BOK Park Plaza

[PhiAlpha]

They did that back when they were in legit Class C digs. Not a hard sell to their board of directors who must look out for their investors first and foremost. Now they are doing so from legit Class A digs, and proposing even more overhead at a time when their overhead costs are attracting more investor scrutiny. Don't underestimate the importance of that. Devon is doing this project on the cheap because they can not get away with building another first-class development right now. That's a good way to get Carl Icahn'd.

We'll have to agree to disagree on their financial position and its effect on their ability to build a new building. Remember, this was well into the planning phase when the price of oil was still $100/bbl. Devon is still betting on the price of oil rising to around $65 to $70 by year's end and increasing throughout next year. They are not making decisions on a long term investment, like an office tower, based on where oil is today....just as they didn't in 2009 regardless of their Class C office space at the time(the vast majority of their office space was still Class A or High Class B back then with the class C in first national making up a small part that was mostly storage). I will almost garuntee you that commodity pricing has not had any effect on 499's design. Now if Sandridge or CHK had proposed this, I would probably agree with you.

Additionally, Devon is not the only company involved here with a decent chunk of the building to be leased by someone else whether that be BOK or another unannounced company.

[Spartan]

We'll have to agree to disagree on their financial position and its effect on their ability to build a new building. Remember, this was well into the planning phase when the price of oil was still $100/bbl. Devon is still betting on the price of oil rising to around $65 to $70 by year's end and increasing throughout next year. They are not making decisions on a long term investment, like an office tower, based on where oil is today....just as they didn't in 2009 regardless of their Class C office space at the time(the vast majority of their office space was still Class A or High Class B back then with the class C in first national making up a small part that was mostly storage). I will almost garuntee you that commodity pricing has not had any effect on 499's design. Now if Sandridge or CHK had proposed this, I would probably agree with you.

Additionally, Devon is not the only company involved here with a decent chunk of the building to be leased by someone else whether that be BOK or another unannounced company.

You're not hearing me. I get that oil is a good investment. What I'm saying is that privately traded commodities companies are under pressure from investors to focus on the cash cow and downplay the overhead costs. Gotta look "fiscally conservative" in order to be considered well-ran.

[Pete]

Except according to all the PR and press, Devon isn't the one building this... They are just a tenant.

[LocoAko]

Oklahoma City's traffic study recommends eliminating downtown's bike lane | News OK

So we tear down the Union bus station and other few historic buildings left to build two MORE parking garages, and subsequently decide we need to remove one of the few dedicated bike lanes downtown so we can widen the street for MORE cars.

Wonderful.

[Urbanized]

Brutal.

[Pete]

From jeepnokc; note sign on pick-up door:

[Spartan]

Oklahoma City's traffic study recommends eliminating downtown's bike lane | News OK

So we tear down the Union bus station and other few historic buildings left to build two MORE parking garages, and subsequently decide we need to remove one of the few dedicated bike lanes downtown so we can widen the street for MORE cars.

Wonderful.

Except the study came back and said our current capacity is fine. It's just the possibility that these new parking garages may potentially bring additional peak traffic between 4:55 and 5:10, for which we must clearly take out our only N-S dedicated bike route..

Also don't worry these garages will maybe have street level retail.. except no on-street parking to support said street level retail, which is fine because Okies are clearly comfortable with garage parking for retail trips.

It's okay though, we can "bridge" the planning disconnect by going around on the Oklahoma River trail, then right at Overholser, and back around from Hefner! Who needs Walker anyway? Besides everyone knows that good bicyclists only use treeless waterfront trails.

[soonerguru]

I think I want to get back on the plane and return to the place I spent my vacation. Confederate flag wavers, bad city planning, terrible governor, food stamp recipients being compared to animals. Oklahoma is looking UGLY right now.

[Urban Pioneer]

There is basically one guy holding back the ability to fully implement urbanist street designs. A very nice guy with good intentions. But his priority is CARS FIRST! Until he retires and is replaced with modern street design theories, we will be in this suburban street design tug-of-war.

[PhiAlpha]

I think I want to get back on the plane and return to the place I spent my vacation. Confederate flag wavers, bad city planning, terrible governor, food stamp recipients being compared to animals. Oklahoma is looking UGLY right now.

Come on now, don't go all Bchris on us.

[PhiAlpha]

There is basically one guy holding back the ability to fully implement urbanist street designs. A very nice guy with good intentions. But his priority is CARS FIRST! Until he retires and is replaced with modern street design theories, we will be in this suburban street design tug-of-war.

Is this person an engineer who's full name rhymes with flames?

[dankrutka]

So, what can citizens do to address this? It sounds like there's political will, right?

[bombermwc]

So, what can citizens do to address this? It sounds like there's political will, right?

Not really. I think you would find that the overwhelming majority of people in the OKC area are still car centric. I'm a proponent of walkability/bikes/etc, and even I sometimes feel like screaming at the bike riders who are on the road in the middle of things. We really do need bike lanes to make it safe for cars and bikers, but I don't think the majority of the public has waken up to the benefit of that yet. This is just my opinion, but I think most of that comes from the fact that where they live, being on a bike is a nuisance and not a benefit. So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk. And so much of the city is not bike/walk friendly, most people don't see how being on a bike gets you anywhere. Or how you're supposed to get home with things you get. it's mostly lack of education but Oklahomans are a VERY lazy bunch. Give them their fast food and their car and they're happy driving from one store to the next in a vastly stretching strip malls.

That whole idea IS changing, but its very slowly and mostly due to Millennials (I'm one of those weird ages of people that's stuck between Millennials and GenX/Y...so I guess I get a little of both worlds. Old enough to still remember how to use a book, but young enough to pair it with a cell phone LOL). I say that because I think the next generation of politics in Oklahoma will look VERY different than it does today and that will start in OKC before anywhere else in the state.

[CarlessInOKC]

Except the study came back and said our current capacity is fine. It's just the possibility that these new parking garages may potentially bring additional peak traffic between 4:55 and 5:10, for which we must clearly take out our only N-S dedicated bike route..

Also don't worry these garages will maybe have street level retail.. except no on-street parking to support said street level retail, which is fine because Okies are clearly comfortable with garage parking for retail trips.

It's okay though, we can "bridge" the planning disconnect by going around on the Oklahoma River trail, then right at Overholser, and back around from Hefner! Who needs Walker anyway? Besides everyone knows that good bicyclists only use treeless waterfront trails.

Cycling on Walker will still be important, which is why there are alternatives being suggested for the stretch in question. Just because dedicated bike lanes are removed from the current configuration doesn't mean that there won't be any bike infrastructure in the next configuration. Check out the "Boston sharrow" in the link below. It could be used to connect the bike lanes north of this segment on Walker to the south. This is an opportunity to explore adaptation for cycling in a growing downtown area. Solutions are out there, they just need to be brought into the conversation, and now is a good time for that.

Boston Bikes debuts ?sharrows on steroids? - Local news - Boston.com

[ChowRunner]

I work in the area and can count on one hand how many times I have seen the bike lane used by a bicycle. WHen I do see a bike they are almost always traveling on the sidewalks-- which just makes me scratch my head. The bike lanes currently are nothing more then a turn lane at peak hours.

[Urban Pioneer]

I think that if we are going to enable biking as a reasonable alternative to the automobile, we have to build logical corridors that instill the sense of safety. What this project demonstrates is that there are often consequences that affect other long-range plans. Downtown OKC would actually be an easier place to install long distance biking corridors if we hadn't compromised the grid repeatedly by allowing super blocks to be constructed.

Dewey was a great semi-protected biking corridor. However, St. Anthony's expansion cut it in half. The route was then shifted to Walker. We have very few through corridors to achieve these goals.

I do think that priorities and urban design sensibilities are changing. But politically speaking, the default is to compromise and try to afford satisfaction in all areas. The Planning Department has never had nor exerted political clout to protect their plans.

I really appreciate Devon. I think that this project will enable a great many more people to be located downtown. However, it obviously isn't going to happen without a fair bit of compromise to ideals.

[OKCinsomniac]

So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk.

The thing is, cyclists really shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk downtown -- sidewalks are for pedestrians. (Though I will say in certain areas, I'd rather be on a sidewalk irritating people that are walking than having some texting idiot in a Malibu up and over my rear wheel.)

https://www.okc.gov/trails/Documents/bikeregs.pdf

I hope there can be some compromise reached on Walker. Hate to lose that bike lane.

[gopokes88]

We had a decent little run but the self-loathing appears to be back.

[Pete]

Construction fence going up today. Thanks to metro for the photo:

[HangryHippo]

It's odd that they used some shape and unique features for their centerpiece tower and this one is just going to be a rectangle. Lame design.

[Richard at Remax]

I wouldnt say lame, but uninspiring. if it were a bit taller i think it would look better, esp next to Devon. REgardless looking forward to seeing cranes in the skyline again

[ChrisHayes]

You have to remember that Devon will be a tenant of this building. They aren't the owner like they are with the tower

[Pete]

You have to remember that Devon will be a tenant of this building. They aren't the owner like they are with the tower

That isn't necessarily true.

The ownership of the property and who is investing in the development has never been clear or fully disclosed.

[BDP]

So much of the city lacks sidewalks and then when there are sidewalks and bikers still ride in the street, people get frustrated because they don't understand why the bikers aren't using the sidewalk.

Bikes are never supposed to be on sidewalks, but you can get away with it here because the pedestrian traffic is so fragmented. You'd basically be lynched riding a bike on a sidewalk in a more urban pedestrian city.

What's funny is that I was in Denver last week when this came up, and all I could do was look at all the buildings and parking garages that are much much bigger than 499 and then notice all the bike lanes that go right past them. And Denver has way more cars coming into its downtown every day than OKC.

This is in no way a traffic issue. It's a cultural one.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
You're right. Bikes are SUPPOSED to be in the street, not the sidewalk. The fact that automobile drivers not only don't understand this but are irritated by bikes in "their" street is the problem, NOT that bikes aren't on the sidewalk "where they belong."