GPHG Law Offices

[Pete]

[template=]
development
|category1=office buildings
|category2=River
|category3=
|category4=
|
|project=
|address= 1501 S. Walker
|status= Proposed
|owner= Black Pearl LLC
|cost=
|architect= Krittenbrink Architecture
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height= 3 floors
|sq. feet=
|acreage= 1 acre
|other=
|
|image=
|
[/template]
Information & Latest News

This would be the first new construction in the Core 2 Shore area.

Goolsby, Proctor, Heefner & Gibbs firm is currently located at 701 N. Broadway.
Links

Firm Website
County Assessor Record
Gallery

[Pete]

Really nice office building in design approval process.

The properties to the south and west are owned by the City, so this building will be as close to the river as commercial development can get at this point; at least until the City rezones other properties.

Note that the top level has large outdoor patios which will have nice views of the river and the skyline to the north.

There will also be a large, open lobby with a grand staircase.

[Plutonic Panda]

This will be a great start

[zookeeper]

This will be a great start. Super skyline and river views.

[Mr. Cotter]

Well, I'll beat the new urbanism contingent to it: I can't believe that in what is supposed to be great new urban development that the first proposal has that awful setback with parking lining the street.

[Teo9969]

Abso-freaking-lutely no way that should be approved.

Very likely that it is though.

My God, it's like a small portion of PC North plopped down in the middle of the core.

There couldn't be a worse site plan.

This is an absolutely terrifying precedent if this is approved.

[Pete]

They have filed an application with the Board of Adjustment:

The applicant is proposing to construct a new office building on the subject site and is requesting a variance to the front yard setback of the Scenic River Overlay Design District. The SRODD (Western Gateway District) requires 100 percent of the front façade to be located within 30 feet of the street right-of-way. Only a portion of the proposed building (28 percent) would be located within 30 foot of the right-of-way.

[Spartan]

Yeah this setback is not appropriate for what we were sold on with C2S.

Design standards have to be applied universally. We scrutinized jeepnokc's project - it is not fair to him to not scrutinize this project in a similar setting and scenario. The project looks great, just move the parking around and you've got a simple fix.

[Mr. Cotter]

You can enjoy the river views and still front the street.

[Spartan]

This is a very, very prime parcel for the development of C2S. Important to get right.

[warreng88]

I don't mind the look of the building but I wish they would move the whole thing to the northern part of the property and have all the parking west and south.

[Anonymous.]

Nope. We are done with parking lot lined streets. Why do developers keep proposing this garbage? The building looks nice, but the layout is a joke. What is so difficult about putting parking lots behind street facing buildings?

[Mr. Cotter]

Nope. We are done with parking lot lined streets. Why do developers keep proposing this garbage? The building looks nice, but the layout is a joke. What is so difficult about putting parking lots behind street facing buildings?

Nothing. But if they did that here, the offices lining the back of the building would look at parked cars, rather than the protected river view they bought. If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?

Structured parking should be included in the redevelopment of the area.

[Spartan]

So you are saying they would rather walk a few blocks through old Riveraide than have parking in their riverfront view?

Why don't they do a row of angled parking spots in the front along the street and then have a smaller lot in the back?

[Anonymous.]

Nothing. But if they did that here, the offices lining the back of the building would look at parked cars, rather than the protected river view they bought. If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?

Structured parking should be included in the redevelopment of the area.

This is a minature version of the Dell complex a few miles west.

[DoctorTaco]

The thing the stupefies me about this is not that they submitted a "suburban" design, but that they are so pumped on their suburban design that they asked for a variance. I understand building bad urbanism because you don't know better, but insisting upon building bad urbanism in spite of clearly-defined design requirements is another deal altogether. Why?

[kevinpate]

... If you don't want to look at a parking lot from your office, what makes you think we want to see it from the new park?
...

While I get your point, isn't this subject property separated a fair bit from the actual park. Not sure it would be visible to anyone who is physically present in the park. Not saying it is the best design for that chunk of space, but relating it directly to the park doesn't seem a real strong argument to me.

[catch22]

Absolutely not. No.

[Spartan]

While I get your point, isn't this subject property separated a fair bit from the actual park. Not sure it would be visible to anyone who is physically present in the park. Not saying it is the best design for that chunk of space, but relating it directly to the park doesn't seem a real strong argument to me.

This site should relate to Walker. Walker is important and more visible than this "park."

[kevinpate]

I get that Spartan. That wasn't the point to which I responded. The post I responded to was how the parking lot would be unattractive to folks in the new C2S park. As it is a couple of( also to be developed by others) blocks away from that park, I do not see that as being a valid argument.

As for this specific wedge, I can actually see an argument for placing their parking to the north. It is better for sight lines from the public spaces, including the river, on their southern exposure, as well as more beneficial for the occupants sight lines. My main dislike is that it seems to be a lot of parking for the size.

If this project was a few blocks north, I would have more issue with how they are doing their parking. Being down at the end of Walker, abutting the river and river frontage, and a fair piece away from the C2S park property, I'm a bit more accepting of it.

[Spartan]

It's a **** ton of parking for a bldg this size. Just from skimming it's 60-65 spaces.

This will also be setting precedent.

[kevinpate]

...

This will also be setting precedent.

It definitely could.

Then again, don't ugly up the river front with a sea of parking like they did with the canal isn't the worst precedent in the world.

[Just the facts]

Well, I'll beat the new urbanism contingent to it: I can't believe that in what is supposed to be great new urban development that the first proposal has that awful setback with parking lining the street.

Thank you. It just goes to show you don't have to be a new urbanist to see how bad this is.

[ljbab728]

Here is Steve's article.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/4568339?embargo=1

A law firm housed along Automobile Alley is looking to start construction this summer on a three-story office building that will represent the first significant private investment in the area known as Core to Shore.

[Spartan]

It definitely could.

Then again, don't ugly up the river front with a sea of parking like they did with the canal isn't the worst precedent in the world.

You make a valid point, but this river won't be as intimate an urban setting as the canal could or should be. Walker should be a very intimate, human scale setting that links downtown and Capitol Hill.

We are talking about streetcars, a Central Park, and both urban and natural vistas. Broadway Extn development is not acceptable here.