Primrose School

[shawnw]

Still in an urban design district

[stlokc]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that north of NW 13th is suburban anyway?

It's fairly arbitrary, but I tend to think "suburban" starts significantly north of there. I consider 23rd an urban street east of OCU (at least in the context of OKC, in the New York metro it might qualify as suburban), I think of Paseo as an urban street. And I would place the Crown Heights area/Western Ave. south of McGuiness as at least borderline.

I don't know what the exact definitions would be, but I tend to think of suburban as the areas where they started building things with large amounts of parking in mind. So post-war, when it became standard for all families to have at least one car.

In a perfect world, I really think any infill inside the 44/35/240 loop should adhere to urban principles. I know I'm dreaming there.

[HangryHippo]

It's fairly arbitrary, but I tend to think "suburban" starts significantly north of there. I consider 23rd an urban street east of OCU (at least in the context of OKC, in the New York metro it might qualify as suburban), I think of Paseo as an urban street. And I would place the Crown Heights area/Western Ave. south of McGuiness as at least borderline.

I don't know what the exact definitions would be, but I tend to think of suburban as the areas where they started building things with large amounts of parking in mind. So post-war, when it became standard for all families to have at least one car.

In a perfect world, I really think any infill inside the 44/35/240 loop should adhere to urban principles. I know I'm dreaming there.

Agreed, particularly the last two sentences.

[Mississippi Blues]

Very good and well thought-out response. I personally love visiting OKCTalk because I love reading about all the new developments and growth of my city. But it gets old hearing about how this isn't pretty enough, that is tall enough, this is too suburban/Edmond-like, etc. Because this design doesn't entice you to move closer to downtown, does not mean it doesn't entice other young families. It obviously has to make financial sense for each family. The amenities that we have downtown and surrounding areas today is night and day versus 10 years ago. I can't imagine that this very high-demand amenity won't entice many young families to consider the move.

You're absolutely right that I "lack an understanding of urban design." That's not what's important to me. I'm concerned with what goes on inside the building. And I'm not talking about the color of paint on the walls. If it were me, I would choose this place based on their reputation, the quality of their employees, their curriculum, etc. Whether it looks like the proposed design or one of the pics that sooner.arch posted, those reasons I laid out above will be, by far, the most important factors for me in deciding to send my kids here. Just a matter of priorities, in my opinion.

That’s all fair and I can respect where you’re coming from. I just have a hard time envisioning anyone, whether it’s me or some other young family with the financial means, that would be enticed to relocate to the surrounding area given that this isn’t designed to fit into the surrounding area. (note: by design, I mean the way it fits into the surroundings environment, not design in if it will be a useful place of business by those nearby) My main point in that goes beyond this single development and is more of an issue at large in the urban parts of Oklahoma City, which as of this moment in time, there’s minimal incentive to relocate to this part of the city for a daycare when it is designed in a way that makes it just as easy if not easier to access for those driving from Yukon as it is for those that live 2 blocks away. The main difference is time, which was my point about living nearby and walking. Why live around the corner and walk to this daycare - which walkability and carless living, two things that play into one another, is some of the more convincing parts of living in an urban part of any city - when it’s safer and just as convenient (outside of drive time) to commute from miles away, considering the design of this daycare and the surrounding area? So I guess my main disagreement is with it doing anything to entice people to move nearby when its designed in a way that will make it just as easy, if not easier, to access from wherever “they” live now. From a business standpoint, it has built its reputation and is sought after, so it’ll have no problems with being used by anyone and everyone that wants to use it. I hope I didn’t come across as saying it wouldn’t be a useful development as that wouldn’t be true at all.

I think Urbanized nailed it in that it’s an entirely different approach to everyday life between someone who prefers an urban lifestyle versus someone who is happy with a suburban life. An element of what makes suburban life enticing to some is the way it’s disconnected and accessible from further away without having to walk so much. It’s far more than that obviously and I’m not trying to straw-man it in a derogatory way, pretty much everyone I know and love prefers that lifestyle, but my main point is that someone that prefers that isn’t going to really see why people prefer a place to be connected to surrounding buildings and easy to walk to over a place that can be pulled up to, in and out, 20 seconds or less. To restate it all in a single sentence, I don’t think someone who is going to be drawn to move near an urban part of a city is going to be convinced to pull the trigger by a disconnected development just because it’s a sought after daycare when they can easily drive to it from wherever they live, no matter the distance.

Other than that, I agree with you. It’s going to be successful either way. Mine and others disapproval has to do with the thought of another development disregarding any attempt (design wise) to connect with its surroundings, which again, the issue goes back to everything outside a handful of streets in a several mile radius in the very center of the city being designed in a way that doesn’t promote connectivity, something that is generally expected in an urban part of a city. This part of the city is usually considered to be in the urban core but so much of what gets built is functionally suburban in design. To me, that’s more of what I see when I see complaining on here, not just trashing something because we’re a disgruntled bunch, although I’m sure some do qualify as just being unnecessarily negative. It’s about promoting and creating a more connected city in the core.

TLDR - I don’t think this is designed in a way that makes use of it being in the core of the city due to it being suburban in design. That critique stems from mine, and others, desire for this area to be built to promote connectivity in the future. This will still be a successful development; my distaste for the design doesn’t dilute that reality.

[Laramie]

Lost a friend (Michael Coffman) decades ago in New York when he was bumped from the sidewalk into the streets of NYC traffic.

[Oski]

This is the Development & Buildings board, so I don't see the reason why we shouldn't discuss about about architectural aspects of new developments (and be frustrated when seeing ugly things being proposed). If the residents of Paris, Amsterdam, or Prague only cared about what inside the walls in the old days, their children wouldn't have the gorgeous cities that they have nowadays. We all want this city to grow, but we should want more than that, we want it to be elegant. We can achieve that, tons of empty spots available for beautiful, high quality buildings in OKC, while in some other cities, you may have to knock down a bunch of ugly buildings to do that.

[fortpatches]

The University I attended in Dublin one summer lost a student that was standing on the sidewalk waiting on the bus. They were on the sidewalk, turned talking to friends as the bus was arriving and the side mirror of the bus hit them in the head and killed them. The bus was on the road and the student was on the sidewalk.

[Oski]

Some minor improvements but still sticking to the lazy and fill-in-the-blank architectural style/practice:

[David]

Looks better with the full red brick outer shell.

[Pete]

They filed their building permit application today, so work should be starting in the next couple of months.

[Pete]

Permit filed today for a construction trailer, so work should be starting very soon.

[warreng88]

Drove by last night and dirt was being moved.

[Pete]

[Pete]

[Pete]

[Pete]

[fortpatches]

Did the plans change some?
I thought it was supposed to have more of a setback from Classen.

[Pete]

Did the plans change some?
I thought it was supposed to have more of a setback from Classen.

Yes, originally it showed the building farther to the east with a large playground on the west side of the building.

Now the playground will be to the north.

[David]

Fronting the corner on both 13th and Classen is a much better site layout than a setback from either, I am glad to see that change.

[GoGators]

It looks like from the footing that the building has been turned 45 degrees to face 13th as well? If so, what a massive improvement for the layout of this site. The original layout was a complete disaster. It looks like they have completely corrected the original layout problems by pushing the building to the corner and facing the street. What a pleasant surprise.

[Pete]

These are the final plans:

[DoctorTaco]

It looks like from the footing that the building has been turned 45 degrees to face 13th as well? If so, what a massive improvement for the layout of this site. The original layout was a complete disaster. It looks like they have completely corrected the original layout problems by pushing the building to the corner and facing the street. What a pleasant surprise.

My thoughts exactly!

[HOT ROD]

MUCH much better layout and build plan. Very many thanks to the city and developers coming up with the best use of the site and the best safety for the children.

[Pete]

[Pete]