St. Anthony Hospital

[ljbab728]

Now, the point I was going to make is that when critiquing a building's urban design merits, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT. In fact, we are asking that developers TAKE OFF the suburban bells and whistles. No, you don't need an enormous parking lot..even if a lot of people need dialysis. You don't need to waste land with a setback, even if people needing dialysis have something against the street. And so on.. often the most functional design IS the most urban design. Urban design IS seeking to maximize functionality with the surrounding environment, while suburban design is seeking to minimize functionality with the surrounding environment.

I just hope we don't end up with a ranch-style medical building.

And let me point out that we would not even be arguing over this (because we have seen NO renderings) if the anti-urbanists hadn't automatically seeked out the tension.

I agree, Spartan. There is no reason that the building can't be both functional and esthetically pleasing. Hopefully there won't be any eventual reason for concern.

[Spartan]

The building does definitely seem to have a significant setback, which is EXACTLY what the Medical Business District Masterplan recommends against for this area. Another neighborhood on the back burner (or no burner at all)..

[liirogue]

Fresenius Medical currently has a dialysis location in St. Anthony's hospital. They are building a stand-alone clinic in that location and will be moving out of the hospital.

[Architect2010]

Spartan. Did you see construction or renderings? That's too bad it has a significant setback.

[Spartan]

Well you can see the foundation right there. Even better than a site plan.

[mheaton76]

Here's a view of the site as of today, not a lot to see right now. It does have a massive setback from what I can tell. We'll see how it looks as it's framed up - hopefully it won't be a ranchtastrophe.


http://gallery.me.com/mikey1976#1000...&bgcolor=black

[metro]

you heard it first though with Spartan.

[krisb]

Urban design, in its purest form, is built for humans. Suburban design is built for cars. Think of the most people-friendly cities and small towns in the world...did you picture a quaint village with people mingling in the piazza, or a huge parking lot?

[Larry OKC]

its all built for humans..the difference is their means of transportation...this is like guns don't kill people, people kill people...do you think those cars got out to the burbs and commute on their own? No, people drive them.

[krisb]

And some forms of transportation are healthier, more sustainable, and facilitate more meaningful interactions with other human beings.

[Spartan]

its all built for humans..the difference is their means of transportation...this is like guns don't kill people, people kill people...do you think those cars got out to the burbs and commute on their own? No, people drive them.

One of the more interesting contrary points I've heard. Of course, cars/guns make it all possible on a whole new level, but you're right--human laziness should never be underestimated. Not ever.

[Larry OKC]

I agree to a point, but "sustainability" is part of the problem...it is cheaper to build a surface parking lot than a structured one...then it comes down to asthetics as well, is a surface lot really that more unattractive than a parking garage? Most parking garages are not exactly in the "attractive" category (IMO)

Guess the answer is to ban all parking lots, ban "unhealthy" transportation choices (like we have banned drive thru's in Bricktown)...require everyone to live/shop/work in the same area???

[OKC@heart]

Larry do yourself a favor and do a Google search on some of the innovations that are being applied to parking garages that either conceal them, wrap them in Retail and other techniques that actually make them a part of the urban fabric that can enhance an area rather than an eyesore as so many older ones were. Incidentally there are many older ones that have been dressed up and look great.

the following are some links that have some quick examples:
http://raisingtheroof.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.enlightermagazine.com/pro...y-light-bureau
http://www.cambridgearchitectural.co...ect.aspx?ID=11

[Larry OKC]

Point taken and I have never said that they couldn't be made more attractive. Wrapping them in retail is an option 9was presented as one for the exterior of the new Convention Center). i like the idea. That said, the same is true for surface parking. If not mistaken City code requires a certain amount of landscaping etc for any surface lots. Some developers may do the minimum required by law, others may exceed.

Question is, is this development in the CBD (the "Urban" part of the City)? Now if this was being proposed in the area of the SandRidge development, I would be right there with you.

Are you suggesting that any new development anywhere in the City limits be "Urban" (New York City skyscrapers)?

[OKC@heart]

Absolutely not, as this would not be feasible or necessary. In the metro area special consideration should be given to projects that require substantial parking and in such instances definately the more appropriate solution longterm is structured parking. There are ways that the developer if savy enough can offset his costs by sharing parking with adjacent users for fee, or supply contracted rates to local businesses in the area who wouldn't have had those opportunities otherwise. As you get more into the suburbs where the density is much reduced smaller shopping centers should not be required to take parking verticle, but they should be required to do things such as employ permeable lots to reduce runnoff, add reflective coatings to the surface to reduce the heat island effect, have sufficient lanscaping etc. to try an minimize the impact.

[Pete]

Just saw this on a construction site:

"Site work and new construction of two medical office buildings in Oklahoma City. Completed working drawings call for two 56,630-square-foot buildings to include medical space, storage space, restrooms, and office space. Estimated cost: $12,000,000."

[Doug Loudenback]

Where did you see the sign, Pete?

[Pete]

Doug, by 'site' I meant website. They were seeking construction bids and listed start date as December of 2010.

Have no idea if this is under construction yet but it was awarded to Flintco.

[G.Walker]

Med district area maybe?

[Pete]

These two buildings will be directly adjacent to St. Anthony's, just not sure exactly where.

[Spartan]

I believe St. Anthony's has had a mid-rise in the works, and I think there's also still the group of physicians that were planning to do a mid-rise that would be a doctor's office building. It has been so under-reported on that it's not even worth speculating on, though, unless someone with some reporting prowess sees this and asks around, tries to get a rendering, etc.

Hopefully we'll get to find out about it before they apply for a city permit, although if Chesapeake is any indication, don't count on that....

[BoulderSooner]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-st....adlines_widget

story about st anthony and the impact in all of midtown ... but they throw in at the end plans for another 4 or 5 story office building around 10th and walker at 100,000 sqst

[Pete]

Yes, I meant to point this out so we can keep our eyes open for this:

Coming is another office building, 100,000 square feet and four or five stories, near NW 10 and Walker. St. Anthony will own the new building and is reviewing several architect's proposals

Government subsidies are always controversial but the incentives given St. Anthony to stay put several years ago will go down as one of the best investments OKC has ever made.

[Pete]

Regarding the proposed 4- to 5-story building at 10th & Walker, I believe it will be directly behind Kaisers.

There is a small building there that is owned by Upward Transitions but they are relocating to W. Main St. in 2013, and I believe the intent is to sell their existing structure to St. Anthony:

Upward Transitions will relocate early in 2013 to their new home at 1134 W Main Street. During the next six months the old 1930's building will undergo a transformation from a deserted building used primarily for industrial purposes, to the new home for Upward Transitions. "We believe this move will have a positivie impact for clients we serve in the community. We will be centrally located for potential clients currently staying at the City Rescue Mission or those that have frequented the Day Shelter. Our Mission remains consistant...Elevating those who are in need, stranded or homeless to a position of self-sufficiency." Explains Upward Transitions Executive Director Dana Hope Chism. Upward Transitions will continue serving those in the community, as they have for nearly 90 years.

The Upward Transitions building is shown in yellow and the other properties owned by Saints are in pink:

[HangryHippo]

Wow, St. Anthony's owns a significant amount of property. I didn't realize that.