Holy cow, so many people unhappy with yet another building's appearance! I know some have already said it, but this is a great addition to the area. Will help encourage more young families to move into downtown/midtown. I don't understand how the appearance of the building is the most important talking point here. It should be about what goes on inside the 4 walls. The quality care and education of the kids is what the majority of Primrose's clients are concerned with.

Holy cow, so many people unhappy with yet another building's appearance! I know some have already said it, but this is a great addition to the area. Will help encourage more young families to move into downtown/midtown. I don't understand how the appearance of the building is the most important talking point here. It should be about what goes on inside the 4 walls. The quality care and education of the kids is what the majority of Primrose's clients are concerned with.

+1

If the roads were designed differently, then I would agree that the school may have had a better orientation to consider.

However, as I stated, even with your example, the children are not on a sidewalk right next to traffic. They are separated from traffic by the parked cars - and have a wider sidewalk than is currently there (yes im sure the school could expand the sidewalk, but that doesn't mitigate the other concerns). Plus, that road has fewer lanes of traffic than either Classen or 13th street and has a slower speed limit than either Classen or 13th street.

5mph may not sound too significant, but about 40 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling 30 mph at impact and 80 percent at 40 mph (https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Traffic-Techs/current/ci.Literature-Reviewed-On-Vehicle-Travel-Speeds-And-Pedestrian-Injuries.print). Since it is probably more exponential than linear, roughly 55% would die at 35mph. That is a 37% increase in fatalities by increasing the speed only 5mph - the difference in speed between the location linked and the location on 13th and Classen.

Everything you are talking about regarding street safety happened after the school was already built and opened and could easily be implemented on 13th at anytime after the school opens with a few cans of paint. Fixing the orientation of this building in the future will be impossible. Existing bad urban design should not be used as justification for creating even more bad urban design.

You also shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hope that some day in the future things might change for the better. If the city wants better urban design, they should work with people proactively, not just potentially accommodate people post hoc.

Changing the speed limits, narrowing the roads, isn't something that just takes a few cans of paint.

Work with what you have and advocate for things to change. But don't put your clients in a risky situation just because you have some pie-in-the-sky dream. Do what is best for them now.

Good urban design should never be put above people's present-day safety.

Obviously safety of the kids is the most important priority, full stop.

But there are thousands of schools that have been built in urban areas and many being built today. And they aren't all designed perfectly for an urban context, but many of them are, and so it is imminently possible to go the extra step and have both safety and good design, regardless of the lot. If something is risky on a street like 13th in OKC, then how do they build in downtowns anywhere? And no, I'm not an architect or an engineer. I'm not going to try to do their work for them.

Otherwise, we can own up to the fact that we don't have a terribly "urban" feeling core in lots of places, that it's not that high a priority, and go on down the road.

You also shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hope that some day in the future things might change for the better. If the city wants better urban design, they should work with people proactively, not just potentially accommodate people post hoc.

Changing the speed limits, narrowing the roads, isn't something that just takes a few cans of paint.

Work with what you have and advocate for things to change. But don't put your clients in a risky situation just because you have some pie-in-the-sky dream. Do what is best for them now.

Good urban design should never be put above people's present-day safety.

Again, the claims that a proper layout would somehow be more dangerous is incorrect. There is zero downside whether the street is ever changed or not. Alternatively, there is no benefit to leaving the layout as is and it would actually be detrimental to safety by discouraging pedestrian activity along the street.

Was trying to think what it reminded me of... just had to go a ways up Classen lol https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x87b210afa1d12825%3A0x8028db62c4f289ba!3 m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2Fgolden%2Bphoenix%2F%4 035.4972263%2C-97.5342048%2C3a%2C75y%2C97.32h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D*213 m4*211e1*213m2*211s1Mki6zDw4du1tsYcMbwiCg*212e0*21 4m2*213m1*211s0x87b210afa1d12825%3A0x8028db62c4f28 9ba%3Fsa%3DX!5sgolden%20phoenix%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e2!2s1Mki6zDw4du1tsYcMbwiCg&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiz7Ln7p8v1AhWylFYBHZJaAjIQpx96BAg2EAg

Holy cow, so many people unhappy with yet another building's appearance! I know some have already said it, but this is a great addition to the area. Will help encourage more young families to move into downtown/midtown. I don't understand how the appearance of the building is the most important talking point here. It should be about what goes on inside the 4 walls. The quality care and education of the kids is what the majority of Primrose's clients are concerned with.

If the inside was the only thing that had an affect on the surrounding area then you would have a point. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in an urban area knows the inside of a space is important but the way a building interacts with the surrounding environment is vital to an urban area. I can understand your thinking though since most Oklahomans in general aren’t going to interact with the outside of a building as long as they have to drive from 5+ miles away to get to the lot where they then park and go inside, so the most important thing to most here is going to be the travel between as well as what the space inside offers. If you were talking about some place in Mustang or Piedmont then sure, the critiquing would be banal. Since this is in the shadows of downtown Oklahoma City, your complaint about the complaining seems to just lack an understanding of urban design.

You mention that this is going to entice young families to consider moving to this area. I live on the outskirts of the core and would have about a 10-20 minute drive to this location depending on traffic and stoplights. I have a wife and an 18-month-old son with plans to expand our family in the next couple of years. Nothing about this development makes me think I’m better off selling my $95k house to buy a home that is going to be double that price with half the space at minimum to save about 5-10 minutes of driving. If this development is going to entice me and most young families to consider moving nearby, this development and the entire immediate area is going to have to drastically change in a way that allows me to walk my son to daycare and then easily get on a bus or streetcar to get to work if it’s not within walking distance. As is, that’s not an option unless I have a lot of spare time and developments designed to make a place as accessible by those from 30-40 minutes away as it is for those that live in the immediate area does little-to-nothing to incentivize us to live closer.

I’m honestly fine with the development itself as I’ve already learned that I shouldn’t expect Oklahoma City to become a place where car-less living is a serious option for a decent size of the population, even for those that live in the urban parts of the city. Most of what I’m saying doesn’t realistically apply since I’m talking about some sort of ideal end-goal that is an afterthought to most that live here. Obviously, how this daycare is designed or the way it interacts with the street isn’t going to change that. But if you don’t understand what is alluring about urban design and the way it interacts with the community, then you’ll never be able to understand why people on OKCTalk critique the lack of urban care in developments that are near the most urban parts of the city.

Holy cow, so many people unhappy with yet another building's appearance! I know some have already said it, but this is a great addition to the area. Will help encourage more young families to move into downtown/midtown. I don't understand how the appearance of the building is the most important talking point here. It should be about what goes on inside the 4 walls. The quality care and education of the kids is what the majority of Primrose's clients are concerned with.

Same stuff, different day.

I think it's important to remember that even though this site has grown exponentially to include a huge cross-section of OKC residents, expats and others, in many fields and with many different opinions (all to the good), at it's core, a lot of us visit this site primarily because we are interested in the development of the urban fabric of the city.

That's not to say many of us aren't parents or we don't have interests beyond that, but it shouldn't be surprising in this forum that people would critique a building and its contribution to the urban development of OKC. This is the "Development and Buildings" thread.

If the inside was the only thing that had an affect on the surrounding area then you would have a point. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in an urban area knows the inside of a space is important but the way a building interacts with the surrounding environment is vital to an urban area. I can understand your thinking though since most Oklahomans in general aren’t going to interact with the outside of a building as long as they have to drive from 5+ miles away to get to the lot where they then park and go inside, so the most important thing to most here is going to be the travel between as well as what the space inside offers. If you were talking about some place in Mustang or Piedmont then sure, the critiquing would be banal. Since this is in the shadows of downtown Oklahoma City, your complaint about the complaining seems to just lack an understanding of urban design.

You mention that this is going to entice young families to consider moving to this area. I live on the outskirts of the core and would have about a 10-20 minute drive to this location depending on traffic and stoplights. I have a wife and an 18-month-old son with plans to expand our family in the next couple of years. Nothing about this development makes me think I’m better off selling my $95k house to buy a home that is going to be double that price with half the space at minimum to save about 5-10 minutes of driving. If this development is going to entice me and most young families to consider moving nearby, this development and the entire immediate area is going to have to drastically change in a way that allows me to walk my son to daycare and then easily get on a bus or streetcar to get to work if it’s not within walking distance. As is, that’s not an option unless I have a lot of spare time and developments designed to make a place as accessible by those from 30-40 minutes away as it is for those that live in the immediate area does little-to-nothing to incentivize us to live closer.

I’m honestly fine with the development itself as I’ve already learned that I shouldn’t expect Oklahoma City to become a place where car-less living is a serious option for a decent size of the population, even for those that live in the urban parts of the city. Most of what I’m saying doesn’t realistically apply since I’m talking about some sort of ideal end-goal that is an afterthought to most that live here. Obviously, how this daycare is designed or the way it interacts with the street isn’t going to change that. But if you don’t understand what is alluring about urban design and the way it interacts with the community, then you’ll never be able to understand why people on OKCTalk critique the lack of urban care in developments that are near the most urban parts of the city.

Very good and well thought-out response. I personally love visiting OKCTalk because I love reading about all the new developments and growth of my city. But it gets old hearing about how this isn't pretty enough, that is tall enough, this is too suburban/Edmond-like, etc. Because this design doesn't entice you to move closer to downtown, does not mean it doesn't entice other young families. It obviously has to make financial sense for each family. The amenities that we have downtown and surrounding areas today is night and day versus 10 years ago. I can't imagine that this very high-demand amenity won't entice many young families to consider the move.

You're absolutely right that I "lack an understanding of urban design." That's not what's important to me. I'm concerned with what goes on inside the building. And I'm not talking about the color of paint on the walls. If it were me, I would choose this place based on their reputation, the quality of their employees, their curriculum, etc. Whether it looks like the proposed design or one of the pics that sooner.arch posted, those reasons I laid out above will be, by far, the most important factors for me in deciding to send my kids here. Just a matter of priorities, in my opinion.

When good urban design is discussed I believe that many who disregard its importance don't fully appreciate that the main difference between suburban and urban designs is that one treats a building as a standalone feature while the other treats it as part of a larger organism. A suburban design that interrupts the urban fabric - or a series of suburban designs strung together - can rob the rest of the neighborhood of walk appeal. An interruption in urban design can doom anything on the other side of it to being less successful.

Conversely, good urban design can cause the next building on the street - or the next street - to have a better chance of succeeding.

^^^
+1000

When good urban design is discussed I believe that many who disregard its importance don't fully appreciate that the main difference between suburban and urban designs is that one treats a building as a standalone feature while the other treats it as part of a larger organism. A suburban design that interrupts the urban fabric - or a series of suburban designs strung together - can rob the rest of the neighborhood of walk appeal. An interruption in urban design can doom anything on the other side of it to being less successful.

Conversely, good urban design can cause the next building on the street - or the next street - to have a better chance of succeeding.
Per usual, very, very well said.

When good urban design is discussed I believe that many who disregard its importance don't fully appreciate that the main difference between suburban and urban designs is that one treats a building as a standalone feature while the other treats it as part of a larger organism. A suburban design that interrupts the urban fabric - or a series of suburban designs strung together - can rob the rest of the neighborhood of walk appeal. An interruption in urban design can doom anything on the other side of it to being less successful.

Conversely, good urban design can cause the next building on the street - or the next street - to have a better chance of succeeding.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that north of NW 13th is suburban anyway?

Still in an urban design district

Wouldn't it be fair to say that north of NW 13th is suburban anyway?

It's fairly arbitrary, but I tend to think "suburban" starts significantly north of there. I consider 23rd an urban street east of OCU (at least in the context of OKC, in the New York metro it might qualify as suburban), I think of Paseo as an urban street. And I would place the Crown Heights area/Western Ave. south of McGuiness as at least borderline.

I don't know what the exact definitions would be, but I tend to think of suburban as the areas where they started building things with large amounts of parking in mind. So post-war, when it became standard for all families to have at least one car.

In a perfect world, I really think any infill inside the 44/35/240 loop should adhere to urban principles. I know I'm dreaming there.

It's fairly arbitrary, but I tend to think "suburban" starts significantly north of there. I consider 23rd an urban street east of OCU (at least in the context of OKC, in the New York metro it might qualify as suburban), I think of Paseo as an urban street. And I would place the Crown Heights area/Western Ave. south of McGuiness as at least borderline.

I don't know what the exact definitions would be, but I tend to think of suburban as the areas where they started building things with large amounts of parking in mind. So post-war, when it became standard for all families to have at least one car.

In a perfect world, I really think any infill inside the 44/35/240 loop should adhere to urban principles. I know I'm dreaming there.
Agreed, particularly the last two sentences.

Very good and well thought-out response. I personally love visiting OKCTalk because I love reading about all the new developments and growth of my city. But it gets old hearing about how this isn't pretty enough, that is tall enough, this is too suburban/Edmond-like, etc. Because this design doesn't entice you to move closer to downtown, does not mean it doesn't entice other young families. It obviously has to make financial sense for each family. The amenities that we have downtown and surrounding areas today is night and day versus 10 years ago. I can't imagine that this very high-demand amenity won't entice many young families to consider the move.

You're absolutely right that I "lack an understanding of urban design." That's not what's important to me. I'm concerned with what goes on inside the building. And I'm not talking about the color of paint on the walls. If it were me, I would choose this place based on their reputation, the quality of their employees, their curriculum, etc. Whether it looks like the proposed design or one of the pics that sooner.arch posted, those reasons I laid out above will be, by far, the most important factors for me in deciding to send my kids here. Just a matter of priorities, in my opinion.

That’s all fair and I can respect where you’re coming from. I just have a hard time envisioning anyone, whether it’s me or some other young family with the financial means, that would be enticed to relocate to the surrounding area given that this isn’t designed to fit into the surrounding area. (note: by design, I mean the way it fits into the surroundings environment, not design in if it will be a useful place of business by those nearby) My main point in that goes beyond this single development and is more of an issue at large in the urban parts of Oklahoma City, which as of this moment in time, there’s minimal incentive to relocate to this part of the city for a daycare when it is designed in a way that makes it just as easy if not easier to access for those driving from Yukon as it is for those that live 2 blocks away. The main difference is time, which was my point about living nearby and walking. Why live around the corner and walk to this daycare - which walkability and carless living, two things that play into one another, is some of the more convincing parts of living in an urban part of any city - when it’s safer and just as convenient (outside of drive time) to commute from miles away, considering the design of this daycare and the surrounding area? So I guess my main disagreement is with it doing anything to entice people to move nearby when its designed in a way that will make it just as easy, if not easier, to access from wherever “they” live now. From a business standpoint, it has built its reputation and is sought after, so it’ll have no problems with being used by anyone and everyone that wants to use it. I hope I didn’t come across as saying it wouldn’t be a useful development as that wouldn’t be true at all.

I think Urbanized nailed it in that it’s an entirely different approach to everyday life between someone who prefers an urban lifestyle versus someone who is happy with a suburban life. An element of what makes suburban life enticing to some is the way it’s disconnected and accessible from further away without having to walk so much. It’s far more than that obviously and I’m not trying to straw-man it in a derogatory way, pretty much everyone I know and love prefers that lifestyle, but my main point is that someone that prefers that isn’t going to really see why people prefer a place to be connected to surrounding buildings and easy to walk to over a place that can be pulled up to, in and out, 20 seconds or less. To restate it all in a single sentence, I don’t think someone who is going to be drawn to move near an urban part of a city is going to be convinced to pull the trigger by a disconnected development just because it’s a sought after daycare when they can easily drive to it from wherever they live, no matter the distance.

Other than that, I agree with you. It’s going to be successful either way. Mine and others disapproval has to do with the thought of another development disregarding any attempt (design wise) to connect with its surroundings, which again, the issue goes back to everything outside a handful of streets in a several mile radius in the very center of the city being designed in a way that doesn’t promote connectivity, something that is generally expected in an urban part of a city. This part of the city is usually considered to be in the urban core but so much of what gets built is functionally suburban in design. To me, that’s more of what I see when I see complaining on here, not just trashing something because we’re a disgruntled bunch, although I’m sure some do qualify as just being unnecessarily negative. It’s about promoting and creating a more connected city in the core.

TLDR - I don’t think this is designed in a way that makes use of it being in the core of the city due to it being suburban in design. That critique stems from mine, and others, desire for this area to be built to promote connectivity in the future. This will still be a successful development; my distaste for the design doesn’t dilute that reality.

Lost a friend (Michael Coffman) decades ago in New York when he was bumped from the sidewalk into the streets of NYC traffic.

This is the Development & Buildings board, so I don't see the reason why we shouldn't discuss about about architectural aspects of new developments (and be frustrated when seeing ugly things being proposed). If the residents of Paris, Amsterdam, or Prague only cared about what inside the walls in the old days, their children wouldn't have the gorgeous cities that they have nowadays. We all want this city to grow, but we should want more than that, we want it to be elegant. We can achieve that, tons of empty spots available for beautiful, high quality buildings in OKC, while in some other cities, you may have to knock down a bunch of ugly buildings to do that.

The University I attended in Dublin one summer lost a student that was standing on the sidewalk waiting on the bus. They were on the sidewalk, turned talking to friends as the bus was arriving and the side mirror of the bus hit them in the head and killed them. The bus was on the road and the student was on the sidewalk.

Some minor improvements but still sticking to the lazy and fill-in-the-blank architectural style/practice:

https://i.imgur.com/EtQGvZQ.png
https://i.imgur.com/fWCKI5M.png
https://i.imgur.com/epjTvjh.png

Looks better with the full red brick outer shell.

They filed their building permit application today, so work should be starting in the next couple of months.

Permit filed today for a construction trailer, so work should be starting very soon.

Drove by last night and dirt was being moved.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose032623a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/13classen041623a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose051023a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose060423a.jpg

Did the plans change some?
I thought it was supposed to have more of a setback from Classen.

Did the plans change some?
I thought it was supposed to have more of a setback from Classen.

Yes, originally it showed the building farther to the east with a large playground on the west side of the building.

Now the playground will be to the north.

Fronting the corner on both 13th and Classen is a much better site layout than a setback from either, I am glad to see that change.

It looks like from the footing that the building has been turned 45 degrees to face 13th as well? If so, what a massive improvement for the layout of this site. The original layout was a complete disaster. It looks like they have completely corrected the original layout problems by pushing the building to the corner and facing the street. What a pleasant surprise.

These are the final plans:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose060623a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose060623b.jpg

It looks like from the footing that the building has been turned 45 degrees to face 13th as well? If so, what a massive improvement for the layout of this site. The original layout was a complete disaster. It looks like they have completely corrected the original layout problems by pushing the building to the corner and facing the street. What a pleasant surprise.

My thoughts exactly!

MUCH much better layout and build plan. Very many thanks to the city and developers coming up with the best use of the site and the best safety for the children.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose072023a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose072923a.jpg

Looks like this first structure may be a safe room, soon to be enveloped by the rest of the building.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose111123a.jpg

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose112523a.jpg

Getting close:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose031924a.jpg

Getting close:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/primrose031924a.jpg

Very impressive shot.

The school is complete—photos by Jim Felder.

18976 18977 18978 18979

turned out very nice! LOVE that first pic of the site and the city!