GPHG Law Offices

[BDP]

so a single story is ok?

If I had to chose, I would choose contiguous single story development fronting the street with sidewalks every time over spread out 5 story buildings with surface parking in an office park configuration.

For example, the office park on memorial is not more urban than the Plaza district just because its buildings are taller.

Often times the best urban neighborhoods are not ones full of tall structures and none of them have anything like this is going to be.

[OKVision4U]

If I had to chose, I would choose contiguous single story development fronting the street with sidewalks every time over spread out 5 story buildings with surface parking in an office park configuration.

For example, the office park on memorial is not more urban than the Plaza district just because its buildings are taller.

Often times the best urban neighborhoods are not ones full of tall structures and none of them have anything like this is going to be.

I'm w/ you on the fronting the street w/ sidewalks. But, we should have both. Even if it is a 3 story minimum w/ and sidewalks w/ a clean front would be so much better. The 3 story designs would provide for both Mixed Residential & Commercial Applications to be inter-woven throughout the C2S fabric.

[BDP]

I'm w/ you on the fronting the street w/ sidewalks. But, we should have both. Even if it is a 3 story minimum w/ and sidewalks w/ a clean front would be so much better. The 3 story designs would provide for both Mixed Residential & Commercial Applications to be inter-woven throughout the C2S fabric.

I agree. But as it is now, it doesn't even look like we can enforce setbacks. I guess we can all talk about desired guidelines, but it doesn't seem to matter even when they are in place.

[bchris02]

It's sad that Core 2 Shore is likely to become another Lower Bricktown or even worse a Galliardia Office Park. I am not anti-sprawl but the urban core should be urban and I don't understand why the city doesn't get that.

[Mississippi Blues]

The first time I went to the South Waterfront in Portland, I thought to myself "I bet C2S will be like this". This is only one project, but it looks like I might've been a bit off base.

[bchris02]

Sad thing is its not difficult to do this right. All that would need to be done is having the building fronting the street and the parking in the back. Why can't this city wrap its mind around any type of development that does not involve a sea of surface parking facing the street?

[kevinpate]

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

[LakeEffect]

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

Yeah, I'm not faulting the owner/occupant on this.

[BDP]

If this were my land, and two competing designers pitched me on spec, with one pitching this design and one pitching a building up tight on Walker with parking tucked between my vistas and the river, I'd jump all over this design, thank the other for the pitch, and move forward with this one. Stock up on stones and hurl at will. This structure makes sense from an occupant perspective. Although I might have gone with less parking if it were mine to decree, I'd leave the building where it is.

I realize some really hate it. But for this piece of land, and given what is presently to its south, southwest and west, and knowing what does, and what does not appear to be on target for the east and northeast, this design makes a lot of sense to me. Not only for the occupants of the building, but for all who make use of the river, river park lands on both banks and the existing park to the west.

As for the new Central Park, it is two blocks away to the east, and a hair or three more than two blocks away to the north. This lot is not visible to any of the planned Central Park unless everything in between is to be clear cut pasture, and that is not what will occur. This lot is simply too separated from the planned areas for that park. It will not be an eyesore to them, or even a factor to them.
Landscape well along the sidewalk and it won't be an eyesore to the drivers/walkers/bikers on S. Walker either.

Then why is it in an overlay that requires 100% of the frontage to be within 30 feet of the street? Clearly this was not what was intended for the area or sold to the public as more and more public resources were being committed to the area.

Also, I don't understand why quality urban development can't exist more than a block away from the park. Why does it have to be limited just to the adjacent blocks? That seems like a very short sighted contention.

The set back guideline is probably the most fundamental of all the development guidelines and they did not just make a small variance. They went from 100% to 28%!

But the real problem here is that we have been and are spending so much public money to try and create something new for the city and it ends up just being the same old stuff. That's a complete waste of public resources whether you favor urban development or not. These guys could go a few miles in almost ANY direction and this thing would fit right in.

The willingness of the committee to rubber stamp this shows that the vision for C2S that was sold to the public was smoke and mirrors or, at best, it will be much much more limited in scope.

[Just the facts]

Yeah, I'm not faulting the owner/occupant on this.

I fault them, the architect, and the people who approved it. There is too much stupidity involved in this to lay it all one group. It takes a comedy of errors to end up here. Just like a plane crash, no one thing can bring it down; it takes a series of screw-ups.

[jccouger]

What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

[Just the facts]

What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

..and they destroy the public realm in the process. That is the whole debate we have been having in this city since 1960. The public realm should take priority over private space because the public realm belongs to all of us. If you don't get a crap about your share of the public realm then that is up to you - but some of us do give a crap about our share.

How Bad Architecture Wrecked Cities

[bchris02]

Then why is it in an overlay that requires 100% of the frontage to be within 30 feet of the street? Clearly this was not what was intended for the area or sold to the public as more and more public resources were being committed to the area.

Also, I don't understand why quality urban development can't exist more than a block away from the park. Why does it have to be limited just to the adjacent blocks? That seems like a very short sighted contention.

The set back guideline is probably the most fundamental of all the development guidelines and they did not just make a small variance. They went from 100% to 28%!

But the real problem here is that we have been and are spending so much public money to try and create something new for the city and it ends up just being the same old stuff. That's a complete waste of public resources whether you favor urban development or not. These guys could go a few miles in almost ANY direction and this thing would fit right in.

The willingness of the committee to rubber stamp this shows that the vision for C2S that was sold to the public was smoke and mirrors or, at best, it will be much much more limited in scope.

+1. Why subsidize more suburbia especially if it brings nothing new to the table? Did OKC not learn anything from the mistakes of Lower Bricktown? This design looks like it would be a perfect fit with all the other office complexes at Memorial and Meridian.

It was my assumption all along that C2S would be far less impressive than the initial vision. I didn't think it would stoop THIS low.

[catch22]

What benefit would the public get from this being up against the street wall? There won't be any retail or public space. Sure, there could be less parking but I think this is a good design other than that. Its designed for the occupants to have good sight lines of the river & of downtown. There is no other way for this building to be situated that would achieve that.

There absolutely is public space fronting this on all sides. The streets and the river.

In an effort to create a nice view from a desk, the public gets a view of a parking lot, and the view of the back of their building with no relation to the river. Excellent trade off.

The people in the offices get the benefit, while the people trying to enjoy public space get an unsightly view from all sides. Seems like a good trade off.

[jccouger]

Sorry guys, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking a legitimate question in regards to the benefit of the building being pushed up to the street. If the building was turned a complete 180 and the "corner" of the building was pushed up in to the Northeast corner, with the "front" of the building facing Southwest would that be a better design just because its placed up against the street? How can the front facade be pushed up against the street & still be a logical entrance by car/parking lot?

[Just the facts]

Sorry guys, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking a legitimate question in regards to the benefit of the building being pushed up to the street. If the building was turned a complete 180 and the "corner" of the building was pushed up in to the Northeast corner, with the "front" of the building facing Southwest would that be a better design just because its placed up against the street? How can the front facade be pushed up against the street & still be a logical entrance by car/parking lot?

Cities around the world are able to do this every day.

So easy a novice using MSPaint can figure it out in 5 minutes.

[warreng88]

In November, the wife and I went to Charleston and Savannah for vacation. While in Savannah, we came upon Forsythe Park which is about 30 acres and 175 years older, so there are a lot more mature trees, but at minimum, the surrounding areas of Forsythe Park is what I would like our C2S park to looks like. There are several one story office buildings fronting the park, but they are set back no more than five feet from the sidewalk which buts up against the street. There are parking lots that front the street in front of the park, but there are three or four story buildings on either side of them or parking behind them, the next street over. Also, there is a mile of walking/jogging trails around the outside of the park between the mature trees and the interior of the park.

[Rover]

There absolutely is public space fronting this on all sides. The streets and the river.

In an effort to create a nice view from a desk, the public gets a view of a parking lot, and the view of the back of their building with no relation to the river. Excellent trade off.

The people in the offices get the benefit, while the people trying to enjoy public space get an unsightly view from all sides. Seems like a good trade off.

I assume you are being sarcastic. That said, do you believe that the owner should NOT have the right to benefit themselves within any constraint provided by rules, regulations and laws? Should private investment be first for the investor or for the public?

Secondly, if the public also is enjoying the river and river trails, does that public also have a right to have a view of the building or must they view the parking lot from the riverside?

If the street side of the lot is appropriately developed and landscaped, does that mitigate the damage done by the placement of the parking lot there? Is the only answer structured parking with street level retail interaction?

[bchris02]

This development is perfectly legal and within the current standards required in the Core2Shore area. I don't fault the developer or the architect for this. What this shows us though is that the zoning needs to be modified to require urban development in that area. Developers around here usually won't do it on their own unless they are forced to.

[Just the facts]

I'm not a fan of private ownership of parkfront land anyhow so if they put me charge for a day I would build a road connecting S. Harney Parkway to S Lee (on the west side if this lot). I would then find out where that creek goes and daylight it. Then I would put a bike path along it and connect it to the existing one along the river.

[Just the facts]

This development is perfectly legal and within the current standards required in the Core2Shore area. I don't fault the developer or the architect for this. What this shows us though is that the zoning needs to be modified to require urban development in that area. Developers around here usually won't do it on their own unless they are forced to.

No it wasn't. They had to get a variance to do what they did.

[AP]

nm

[Plutonic Panda]

Damn.... I really this building and think it would be great for the area but the site plan is not good. This is stupid. Like Catch22 said, this shouldn't of even been considered until they redid the site plan to have no setback. This building would've been awesome on a corner.

[catch22]

I assume you are being sarcastic. That said, do you believe that the owner should NOT have the right to benefit themselves within any constraint provided by rules, regulations and laws? Should private investment be first for the investor or for the public?

Secondly, if the public also is enjoying the river and river trails, does that public also have a right to have a view of the building or must they view the parking lot from the riverside?

If the street side of the lot is appropriately developed and landscaped, does that mitigate the damage done by the placement of the parking lot there? Is the only answer structured parking with street level retail interaction?

No I am not being sarcastic. This development was not within the regulations and design standards of the area. They issued a variance for this project. Meaning: they changed the law to allow it.

Private investment (especially in areas with significant public investment for the public good) should have the private and public interest in balance. Not favored to one or the other.

You should have enough pride in your work to be of private and public benefit. We the public now get to view their cars in their parking lot, while they get to enjoy the view of the river.

[betts]

I don't think we need to be so desperate for development here to allow variances.