattle are exceptions.

But we aren't talking about exceptions, we're talking about how American cities were completely designed around the car. And fixing the problem after the fact is what would cause the huge tax bill rather than designing properly at the outset.

Different times, different economics, different people, different geographical constraints, and different problems. The closest to Euro design is probably Washington DC. We are never going to be Europe and frankly mostly wouldn't want to be. I've spent significant time out of the country doing business in over 30 countries over many years in many, many of the great cities in the world. I have used the public transportation all over the world and understand its utility. But, I can honestly say I wouldn't trade living here in what many apparently think are a corrupt car country/economy for virtually anywhere else in the world. I believe we have room for both cars AND public transportation and to demonize one or the other is just small thinking. I'm all for emphasizing development in the infrastructure and for having options. I just don't think anyone having a car and liking their freedom they derive from it is inherently bad.

Cars are practically the best form of the transportation that has ever existed and that’s evident by even trends in developing BRIC countries. Give someone the choice of an easy commute by mass transit or car with and offering if living in an urban area or the suburbs and most will pick the latter. The streetcars are what led to the first form of real urban sprawl.

^

Lots of people would define freedom as not needing a car and here and many other U.S. cities that is not a realistic option.

And only the poorest people in places like OKC don't have cars, which means their lives are very, very hard.

That's the point, not some binary view that people want cars eliminated altogether.

^

Lots of people would define freedom as not needing a car and here and many other U.S. cities that is not a realistic option.

And only the poorest people in places like OKC don't have cars, which means their lives are very, very hard.

That's the point, not some binary view that people want cars eliminated altogether.
I completely agree for the most part but my personal views of freedom exist in part due to my car but I’m also someone who loves road trips and driving 8+ hour trips is something I do multiple times a month. So perhaps I’m biased.

With that said, there is a very strong anti car movement happening in the US amongst transportation planning.

True freedom would allow you to own a car or not own one.

In the huge majority of the U.S. you only have one option.

True freedom would allow you to own a car or not own one.

In the huge majority of the U.S. you only have one option.
I couldn’t agree more. Hopefully with this next infrastructure package that will change. Biden has ended negotiations with the republicans in the senate and it seems he is pressing forward so hopefully we see a real increase in transportation options. Simply having a bus doesn’t make car free living a viable alternative if the trip takes 2-3x as long by it than it would a car.

TLO has an article on the tragedy of losing this parking lot: https://t.co/OvGbNTZiDG?amp=1

Practically speaking, you can't. I know, I lived down there.

There is no grocery store and even if you work downtown, you still need a car for meetings.

I drove far more often than I would have preferred.


There are a handful of people who live in the core without a car, but it's a huge sacrifice on their part and nothing like living in any other city outside the U.S. Just try relying on the OKC bus system sometime; read the blog of council member Jo Beth Hamon who goes out of her way not to own a car and how incredibly difficult it is in OKC; and she lives in Regency Tower (or did).

JoBeth still lives in the Regency and so do I. I split my time between my apartment there and my GF's house in the nearish NW (15/May) and I haven't driven my car in 2.5 years (planning to get rid of it this year). I go by bike or bus. I still grocery shop. Mostly Classen Homeland but at times I'll go up to the WF/TJ area. It can be done. Is it a sacrifice? Sometimes sure, but honestly I don't view it all that differently than when I lived in Philadelphia. My home there (I own my mom's house in North Philly where she still lives) is a similar distance to the grocery store as I am, and there is similar access to bike/bus infrastructure from mom's to the grocery store as what I have here. Here I can walk across the street and hop on the 5 and access Homeland, Walmart, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's on the same route. In Philly I'd walk to the corner and hop on the 75 to get to ShopRite. It's really not that different. I'm NOT saying it's like that all over OKC, because it definitely is not, I have plenty of stories to tell from my experience in voluntary carlessness in OKC. But I'm agreeing with the earlier post that there are areas/pockets of the city where it is quite practical. And it will only improve as the bike and bus infrastructure improves over the coming decade.


^
Lots of people would define freedom as not needing a car and here and many other U.S. cities that is not a realistic option.

And only the poorest people in places like OKC don't have cars, which means their lives are very, very hard.

That's the point, not some binary view that people want cars eliminated altogether.

Personally I definitely feel more free without a car. I'm not saying that when I'm driving a car I don't feel "the freedom to go anywhere anytime". But that feeling goes up against the reality of everything that comes with car ownership pretty quickly. To me it's more freeing to no longer have to deal with traffic, or car maintenance issues, etc. I simply do not enjoy the driving experience in general. I'm much less at ease when driving.

Pretty funny stuff in those comments. I especially liked the comments on the new Harvey Bakery post talking about losing the parking that was once inside it.

I am wondering though, was this string of parking lots actually free?

I read that Australia has 25 million people, while the US has 330 million. At 7-8% of the US, Australia has to have a much smaller economic ability to build infrastructure.

Canada appears to have about 38 million people.

I knew you'd comment, shawn and I'm glad you did.

But very, very, very few people would choose to live the way you do.


It's not impossible to live without a car here, but it does involve huge sacrifice or in the case of the indigent (who can't come close to affording Regency Tower), incredible hardship.

THAT is your response? LOLROF. Schoolyard logic..

No one is saying cars are bad. Designing cities around cars is what is bad.

Exactly. Systematic transportation equity is what we want. And we wanted it yesterday.

Shawn hit on what I was getting at, you CAN be carless in downtown and the inner core areas of OKC; it's not that much different than any other US city outside of Chicago-NY-SF-DC where you truly don't need a car. Seattle is great for commuting to downtown but that's it - you need a car here just like anywhere else. Will there be sacrifices not owning a car - sure. But there are sacrifices here in Seattle too, not too much different than OKC esp in the inner core.

That was my point.

Now I also totally agree with Rover, having also traveled internationally (Asia) and used and not used public transit. I resided in Japan for a time and yes, while they have great public rail transit I still rented a car to 'do my own thing'. As Rover said and I totally agree, it's not about pitting transit against cars it's about designing so that BOTH can prosper and give people a choice.

But I think it's ridiculous to expect a bus to pick you up from everywhere and drop you off in front of everywhere - that doesn't happen anywhere but seems to be the far extreme that some pro-transit (you can't be carless in OKC) people keep stating. Even in Chicago - the best transit city here - you have to walk a bit and transfer between modes. That is also the experience in Tokyo and Osaka Japan (both cities I'm extremely familiar with). The big difference in all those cities vs. OKC is that there's plenty to do/see between stops that you don't notice the walk and this is where OKC needs to adapt. INFILL without massive parking.

I suspect in the near future this will be come reality in downtown and then spreading to the inner core districts. Once that happens then I bet the attitude of the can't be carless in OKC folks will change. So in my opinion this is what they and all of us should be promoting - productive urban infill instead of deamonizing the car.

Even in Chicago (Tokyo, Osaka, Shanghai, Chongqing, etc - all transit great cities I've been/lived in) there's tons of cars and lots of parking (but its very well designed, urban, restrictive costly parking) that's well accepted if not expected. We can benchmark some facets from them while also being proud of our independent american car culture so people have something to see/do and are shaded/protected in the walk from parking.

Shawn hit on what I was getting at, you CAN be carless in downtown and the inner core areas of OKC; it's not that much different than any other US city outside of Chicago-NY-SF-DC where you truly don't need a car.

This is completely incorrect.

There are 50 cities bigger or almost the same size as OKC and we are probably one of the very few without a downtown grocery store, let alone anything like a CVS or Walgreens or even an OnCue or QuikTrip.

Again, I actually lived down there for a year and I tried very hard to walk as much as possible. I'm not just speaking in hypotheticals.

^
I’d say a realistic lifestyle adjustment in downtown OKC for many couples or families would be reducing to a single car for the family, which is still a drastic change for most - and is actually a great way to offset the higher housing costs. 0 car -especially in the winter - would require a level of dedication and stubbornness that only a few possess

Living without a car in OKC gets more and more difficult/costly for each of the following things that is true:

- You are considering employment more than 1 mile outside of Interstate Loop.
- You have close friends/family which you would like to see often who live in neighborhoods built after the 1950s (and many neighborhoods built in and after the 40s).
- You don't find a residence within 5-10 blocks of the Embark Hub on Hudson. This also makes residing somewhere with a yard more difficult.
- You want to feel free to experience the full offerings of the city at anytime (Going to Quail Springs, for example, would have to be a calculated plan or a friend to go with you or a ride-share/taxi).
- You are budget tight and cannot afford rents over $700.00
- Your job or lifestyle requires that you be moving from place to place relatively frequently.
- If you have kids, the cost/difficulty of the above is amplified substantially.

This obviously is not a comprehensive list but gives a decent idea as to some of the "sacrifices" being made. For some, literally nothing on that list applies, so it's really just saving all the costs associated with car ownership plus likely enjoying a car free lifestyle. But if you have even 2 things on that list, it's just so hard to justify not having a car.

If you brought the frequency of all of our public transit down to 10-12 minutes across the board, then I think the severity of some of the above would be lessened. But if you're living at Avaire and you're doing some grocery shopping at Homeland and your checkout lady has to call someone to help decipher a code and you miss that 005 by one minute, you're either walking form 18th to 3rd or waiting 29 minutes for the next route. That's a pretty high price to pay to not have a car. (And yes, I do get it, there are things to do when you're waiting/riding transit - it's one of the great things about not driving - but for most people, 29 minutes in the elements waiting is not as nice as 29 minutes at your destination).

- You are considering employment more than 1 mile outside of Interstate Loop.
- You have close friends/family which you would like to see often who live in neighborhoods built after the 1950s (and many neighborhoods built in and after the 40s).
- You don't find a residence within 5-10 blocks of the Embark Hub on Hudson. This also makes residing somewhere with a yard more difficult.
- You want to feel free to experience the full offerings of the city at anytime (Going to Quail Springs, for example, would have to be a calculated plan or a friend to go with you or a ride-share/taxi).
- You are budget tight and cannot afford rents over $700.00
- Your job or lifestyle requires that you be moving from place to place relatively frequently.
- If you have kids, the cost/difficulty of the above is amplified substantially.


Not disagreeing with this per se. Just some comments.

1) Work about 500 ft shy of being a mile outside the highway loop. It's a doable 7 mile one way trip from downtown, but it is far from ideal.
2) My dad lives in Del City. I've ridden my bike from downtown to his place. Unfortunately I didn't check to see that he was awake first. Planning to ride to my aunt's in Moore when the family starts having gatherings again. Have ridden to friends places in quite a few parts of the city. I REALLY wish there were better northbound crossings of I-44. Really just hate using Classen or Western. Looking forward to that greenway trail.
3) I would tweak the 5-10 blocks from the TC to include some additional key spots where good routes converge (e.g. 23/Classen is a good area for transit, you've got the 5, 23, and 10 in very close proximity, throw in the 38 if you're between 10th/23rd). Also near the outlet mall there's a "mini-hub" where 4 different routes connect, that could be made to work.
4) You're definitely not wrong about this one, but in that scenario I can and have taken an Uber, but I def realize many do not have that option
5) Lately it seems like even $700 rents are rare
6) No joke on this one. On days where I have doctor/dental appointments I make them at the beginning or end of the day. If I have to be "back and forth" (e.g. downtown 11am meeting), I work from home until the meeting and then ride to work after.
7) Could not have done this myself if I still had kids at home (but some, like Tony Carfang, have made it work. With his cargo bike, taking his daughter to daycare every morning and commuting from NW OKC to Boeing in SE OKC), he's a true hero for this cause. Being an empty nester definitely made this possible for me.

Pretty funny stuff in those comments. I especially liked the comments on the new Harvey Bakery post talking about losing the parking that was once inside it.

I am wondering though, was this string of parking lots actually free?

That was me :D

The Uhaul lot is generally free parking except when the Thunder are playing or when there is an event in Bricktown.

And unless something has changed (been a while since I've been in Bricktown during an event; wonder why) you can get validated at any Lower Bricktown business for free parking even during Thunder games, etc.

Correct, still will continue to be the case probably for the other big lower bricktown lot.

The company I work for pays for monthly parking in this lot. Its kind of funny/ridiculous, because they tell us we need to leave by 5 during Thunder games and events while the average Joe can get there at 4:55 and park for free before a parking attendant gets there. Hopefully, my company is paying too much for a parking lot that is free 90 percent of the time.

This looks completely of a piece with the rest of Lower Bricktown but it's obviously a giant improvement over surface parking. And really, what would a more urban solution for this land look like? They already screwed up the eminent domain thing with Compress Ave connecting through to the Boulevard so you're always(?) going to have the goofy-looking U-Haul building there. And speaking of the Boulevard, you have that and the BNSF viaduct blocking this plat from interacting with the Lumberyard or Producers Coop sites, should either be developed, or the rest of downtown. To me this seems mostly like.... the best we can hope for!

I guess another way of thinking of this is there's a reason this was the warehouse district when OKC was first platted :-)

No no no! This at-least-it's-better-than-surface-parking attitude drives me crazy; it's why OKC feels like it's stuck in the mid-90s. Sure, scraping a pass is better than flunking a test, but what if you'd aimed for an A and got B-? A lot better than a pass. What if you'd aimed for an A and got it?!

Cities develop slowly over years. Change can only happen incrementally and these development opportunities don't come up all the time. This is a significant and prominent downtown development site. If you just cut'n'paste what the neighbors in Lower Bricktown did you just perpetuate the problems, you don't move anything on. Walking down Reno between LB and the arena is grim--I've done it many times--blasted by the sun and the dust off the parking lot. What if it was lined out with stores and coffee shops and bars and restaurants; even enlivened by entrances to offices or apartments? An enjoyable walk down a city block in the shade.

Maybe you can't do anything about the neigbors, but you've improved part of the journey. Maybe people realize that your stretch of street is much more enjoyable than everyone else's and they try and do what you did. Or maybe they even try to do it better ...

This^^^

Why are people making it seem like there are 100's of acres to work with here? 3 towers on a few acres, with a railroad barrier on the west side, and the boulevard (a whole other issue) to the south, is not bad. Literally 50% of the borders of it are taken by ROWs that will never be changed. I'm legit curious what people would do to make this infinitely better. The canal is not expanding here, so let's remove that from any and all answers. Just curious. There are a lot of natural barriers to this that will never change, so I am wondering what should change? The height can't really change much, either.

Urban sites typically are bounded on several sides by Rights of Way, but you put buildings where you can define streets and where people can get to them. Shove parking, or servicing, or trash against the immovable obstacles like elevated railroad lines. This site doesn't need to be massive to deliver something outstanding; it doesn't even need to be that tall to get plenty of density (eyeballing it on the map it looks like a Level Apartment Building plus a Mosaic). And imho, the last thing Bricktown needs is another water feature. Just make it a piece of downtown, not some transplant from a suburban business park.

Why are people making it seem like there are 100's of acres to work with here? 3 towers on a few acres, with a railroad barrier on the west side, and the boulevard (a whole other issue) to the south, is not bad. Literally 50% of the borders of it are taken by ROWs that will never be changed. I'm legit curious what people would do to make this infinitely better. The canal is not expanding here, so let's remove that from any and all answers. Just curious. There are a lot of natural barriers to this that will never change, so I am wondering what should change? The height can't really change much, either.

Change the orientation of tower 3 so that it faces Reno and push it to the street. Mass tower 2 at the corner of Reno and Oklahoma. Get rid of the hokey lagoon. remove two of the curb cuts on Reno. Pretty simple stuff.

Yeah this site plan layout is just absurd. Horrible street interaction. I don’t understand why Hogan doesn’t throw his apples either on the COOP lot or maybe NWE. It’s a cash cow here obviously. I hope the city blocks this development and makes him redesign the layout.

I'm not zoning expert, but it looks to me that there is a set back on buildings on the south side of Reno that lines up with the other buildings to the east in the pic provided. I think the city requires the curb cuts to make sure each building keeps from overloading Reno with inbound traffic. I recall that rain water has to be maintained on property nowadays, and that is the purpose of the lagoon?

This is up for approval at this week's Planning Commission meeting, FWIW. I assume after that it will have to go through additional Bricktown Design approval?

This is up for approval at this week's Planning Commission meeting, FWIW. I assume after that it will have to go through additional Bricktown Design approval?

south of reno is not part of brick town design .. https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/19184/637317191748500000

this is not in a design district

Thank GOD!!!!

I hope it passes and construction starts soon.

How many accounts do you have Randy?

I'm not zoning expert, but it looks to me that there is a set back on buildings on the south side of Reno that lines up with the other buildings to the east in the pic provided. I think the city requires the curb cuts to make sure each building keeps from overloading Reno with inbound traffic. I recall that rain water has to be maintained on property nowadays, and that is the purpose of the lagoon?

I don't think any of those things are true for this spot. The reason the building to the east is set back off of Reno is because lower bricktown was designed terribly, not because of any special requirements. That lagoon is not necessary for rain runoff, its already a completely paved area in an urban setting surrounded by existing drainage infrastructure.

I don't think any of those things are true for this spot. The reason the building to the east is set back off of Reno is because lower bricktown was designed terribly, not because of any special requirements. That lagoon is not necessary for rain runoff, its already a completely paved area in an urban setting surrounded by existing drainage infrastructure.

Very possibly true. Again, I'm no expert. But, I recall hearing that a substantially changed property usage (for lack of a better term) must adhere to the rules for the new usage. Just because an asphalt parking lot could flow 100% of rain runoff into the storm drainage in 19XX year doesn't mean this development can in 2021.