RFP south of arena

[Quicker]

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...

[Pete]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[GoGators]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[hoya]

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.

[GoGators]

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)

[hoya]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ...

[baralheia]

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?

[Rover]

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?

[David]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[GoGators]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

So why ask the question?

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

[Quicker]

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...

[Pete]

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.

[TheTravellers]

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....

[Pete]

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.

[jonny d]

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.

[TheTravellers]

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

[TheTravellers]

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.