Aloft Hotel

[Oil Capital]

And by the way, 1) It's an awesome development, and 2) It's entirely appropriate to discuss the addition of another massive surface parking area in a dense (or something we wish were dense) urban area. It's certainly something that the Urban Design Committee will be discussing with the developer.

I understand your point, but you sort of mischaracterize the situation. It is not as if they are tearing down buildings to replace them with a "massive surface parking area". They are, in fact, planning to take out a small building and a "massive, abandoned surface parking area and replacing it with a larger, quite urban-oriented building and a much-less massive surface parking area; which, as others have speculated, can be built on at a later date.

The huge transition being done by OKC requires a lot of small steps.

[Spartan]

None of us ever said they were demo'ing any buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Don't turn this into another thread where we argue about the travel distance between OKC and Tulsa.

[betts]

It's going to be hard not to improve upon a chain-link fenced abandoned parking lot, which every year has a little less asphalt and a few more uncut weeds. The Finley building has a lot of potential, but I've been looking at it every day for over a year now and while it might make cool condos, I think the cost of renovating it for them would make the prices as much or more than the ones in Maywood everyone is already complaining about. I was thinking, although the hotel is a branded one, it would be great if they could call it "The Finley". That's a lot cheaper and easier to do than a statue.

[soonerguru]

I understand your point, but you sort of mischaracterize the situation. It is not as if they are tearing down buildings to replace them with a "massive surface parking area". They are, in fact, planning to take out a small building and a "massive, abandoned surface parking area and replacing it with a larger, quite urban-oriented building and a much-less massive surface parking area; which, as others have speculated, can be built on at a later date.

The huge transition being done by OKC requires a lot of small steps.

You'll note that I said "addition" of surface parking, which is accurate.

[Spartan]

It's going to be hard not to improve upon a chain-link fenced abandoned parking lot, which every year has a little less asphalt and a few more uncut weeds. The Finley building has a lot of potential, but I've been looking at it every day for over a year now and while it might make cool condos, I think the cost of renovating it for them would make the prices as much or more than the ones in Maywood everyone is already complaining about. I was thinking, although the hotel is a branded one, it would be great if they could call it "The Finley". That's a lot cheaper and easier to do than a statue.

Hey Betts, any update on how many of the brownstones have been sold? There were 17-18, and I'm guessing they've sold 10 so far? And I believe the cheaper condos (not lofts) in the Maywood Lofts are half sold (about 20-25 out of 55)?

[khook]

one was listed as closed in the real estate section of the paper today....

[Downtowner405]

Is there a magical number of total rooms in the OKC area that OKC can have before it becomes oversaturated?

Don't worry about it. We're not even close.

[Spartan]

We do need to worry about it though. Because we have not realized 1/3 of the demand for downtown hotels, we need to get on that in order to move ourselves forward economically.

[HOT ROD]

yep, now OKC is at 2000 rooms downtown, I think we need to move the target to at least 4000 (5000 being truly Tier II).

I am excited about this development and everything but I do have a question: it seems as though all new hotels in OKC are being built below the 250 room mark (with 100+ - being the most common). I can understand this outside of downtown, but I can't for the life of me understand why OKC is building downtown hotels so small.

So. .... Im going to be the first on this thread who to say 'I wish the hotel was a little bit bigger'.

ha ha ha, 300 rooms (or at least 200) would be much better, BUT I suppose a good point could be made that we should save those larger hotels for the CBD.

Nevertheless, I am very happy about this development, it's design, and the brand. This will be great for Deep Deuce, Downtown, and OKC - should definitely liven up Deep Deuce a bit. I wish every district in downtown could have a hotel that 'defined' it.

I'm all in favor of a statue or placard for Finley and other Deep Deuce pioneers; it is the least OKC could do to pay tribute to those who had foresight but not the means or support to make OKC a great city (we do this for others).

[Spartan]

So. .... Im going to be the first on this thread who to say 'I wish the hotel was a little bit bigger'.

You urbanists are always so negative. You hate everything, don't you?

[lasomeday]

The next one can be bigger.

[lasomeday]

[QUOTE=HOT ROD;340725]

I wish every district in downtown could have a hotel that 'defined' it.
QUOTE]

Good point! That would be awesome to have a hotel in Stockyard City, Midtown, Medical District, and along the river that had a unique character that helped make each a better destination. Even the Asian District would be better with an Asian style hotel.

[HOT ROD]

touche Spartan, lol

[ljbab728]

I am excited about this development and everything but I do have a question: it seems as though all new hotels in OKC are being built below the 250 room mark (with 100+ - being the most common). I can understand this outside of downtown, but I can't for the life of me understand why OKC is building downtown hotels so small.

In my opinion, we won't be seeing anything much larger until the new convention center is built and a hotel is built in conjunction with that and requiring some kind of city support.

[Oil Capital]

None of us ever said they were demo'ing any buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Don't turn this into another thread where we argue about the travel distance between OKC and Tulsa.

The response wasn't to you, of course. And of course I never said or implied that anyone had said they were demo'ing buildings for the "massive surface parking area." Stop trying to pick arguments. (and if you insist on picking arguments, at least read the posts carefully before starting.)

The poster said we were adding a "massive surface parking area." I merely pointed out that that was a mischaracterization in that there is already a massive surface parking area on the site and the proposed development would actually reduce the amount of surface parking.

Sorry you weren't able to understand that rather straight-forward and non-argumentative point.

[Oil Capital]

You'll note that I said "addition" of surface parking, which is accurate.

I indeed noted that you said "addition of another massive surface parking area".

While that may be arguably technically correct, it mischaracterizes reality where they are actually proposing to replace one massive surface parking area with a new much less massive surface parking area, as I originally said.

The development will cause a net reduction in the amount of surface parking in the neighborhood. If you insist on characterizing such as an "addition of massive surface parking," I suppose it's your right, but it's not exactly the best route to a productive discussion.

[Spartan]

Oil Capitol, have you ever parked your car on the current site where the Aloft is proposed?

[betts]

The new surface parking will be far less visible. I question whether they will need that much parking, but I'm with Oil Capital on this one: I believe surface parking will be less and less visibilty is the best part.

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capitol, have you ever parked your car on the current site where the Aloft is proposed?

It's not currently available for use. It's an abandoned surface parking lot. It's still a surface parking lot. Anything else you need explained?

[Spartan]

So you mean it's a vacant lot, then..

[Kerry]

I think you guys are beating a dead horse. It is a vacant parking lot and building that is being removed and in it's place will be a hotel and smaller parking lot. Would it be great if it was a hotel and parking garage? Sure it would, but that isn't what is being proposed. It gets 4 out 5 stars on my downtown development scale, which is based 100% on the philosophy of 'build up - not out'.

[Spartan]

I think you guys are beating a dead horse.

Oil Capitol keeps beating it, as usual, so I keep defending it..

[Urban Pioneer]

If that is the case, although structured parking would be far better, the parking would be between the hotel and the rail line that runs behind the property.

If this is true, that would be very good. On either side of the Walnut Bridge there are large parking lots, but there is also a great area of underutilized space that has remained grass.

I have walked that rail line several times in transit planning. The rail line offers a unique opportunity for a front door entrance to transit service for a future commuter line/direct linkage to the future transit hub.

Also, one other really unique thing about that property is the elevation change. It is a bit of a slope down the hill on the back side.

[Spartan]

Similar to the lofts?

[Urban Pioneer]

Similar to the lofts?

It slopes quite a ways down hill south to the tracks. It is actually an incredible view of downtown.