Daebak K

[Pete]

We now have the full story on this project, previously titled SOJU and to be located at 312 NW 23rd.


The restaurant will be named Daebak K and which will serve Korean BBQ where patrons can participate in grilling /cooking their meal (ingredients are pre-prepared by staff and patrons have the option to cook themselves or have staff fully prepare). There will also be a rooftop terrace with a bar and seating area facing 23rd street as well a a front patio.

The business partners in this venture are Truong Le and Nam Nguyen from the amazing Guernsey Park restaurant, along with Vincent Le and Tai Nguyen.

Architect is Ken Fitzsimmons of TASK Design who also is doing the work on the slick Guyutes restaurant and bar.

Target date to open is late 2014 early 2015.

Please note selections for colors and interior finishes are in progress.

[OKCisOK4me]

I feel like I'm too old to really enjoy this district OR maybe it's that I don't have enough disposable income to enjoy it, but things are really coming along nicely for 23rd!

There's a slew of empty lots on the south side of 23rd between Walker and Hudson that would really make this district much more vibrant if they are to be developed. Any news on those?

[Pete]

Those lots are parking for the Tower Theater.

[lasomeday]

Those lots are parking for the Tower Theater.

So, the lot hasn't been used in a long long time.

[Pete]

Correct, those old Tower Theater lots are overgrown and barely resemble paved parking.

However, I doubt they would ever be developed separate from a Tower renovation.

[lasomeday]

That would be a great place for a future parking garage with retail on the bottom. Its a big enough site with a split in the median to allow for west bound cars to enter. Just saying..... If I were to put a parking garage on 23rd street to accomodate all of the growth... that might be the place...

[OKCisOK4me]

That would be a great place for a future parking garage with retail on the bottom. Its a big enough site with a split in the median to allow for west bound cars to enter. Just saying..... If I were to put a parking garage on 23rd street to accomodate all of the growth... that might be the place...

I think Curt is on to something. Let me guess, Pete, Tower Theater owners own those lots too huh? So like the theater, they're just sitting on them...

[JarrodH]

Perfect space for a new concept but parking is definitely becoming an issue in this area. The owner of the lot west of granddad's and east of cheevers has begun towing cars on weekends. He owns the hair supply store and is really upsetting patrons and business owners alike by towing everyone parked in his lot. By taking away those 30 or so spots, it leaves cheevers with a lot too small to accommodate, not to mention the limited parking for granddads, backyard BBQ, and tuckers. Any more growth in this area is going to make this even worse and I haven't seen any plans for additional parking.

[Mr. Cotter]

Thanks for the heads up. I usually park in that lot. He really needs to put a sign up that says it's a private lot. Does he also own the lot north of the alley?

[JarrodH]

North of the alley is owned by the city and is public. The guy literally put the signs up last week and is towing everyone on Friday and Saturday nights.

[kevinpate]

Don't know the man, but (a) it is his property and (b) I doubt he ever signed on, or has any reason to sign on, as defacto free parking for someone else's businesses, even if they are quality businesses.

[Mr. Cotter]

Oh, he's free to do as he pleases, but there was no indication until a week ago as to who owned the lot. Also, his business closes at 7:00. He's not doing anything other than upsetting his neighbors by having their customers towed. If there is a sign up now, he's free to tow. The last time in the lot (maybe three weeks ago?) there were no signs - there were also none of his customers parked there because his store had been closed for two hours.

[Pete]

The neighboring businesses should approach him with the idea of paying a small fee for the right for their patrons to use his lot after hours.

That way, everybody wins.

[Mr. Cotter]

Exactly. This seems like a guy who is upset the neighborhood is changing without his permission. A smart business man would see this as a potentially lucrative opportunity. He could, either, have Cheever's and Granddad's pay him a fee, or, just set the lot up as a pay lot and offer validation to his customers.

I've shopped in his store - but I didn't drive over there to do that. I parked in his lot, and while waiting for a table at Cheever's, my wife made some purchases she would have otherwise made at a place like Ulta. That's how districts work.

[Jeepnokc]

Exactly. This seems like a guy who is upset the neighborhood is changing without his permission. A smart business man would see this as a potentially lucrative opportunity. He could, either, have Cheever's and Granddad's pay him a fee, or, just set the lot up as a pay lot and offer validation to his customers.

I've shopped in his store - but I didn't drive over there to do that. I parked in his lot, and while waiting for a table at Cheever's, my wife made some purchases she would have otherwise made at a place like Ulta. That's how districts work.

I don't know the history here but maybe he did ask for a fee and was told no or they couldn't agree on a price which is why he is towing now. Not saying that is the case here but there are always two sides to a story. Although he may not be using the lot after hours, it still puts wear and tear on his lot and also cleaning the lot. Everyone has their reasons whether it makes good sense or not.

[tuck]

There is so much to this deal that no one knows. Signs are posted, he closes at 8pm...he's not a bad guy. Cheever's does pay him monthly for the north lot, which he also owns. We have been paying on this lot for 10 years and have been happy with it...very fair. Communication is key...

[Urbanized]

I've had this discussion with many folks over the years owing to my years in Bricktown - and at times it has even engendered some hard feelings between me and a close friend or two - but simply put, parking stress is the sign of a succeeding urban district, and "easy" parking usually only happens in places where people don't want to be. This is especially true in a car-centric city where many if not most people are driving from elsewhere to utilize a district.

These issues will work themselves out. People will strike deals such as the one suggested above. People driving from outside will come to terms with either paying to park or (heaven forbid) actually WALKING a block or two. People will move close to the areas where they want to hang out. Transportation options will improve (streetcar) or already HAVE improved (Uber, Flywheel, anyone?).

The main thing is, we will start to function more like a dense urban city functions, and less like a suburb (I'm not a suburb hater, but suburban-style development and expectations don't fit well into true urban environments). Hopefully these districts will learn from the Bricktown experience and avoid letting parking drive development (Lower BT). Either way, a culture change is in order, and already underway.

[Mr. Cotter]

There is so much to this deal that no one knows. Signs are posted, he closes at 8pm...he's not a bad guy. Cheever's does pay him monthly for the north lot, which he also owns. We have been paying on this lot for 10 years and have been happy with it...very fair. Communication is key...

That's good to know. Thanks for the info.

The new parking behind The Rise will probably help the area a lot.

[Paseofreak]

The owner is simply [B]hostily[B] defending his ownership of the property. Before you freak out and get all up in arms, look up adverse possession law and understand the definition of hostile possession. Rights of ownership are at stake. More to the point, is it fair that this guy has paid for the lot and pays taxes on it as well and others use it for free? I contend that the Grandad's folks are the actual assholes in this situation by virtue of complete ignorance an unwarranted sense of entitlement to use another's property without recompense just because it's there.

[Mr. Cotter]

I'm intimately familiar with adverse possession. Knowing he has signs up, I don't have a problem with him towing cars. The signs are new. He's still missing a chance to make some money on his lot. I'd pay to park there.

[soonerguru]

The owner is simply [B]hostily[B] defending his ownership of the property. Before you freak out and get all up in arms, look up adverse possession law and understand the definition of hostile possession. Rights of ownership are at stake. More to the point, is it fair that this guy has paid for the lot and pays taxes on it as well and others use it for free? I contend that the Grandad's folks are the actual assholes in this situation by virtue of complete ignorance an unwarranted sense of entitlement to use another's property without recompense just because it's there.

This seems a bit harsh.

[Pete]

Is it bad that it actually makes me a little happy that there are fights over limited parking in this district that was almost completely dead less than five years ago?

[Mr. Cotter]

Not at all!

No one is rooting against uptown. The promise of this part of town was heavily considered when I bought my house. I'm really excited to see something might be happening soon with this lot east of Tucker's.

[Paseofreak]

This seems a bit harsh.

Not really.

[Mr. Cotter]

Goodness.