Parking Lot 6th & Walker

[Oil Capital]

No, I am saying income producing property tends to keep producing the same type of income. With all the vacant lots around downtown anything producing income will be built on last.

So, what's the problem? Is it really an important issue whether this particular property is the first, second, 42nd or last to be built on?

[Skyline]

Okc doesn't have enough visionaries.

There are a few, but not enough, not yet. They are on there way, but they are only kids today.

Older cities, that have more urban development have people that have grown up inside the city and have dreams of what they want to do with their home city. Okc lost at least a generation of these types. Only recently with the new developments, housing, restaurants, retail, schools, museums, libraries, NBA arenas, Devon tower, Bricktown, etc. There are kids today that someday will become adults in Okc and want to improve the inner city in which they love and have grown up in.

Once downtown Okc has this type of continuous cycle, the urban areas of Okc will truly become great.

That is my MLK thought of the day.

[Just the facts]

So, what's the problem? Is it really an important issue whether this particular property is the first, second, 42nd or last to be built on?

The problem is the location. OKC should be trying to protect urban corridors and target them for high density development. Move this a block off Walker and it wouldn't be such a big deal.

How about no surface lots abutting Walker or Robinson between NW10 and the River nor along Reno, Sheridan, 6th and 10th between Classen and the railroad?

[Rover]

Will the city buy up and develop the property or just restrict anything to be done on the private property? We need to draw up the only acceptable developments so owners and investors know beforehand that the propert is restricted and what that means.

[Spartan]

Surface lots are not the problem. The are a viable use case and at the present, may be the highest best use of the property. Outside of a large scale development, it is hard to imagine utterly prohibiting them.

Are they relics of a car-centric culture? Sure. But then you have another issue to solve --getting people out of their cars. You can't remove lots and expect people to start walking. We parked in Bricktown and Downtown often. After all, taking the bus wasn't an option after 6pm. So parking was necessary.

Parking garages are great but are vastly innefective when you have to walk past a lot of nothing to get to your destination. Forced use of a central parking facility will only ensure that businesses not adjoining the garage would be severely penalized. If most people are arriving by car, then garages must be frequent and affordable. With density though, you solve this problem with more people within a walkable area.

As urbanization occurs, surface lots will evolve out of the picture. For now, they do serve a purpose. Albiet not the most ideal purpose, the "solution" is not better. We need more focus on changing the game and less focus on the current color of the pieces. Intense urbanization will go very far in seeing these lots out the door.

So how is what you admittedly call "not the most ideal purpose" also the "highest best use of the property?"

[DirtLaw]

So how is what you admittedly call "not the most ideal purpose" also the "highest best use of the property?"

highest and best use is a term of art whereas the most ideal purpose of any particular land is left to the minds of many. A surface parking lot may be the highest and best use and the most ideal purpose for a piece of property for the owner but not necessarily the rest of the public.

[Just the facts]

Will the city buy up and develop the property or just restrict anything to be done on the private property? We need to draw up the only acceptable developments so owners and investors know beforehand that the propert is restricted and what that means.

It is really pretty simple - just say no surface parking lots along Walker or Robinson between NW10th and the Oklahoma River. The City restricts what can go on private property all the time. The OKC code is full of landuse and zoning requirments. In fact, it is one of the primary things local government does. It protects street frontage on urban corridors and provides a place for those wishing to build surface lots so I don't see what the controversy would be. Yes it would be nice if the City took an active role in doing this kind of stuff before hand (and in some cases they do) but you can't think of everything people will do before hand so you have to make rules as you go as well.

http://www.nplanonline.org/nplan/pfd...ing-dead-space

Categories: Buildings, Community Character, Parking, Pedestrian Oriented Land Uses
Why Is This Important?
It is unappealing to walk by the blank, unfriendly expanses created by windowless structures or by parking lots or garages. "Dead spaces" like these lack visual interest, often feel oppressive to pedestrians, and can encourage crime.

Examples of dead spaces include unadorned surface parking lots (empty or full), long blank walls, vacant lots, reflective glass facades, featureless open spaces, and garage doors lined up along the street. Communities can help curtail dead space by approaches such as providing that parking lots must be concealed behind buildings, requiring buildings to have windows at street level, and encouraging undulating facades and setbacks.

Code Examples
Seattle and Fort Worth address two different aspects of preventing dead space in the following code sections.

Seattle’s code limits parking that is visible from the main street, creating a set of standards and requirements that differ depending on the typology of the street. On class I pedestrian streets, parking is only allowed in the rear of buildings or where it is concealed by other uses. On class II pedestrian streets, parking is permitted at street level, but it must be screened from view and 30% of the parking must be separated from the street by other uses, the façade of which must not present as an imposing blank wall. The code from Fort Worth focuses on preventing blank stretches of wall.

Fort Worth requires that, for new buildings, 25% or more of the portion fronting on public streets or spaces must have transparent windows.

Land Use Code: Parking
Seattle, Wash., Mun. Code § 23.49.019(B)(1) (2009).
a. On Class I pedestrian streets and designated green streets, parking is not permitted at street level unless separated from the street by other uses, provided that garage doors need not be separated. b. On Class II pedestrian streets, parking may be permitted at street level if: (1) at least thirty (30) percent of the street frontage of any street level parking area, excluding that portion of the frontage occupied by garage doors, is separated from the street by other uses; (2) the facade of the separating uses satisfies the transparency and blank wall standards for Class I pedestrian streets for the zone in which the structure is located; (3) the portion of the parking, excluding garage doors, that is not separated from the street by other uses is screened from view at street level; and (4) the street facade is enhanced by architectural detailing, artwork, landscaping, or similar visual interest features.

[Thunder]

I was in the area yesterday, but I just now read this topic. That is good news for improved parking. I believe its always important to maintain parking spaces, even if the need arises for a complete repaving. Is there any renderings available? Lets hope there are several curb-islands within the parking lot for trees and landscaping.

One at a time, OKC continue to improve with new (either complete replacement or repaved) roads, streets, and parking lots. Especially for the parking lots, I feel its most lacking, so its always important to create new parking lots and/or maintain older parking lots into useful. For example, Deep Deuce and The Hill apartments have no parking lots, so people must park in the streets, which are very limited, crowded, and very dangerous.

[Rover]

I always love quoting restrictions from Seattle or Portland. One of my friends who owns one of the largest design-build contracting firms in the country (also based in Seattle) refers to Seattle as "the Communist State of America. The reality is that they can demand more there because the demand for the land is much greater for many reasons, most having nothing to do with site use restrictions. When you bargain from strength you can demand more. If you negotiate from weakness, everyone just takes a pass.

I agree with stronger restrictions regarding sight barriers and landscaping, non permanent structures, etc., but it needs to be done in advance and clearly written. That's where the effort needs to be. Can't blame landowners for doing what's best for them under the law. Get to work on it if you feel strongly. In the meantime, driving by trashy vacant lots don't help either the appeal of a street nor does it make it more appealing as a development target. And, as I've stated, a new asphalt layer doesn't impede it's development either.

[Just the facts]

I always love quoting restrictions from Seattle or Portland. One of my friends who owns one of the largest design-build contracting firms in the country (also based in Seattle) refers to Seattle as "the Communist State of America. The reality is that they can demand more there because the demand for the land is much greater for many reasons, most having nothing to do with site use restrictions. When you bargain from strength you can demand more. If you negotiate from weakness, everyone just takes a pass.

I agree with stronger restrictions regarding sight barriers and landscaping, non permanent structures, etc., but it needs to be done in advance and clearly written. That's where the effort needs to be. Can't blame landowners for doing what's best for them under the law. Get to work on it if you feel strongly. In the meantime, driving by trashy vacant lots don't help either the appeal of a street nor does it make it more appealing as a development target. And, as I've stated, a new asphalt layer doesn't impede it's development either.

I used Seattle because the web site I use cites them as an example so other cities have a resource when planning their own codes. It keeps cities from having to re-invent the wheel. I agree it needs to be done in advance and clearly written - that is why the City should do it now. It might not stop this lot but it would stop future lots, or at least direct them to area where they are acceptable.

[Spartan]

By saying "at present". The best use of a property is a moving target.

I think then the question becomes how long do we expect "at present" to last. If this wasn't on Walker, perhaps any improvement would be ideal. But I also tend to agree with Kerry's assessment of the permanence of these things. The reality is that as long as they are making money, they will never go away. Look at Bricktown.

Do we really want Bricktown's systemic problems (which we KNOW have led to the rise of Mid-town and other districts where development is easier) to become Mid-town's problems too? If anything, we should know that Bricktown is a model for long-term development failure (unless you want a plateau). Then the question becomes, "how ambitious should our city planning be?" I would answer that question by saying it should be realistically ambitious. And it's not totally unheard of to (-GASP-) deny a permit for a surface parking lot, so I just happen to think that is the no-brainer thing to do if we truly purport to have a realistically ambitious city planning.

However we really know that we have no city planning whatsoever. So as far as my high and mighty rhetoric on our values reflected in city planning, I guess if we have no values, then admittedly I am blowing smoke after all. Or maybe that's not the case, but let's just say 2011 was a very bad year for city planning values, especially on the heels of an overwhelmingly reaffirming vote in city direction. What a convenient time for the elite and monied interests to reclaim their stranglehold on the design review process...

[Just the facts]

Darn good point about Bricktown Spartan. Can anyone point me to the giant parking lot in Deep Deuce?

[Oil Capital]

After a brief review of the Downtown Design District regulations, it appears to me that this will indeed not be a review of the proposed use. In other words, they will not be seeking approval of the use of the parcel as a parking lot. They will only be seeking (and will have to obtain) approval of the design of the parking lot. The landscaping requirements are pretty extensive.

So, it appears that we will be replacing a very ugly, weed- and broken asphalt covered vacant property for a relatively attractively-landscaped parking lot. The horror of it! in the fevered minds of some urbanists, this means that the property will be forevermore a surface parking lot. This of course is utter nonsense. Just in Oklahoma City in fairly recent history, the Renaissance Hotel, the library, and Devon Tower have all replaced former parking. I believe Corporate Tower did as well. If the property is valuable for development today, it will still be valuable for development the day after the new parking lot opens and I am completely confident that the owner of the parking lot will listen to any offers from prospective developers.

Part of developing a vibrant downtown is attracting businesses that employ people. Those people have to park somewhere, and equally important, OKC must maintain respect for business and property owners and their property rights. It does not send a very business-friendly signal, to say the least, to suddenly start telling property owners that they cannot use their property for parking because it is not sufficiently urban for our tastes. Yes, let's tell owners of currently vacant properties that they must sit on their vacant property and wait for the arrival of a developer with an approved plan for an approved type of development designed by an approved architect and blessed by the design committee, all as dictated by city hall, and they dare not even think of trying to earn any money off of it in the meantime. That will really provide a long-term boost to development of downtown OKC.

[Just the facts]

All I can say Oil Capital is that we have two different objectives and my objective doesn't include large surface parking lots. My objective is creating walkable neighborhoods and traditional neighborhood development where cars are a liability, not a necessity.

[Urban Pioneer]

I recieved another call from someone who wanted to explain what their concers were. They are upset that the proposed parking lot design extends all the way to the corner two lots at Walker. Apparently, the existing lot is mid-block.

They argued that having a surface parking lot that is larger than the existing one and extends to a street corner would be a violation of the DDRC ordinance. They actually seemed ok with another mid-block lot with landscaping if it is going to happen. It is the ommission of the corner they are particularly concerned about.

[Oil Capital]

All I can say Oil Capital is that we have two different objectives and my objective doesn't include large surface parking lots. My objective is creating walkable neighborhoods and traditional neighborhood development where cars are a liability, not a necessity.

No. We have the exact same objective. But here in reality-land, cars are a necessity. In support of your objective of creating walkable neighborhoods, converting this parcel from its current condition to a nicely-landscaped and screened parking lot will be a step in the right direction. Also here in reality-land, the choice on the table is not between (1) a parking lot and (2) a 50-story skyscraper or other urbanist-approved development. The choice on the table is rather between (a) a weed- and broken asphalt covered vacant lot and (b) a nicely-landscaped parking lot. To use the appellation provided by one or our resident self-proclaimed urban experts, they would have to be morons to choose the status quo over improvement.

And there is simply no evidence that once a property becomes a parking lot it will necessarily remain a parking lot forever. It will remain a parking lot until someone has a development proposal for the land that provides a greater economic return.

[Urban Pioneer]

Dear Scottye,

I am writing to protest the construction of a surface parking lot proposed in Case # 11-00101. Please include this e-mail in the packet for the Commission.

The proposal clearly does not meet §7200.1.G(9)(a)2 of the Downtown Design District Development Criteria:

Automotive: Parking Lot
Parking lots should not be adjacent to a street corner, rather, located on the interior of the block in order to allow space for a building or structure to be located on the corner lot, therefore keeping building mass intact on corner lots. (emphasis added)

The staff report claims that “developing a structure at the corner of this small lot would be difficult due to the sharp grade change and may result in this area remaining undeveloped.”

The difficulty imposed by the grade change can be overcome with the use of retaining walls or creative engineering. One of the attractive features of this area of downtown is the grade changes and hills that provide for views of the skyline. There are developments occurring all over the DTD-1 district on land with similar grade changes. I am currently building a house on a piece of land with a nearly 20’ grade change at 824 NW 7th Street. We used the grade change to our advantage by building a garage into the slope of the land. Another example is the house recently constructed on 617 NW 5th Street that is built partially into the grade. The dramatic cantilevered second story of the Lovallo house on NW 7th Street is yet another example of the creative use of a grade change to enhance a project.

This district needs more density achieved through the construction of buildings and fewer parking lots. There are several existing parking structures in the vicinity of the proposed lot. I urge the Committee to reject this proposal because it clearly does not comply with the letter of §7200.1.G(9)(a)2 and is not in the best interest of developing the DTD-1 District.

Sincerely,

Lee Peoples
824 NW 7th Street

[Rover]

Just a question (and don't take this as an endorsement of surface parking as an ideal), don't you think that any business would more likely be attracted to locate next to an attractive lot with cheap parking for their employees/customers/residents than next to a weed infested (usually trashy) perennially vacant lot? Maybe the city can restrict surface to x% of any particular block or area of blocks. Done strategically, couldn't it be an incentive to get other development to the adjacent or nearby lots? Sometimes you have to make lemonade from lemons (sorry for being cliche).

[Oil Capital]

Looks like he has a good point regarding running the parking lot to the corner.

[Just the facts]

I am glad to see OKC has already addressed the parking lot situation and accounted for building mass at the street. I don't give the people at the planning department enough credit. Since this requirement is written in advance and is pretty clear, I suspect everyone will be in favor of opposing this request.

[kevinpate]

As the corner has been vacant ferevah n a day, if they wanna approve a nicely done p-lot there I would not lose any sleep. Variances are possible for a reason. A space is either going to be what someone is actually willing to make it, or it's going to be vacant, unkempt and ugly. And that's true no matter how much one wishes to dream of glittery unicorns munching cotton candy hay at a street side mystical creature cafe with minimal set-backs and unicorn rental offices on an upper floor with caretaker residences above the offices.

[Just the facts]

I have a dollar in my pocket so I might as well and go spend it now instead of saving it and spending later when I have two dollars. What is the difference between spending $2 on one item or $1 each on 2 items.

[Skyline]

I am glad to see OKC has already addressed the parking lot situation and accounted for building mass at the street. I don't give the people at the planning department enough credit. Since this requirement is written in advance and is pretty clear, I suspect everyone will be in favor of opposing this request.

Wasn't it also pretty clear in regards to additional parking in Bricktown along the canal?

How did that turn out?

[Just the facts]

Wasn't it also pretty clear in regards to additional parking in Bricktown along the canal?

How did that turn out?

None of the new parking in Bricktown is canal front though. It is all one level above the canal - at street level. Thus the problem.

[Urban Pioneer]

Dear Scottye,

I am asking that my comments be placed in the record for the hearing on this case.

I examined the parcel in question using Google Street View.

I found that the staff report is inaccurate in at least three (3) respects:

1) I was surprised to discover that the borders of the parcel facing Walker and facing 6th Street are effectively level with those streets. The only significant grade is at the SE corner near the alley.

2) I also note that the parcel has been built on in the past, with what appears to have been a house, indicated by the presence of steps facing Walker and a disused driveway entrance off of 5th.. Since the parcel was once suitable for construction, it should still be suitable for future construction. As noted by Lee Peoples, there are several houses in the immediate area that are built on much more imposing slopes, often with striking designs.

3) The staff report statement that the parking lot would be "somewhat obscured from view of pedestrians and drivers along Walker Ave" is patently incorrect. A pedestrian viewing that parcel from Walker or 5th would have a clear view of any parking lot.

Therefore, I cannot concur with the City Planning report that this minor elevation change at the alley makes the parcel suitable for a parking lot and unsuitable for other development. In fact this is a prime site on Walker. The staff report is misleading as written.

I request that the Downtown Design Review Committee reject this application.

Best regards,

Bill

William R. Lovallo, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
VA Medical Center (151A)
921 NE 13th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104