Brickopolis

[mcca7596]

I saw this on the new agenda too, but didn't know if it was different from the original. If they don't allow this, who knows how long it will be until something else is even proposed on that site. It really doesn't need to be empty and I don't think this proposal falls in the "better than crappy makes us happy" category. It really would be a nice addition and an obvious improvement over what is currently there.

[Architect2010]

Yes, very much different. The original proposal is the very first post of this thread and was indeed in the "better than crappy makes us happy" category. Here's a repost for comparison purposes.

One building. No canal retail at all besides in the one building. And TONS of surface parking fronting the canal.

Looking west, southwest towards the Bricktown Ballpark and the new 3 story building. Note 2 story garage on the right. New pedestrian bridge and the wrap-around walkways make me think that the future addition could likely be leasable space. Maybe.


Looking east, northeast from across Mickey Mantle. Notice the new parking lot.






The garage.

[betts]

That's a marked improvement.

[bluedogok]

To me the surface parking is still the deal killer for that location. Somewhere off the canal, it's not as big of an issue.

[Spartan]

How shocking, someone staged a "take their toys and go home" and now they're back seeking approval again. Enforcing the damn building codes seems to work, if you ask me.

Still going to have a problem with parking. Do they want that so as to get away with operating another pay-parking lot, or do they really think they need that much parking right on the canal in order to be able to sell OU/OSU junk?

[oneforone]

Wasn't there a House of Bedlam on Penn and Memorial? If I remember right it was one of the many FAILED concepts in the old Harrigans.

[king183]

Still going to have a problem with parking. Do they want that so as to get away with operating another pay-parking lot, or do they really think they need that much parking right on the canal in order to be able to sell OU/OSU junk?

That's exactly what it is. They want another surface pay to park site that will never be developed. This is a terrible proposal simply because of the surface parking. We need to end this crap in downtown.

[betts]

Oh sorry. I have difficulty with drawings, translating two dimensions into three. If there is still surface parking on the canal, that's not good.

[wschnitt]

That surface lot is tiny!!!

How about some street parking then.

[Rover]

What is the code there...is development without parking even allowed?

[bluedogok]

I believe so, there was no parking required or provided at JDM Place when I did that project. In fact the parking along the street is under control of the city.

[Architect2010]

That surface lot is tiny!!!

How about some street parking then.

There are two surface parking lots here. Both of which take up more frontage along the street level of the canal than the buildings do themselves. I'll edit this and post the top-down schematics later if someone doesn't first. He does plan a fountain on top of the parking garage though.

[okcboy]

An undeveloped grass lot will never be developed in Bricktown or Downtown without some sort of controlled parking. This is a great deal. Thanks Chris. Lets get it done.

[coldbeer]

This project will interfere with at least one exisiting business...someone is gonna get sued...

[Spartan]

I don't understand some comments being made. More surface parking needed in Bricktown? Someone will get sued for competing with an existing business? No development in Bricktown without surface parking? Is anyone who's opinion is rooted in reality able to comment on this thread??

The Bricktown Urban Design Commission is probably not going to go for some surface parking, with a terrible warehouse-feeling awning, right on the canal. Not if they're serious about Bricktown urban design, that is.

What is the code there...is development without parking even allowed?

Is that a serious question, Rover?

They reformed all of the downtown zoning in 2007 or so. It's all fairly flexible zoning at this point, with the rigid parts directing land use and urban form.

[wschnitt]

There are two surface parking lots here. Both of which take up more frontage along the street level of the canal than the buildings do themselves. I'll edit this and post the top-down schematics later if someone doesn't first. He does plan a fountain on top of the parking garage though.

I see. Both buildings have surface lots to the south.

[SkyWestOKC]

I would be fine with the project if they added one more level to the parking garage so it's not a "surface lot" from street level. I could deal with the small surface lot on Mickey Mantel if the other side didn't have surface parking too.

I would prefer no surface parking on either side, but if it came to a compromise, I would be willing to allow that as long as the garage added one more level to set it out and make the project denser.

[Steve]

This project is being developed by Chris Johnson, owner of USA Screen Printing. You can reach him at 946-3100

[BoulderSooner]

the 2 story "addition" should be forced to be built now ... then while not perfect this would be ok

[Larry OKC]

Maybe Pete or someone can provide a top view map, but isn't this being proposed where the Canal makes the sharp turn in front of the Ballpark (where the grassy knoll is)? If so there is no Canal level surface parking is there? That area is below grade (where the Canal starts it actually below the basement level of those buildings). From the orientation depicted in the renderings, it looks like the surface parking that was proposed is behind the buildings, up on the street level. Not unlike the surface parking at Toby Keith's????

[Architect2010]

Street-level of the parking garage.


Canal-level of the parking garage. This is all retail.

[bluedogok]

This proposal is nothing more than building a miniscule building to get some paid parking, buildings should fill up those sites, not parking. This is nothing more than a suburban mindset development in an urban area.

The first elevation A3.1 shows the building that sits between Mickey Mantle Drive and the Canal, from the elevator/water feature to the alley, the fenced area is all street level surface parking. The second elevation (also called out as A3.1) shows nothing but a parking lot on the grassy spot where the canal turns west in front of JDM Place. While the ground floor retail would be nice, the sheer depth of that level would require a pretty large tenant, unless they were to occupy it themselves I see that as a hard to lease space considering the other open spots that exist there. Grass is better in that spot than a lot which would more than half surface parking even if the other building gets built....and those are nothing but turds with brick and awnings with them, there is absolutely no need for parking fronting the canal even at street level...NONE. If I was on the committee I would have made that clear during the first review. The existing lot on the canal by Zio's is a complete waste of urban space as well but it has been in there as long as I can remember. The lot between Zio's and Reno next to the Rock Island Plow building is not desirable but it is much better than the other lot since it is not fronting the canal.

Nothing like this proposal is going to do anything to help Bricktown move forward from the stagnant state that it is in due to some property owners who don't really seem to care about the area and what it could be.

[Architect2010]

I wouldn't say Bricktown is stagnating, not in the least. But good post otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree,

[Rover]

I don't understand some comments being made. More surface parking needed in Bricktown? Someone will get sued for competing with an existing business? No development in Bricktown without surface parking? Is anyone who's opinion is rooted in reality able to comment on this thread??

The Bricktown Urban Design Commission is probably not going to go for some surface parking, with a terrible warehouse-feeling awning, right on the canal. Not if they're serious about Bricktown urban design, that is.



Is that a serious question, Rover?

They reformed all of the downtown zoning in 2007 or so. It's all fairly flexible zoning at this point, with the rigid parts directing land use and urban form.

Gosh, now I am embarrassed I asked an apparently stupid question. Sorry I didnt know if new construction downtown had to provide parking.

[Rover]

It is sad that at this juncture there is more economic value to a surface lot in BT than an income producing other structure. As long as land is cheap there and business opportunities few we will see continued efforts for projects like this. The real question is what can we do to increase the economic value of land in BT. Restrictions dont create opportunities. We need more opportunities.