Classen Circle

[luke911]

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

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

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

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

[Bullbear]

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

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

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

Just another ugly turn in this whole thing.

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

[Ross MacLochness]

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

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

[Ross MacLochness]

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

[luke911]

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

I laughed when Box spoke out against planokc not being the law or a city ordinance planokc and Asa came back with you're right but what it is is a set of guidelines that we're required to use in cases like this.

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ross MacLochness]

^^^^^^^^

[TheTravellers]

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

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

[Pete]

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

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete]

^

It's not like they were intentionally open.

They were outed by us through the open records process.

[onthestrip]

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

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

[Pete]

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

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

[bchris02]

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

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

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

[bchris02]

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

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

[shawnw]

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

[Teo9969]

How long until this goes to city council?

[Pete]

How long until this goes to city council?

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

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

[Uptowner]

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

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

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

[Bullbear]

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

[Pete]

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

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

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

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


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

[crimsoncrazy]

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

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

[Bullbear]

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

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

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


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

That is my worry. That out of spite they will just doze the buildings. I don't know that the buildings will ever be saved to be honest but would be nice if someone did purchase and save them.

[dankrutka]

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

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