Parking Lot 6th & Walker

[Urban Pioneer]

[template=]
development
|category1=
|category2=
|category3=
|category4=
|
|project=
|address=
|status=
|owner=
|cost=
|architect=
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height=
|sq. feet=
|acerage=
|other=
|
|image=
|
[/template]

Description

Enter description here.
Latest News

Enter latest news here.
Milestones


Links

Gallery

Just got a call from a concerned neighbor. Apparently, a large surface parking lot is planned for the SW corner of 6th and Walker across from the Shell station and Emerson Alternative School.

The developer is from Norman and states that it is to provide parking for tenants at the Athenian building at 6th/Hudson one block to the east.

This proposal is to go before the now formally infamous Downtown Design Review Committee meeting this Thursday.

[metro]

Oh geez, just what we need, but correct me if I'm wrong, it already is an old abandoned surface parking lot, just with weeds growing through it. This is a prime corner ripe with potential.

[dankrutka]

Please NO!!!

[MDot]

That's pitiful.

[wschnitt]

NEW does not really work here. It is more like-redone.

[Spartan]

The DDRC should love this. I bet they're just salivating over some more parking as I type this out.

Morons... good catch, Jeff. Not that there's anything we can do about it evidently, but this will inevitably just be more fodder to hold against the DDRC.

By the way, when it comes to contentious approvals and stuff of the sort, I can only think of one instance in which any of these preposterous committees, DDRC, BUDC, etc., sided with urban advocates--Bricktown McDonald's 2008.

[wschnitt]

I can only think of one instance in which any of these preposterous committees, DDRC, BUDC, etc., sided with urban advocates--Bricktown McDonald's 2008.

I am going to this meeting on Thursday, it should be a good one.

[Oil Capital]

I don't see the big deal here. Converting an abandoned parking lot/vacant land into a functioning surface parking lot will not prevent it from being developed in the future. At some point, demand for development will be sufficient that surface parking will no longer be an economical use for the property. At that point, the property will still be easily built upon. In the meantime, we get rid of a weed-strewn parcel of property and upgrade (however slightly) to a clean parking lot. The Downtown Design Review Committee should just impose some reasonable landscaping requirements and let it happen.

[Popsy]

Too much common sense in your post there O. C. This group will not be able to compute. They would much rather be critical of our city government and refer to them as morons than to use their brains to think through something as you have done.

[MDot]

Too much common sense in your post there O. C. This group will not be able to compute. They would much rather be critical of our city government and refer to them as morons than to use their brains to think through something as you have done.

Sounds more like you are trying to reference Spartan more than you are this entire "group", you make it too obvious by stating we are calling the city government morons and being too critical of them when Nick is the only one criticizing the DDRC, plus he called them morons which you directly quoted (not to point fingers at you Spartan). Why don't you just reference him directly instead of trying to make everyone who doesn't share yours and Oil Capital's opinion look like they are too incompetent and illogical to understand the concept of why a developer from Norman would build/repave another surface parking lot on a "prime" spot that happens to already be an abandoned surface parking lot? Seems like the more logical thing to do unless you are really that pissy of a person and call out everyone for one persons opinion which I don't know you personally so I won't judge you.

[kevinpate]

Out of curiosity, can anyone describe the most recent three effort(s) by anyone who has sought to convert this 'prime' location from an abandoned bit of blight into something else?

A decent lot arising from a turd in a punchbowl sort of lot doesn't seem all that horrid to me, particularly if no one else is competing for the 'prime' location.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=NW+6th...ed=0CCEQ8gEwAA

[MDot]

I don't know the history of it so I suppose I should know it before I call it prime, which is a reason I wrote prime in quotes because I'm not sure. I guess if they can do it the way Oil Capital described it it wouldn't be so bad compared to what it is now. And in the future I suppose someone might come along with a nice proposal and it won't be a parking lot any longer (uber optimistic).

But this thing hasn't even been approved yet so I'm not sure why we (myself included) are in such a huff n' puff over this, let's atleast wait until it's approved before we start a riot.

[Just the facts]

They key word in the phrase "surface parking lot" is surface. I would prefer that surface lots no longer be allowed, period. If they want to build a garage, even a two story one would be fine. The problem with surface lots is that they tend to stay surface parking for a long time because they are easy money for the owner and the more that develops around them the more money they make, thus reducing the chance of them ever being redeveloped into anything else. The last parking lot in OKC that was turned into anything else was in existance for nearly 30 years. I can only think of two active parking lots that were removed for a new building; Devon Tower and the Renaissance Hotel.

The moral of the story is - if this lot goes surface parking it will remain surface parking until 2050.

[jungmuny]

unless there was a maps 4 that included a massive downtown garage. That would instantly bankrupt all the parking lot scammers and usher in a new era of development.

[kevinpate]

unless there was a maps 4 that included a massive downtown garage. That would instantly bankrupt all the parking lot scammers and usher in a new era of development.

Nah, if you could magically create a 40 story free for life parking lot that is 2-5 blocks from where folks want to be, the pay lots across the street or a block away (from where folks want to be) would likely remain full, with a wait list for spaces.

[jungmuny]

Personally I walk up to a mile to avoid paying those scumbags. There is nothing down there worthy of "hitting it and quitting it." If you go you may as well walk a ways. Does anyone know of a public garage ever happening? This is something I always wondered about.

[Oil Capital]

They key word in the phrase "surface parking lot" is surface. I would prefer that surface lots no longer be allowed, period. If they want to build a garage, even a two story one would be fine. The problem with surface lots is that they tend to stay surface parking for a long time because they are easy money for the owner and the more that develops around them the more money they make, thus reducing the chance of them ever being redeveloped into anything else. The last parking lot in OKC that was turned into anything else was in existance for nearly 30 years. I can only think of two active parking lots that were removed for a new building; Devon Tower and the Renaissance Hotel.

The moral of the story is - if this lot goes surface parking it will remain surface parking until 2050.

Nonsense. So, the last parking lot that was converted had been in existence for 30 years. So what? How many new buildings did we not build in that time because surface parking lots were making too much money? That was a 30-year period of time during most of which little construction took place. We now anticipate significant construction going forward. Are you really telling us that if this vacant parcel becomes surface parking that a new construction project will more likely replace existing occupied structures rather than go to this location, or that a new construction project will not occur at all because the parking lots are too profitable?

If this parcel remains a surface parking lot until 2050, the chances are very strong that it would also remain a vacant lot until 2050.

[catch22]

Personally I walk up to a mile to avoid paying those scumbags. Does anyone know of a public garage ever happening?

I believe one is planned for (I.E. in a master plan, not on the drawing boards right now) the Multi-modal transit hub (Santa Fe Station) in Bricktown...

I believe the city is also looking at building a new public garage in the downtown core, still in the concept and location phase though. Someone can correct me if I have this wrong.

[Urban Pioneer]

I guess the reason that I even posted notice about this proposal is that there are so many of you that have strong feelings about the potential of Walker.

The problem with surface parking lots that I have personally observed over many years, is that rarely are they "re-purposed" with meaningful structural development.

Ironically though, the Athenian building has been unable to be sold or leased because of its lack of parking. In fact, there is quite a back story to the building as it was redeveloped with Murrah Bombing funds, but a parking lot/structure did not accompany it. Thus it has remained an empty building for many years.

You have to factor in though that significant infill is happening in SOSA and Emerson School complex is about to be completely renovated. The people who are now talking to me with concern are expressing their lack of desire regarding the aesthetics that a mass of parked cars will bring to the area and the potentially lost opportunity for a significant corner development.

Maybe its a good thing. Maybe its a bad thing. As a neighbor myself, I just hope that if it is approved, it includes significant landscaping and sidewalks.

[Rover]

They key word in the phrase "surface parking lot" is surface. I would prefer that surface lots no longer be allowed, period. If they want to build a garage, even a two story one would be fine. The problem with surface lots is that they tend to stay surface parking for a long time because they are easy money for the owner and the more that develops around them the more money they make, thus reducing the chance of them ever being redeveloped into anything else. The last parking lot in OKC that was turned into anything else was in existance for nearly 30 years. I can only think of two active parking lots that were removed for a new building; Devon Tower and the Renaissance Hotel.

The moral of the story is - if this lot goes surface parking it will remain surface parking until 2050.

I guess this is true, but may also be true that if it is a lot full of weeds it will likely remain weeds til 2050. History shows this is likely to be true. Until more work and living comes downtown then laws denying parking lots will not force development to happen. If the land can't turn a higher profit than income from parking, why should it be developed at lesser per ft. income? One way to look at it is that if there isn't more density developed around it, there won't be cars to park there. And, just maybe having parking in the area will encourage the owner next door to develop something that requires parking...like retail. The issue is making the highest and best use something more profitable. You can jump really high maybe, but that doesn't mean you can escape gravity.

Don't get me wrong, I hate surface parking lots as much as the next urbanite. But you can't always legislate and force development. What they can do instead is create and enforce standards, even for parking lots....AND for vacant lots.

BTW, it doesn't cost much to dig up and remove asphalt. As soon as a higher and better use comes along, the asphalt on the ground will be virtually no impediment.

[soonerguru]

I guess this is true, but may also be true that if it is a lot full of weeds it will likely remain weeds til 2050. History shows this is likely to be true. Until more work and living comes downtown then laws denying parking lots will not force development to happen. If the land can't turn a higher profit than income from parking, why should it be developed at lesser per ft. income? One way to look at it is that if there isn't more density developed around it, there won't be cars to park there. And, just maybe having parking in the area will encourage the owner next door to develop something that requires parking...like retail. The issue is making the highest and best use something more profitable. You can jump really high maybe, but that doesn't mean you can escape gravity.

Don't get me wrong, I hate surface parking lots as much as the next urbanite. But you can't always legislate and force development. What they can do instead is create and enforce standards, even for parking lots....AND for vacant lots.

BTW, it doesn't cost much to dig up and remove asphalt. As soon as a higher and better use comes along, the asphalt on the ground will be virtually no impediment.

More jobs and residences are coming downtown. There are almost monthly announcements at this point. It's a good bet that 6th and Walker has a lot of development potential, particularly considering the advance of Midtown, SOSA, Saint Anthony, and Downtown in general.

[Just the facts]

Are you really telling us that if this vacant parcel becomes surface parking that a new construction project will more likely replace existing occupied structures rather than go to this location, or that a new construction project will not occur at all because the parking lots are too profitable?

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.

[jungmuny]

Nah, if you could magically create a 40 story free for life parking lot that is 2-5 blocks from where folks want to be, the pay lots across the street or a block away (from where folks want to be) would likely remain full, with a wait list for spaces.

You wouldn't need 40 stories but I'm not sure how much you would. If one was built behind the art museum and another in Bricktown, that would make all surrounding lots eligible for development and help nudge the city toward density.

[Rover]

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.

They keep producing that income until they are worth more for something else. Simple as that.

[Just the facts]

Looking at this lot, it sits at the top of a nice hill with a really good view of downtown - and I mean a REALLY GOOD VIEW. I am surprise the owner would even think about a parking lot. If it was me a I would do an L shaped stair-step complex with a 2 story building along 5th and stepping up to 6 or 7 stories along 6th. Those would be view unavailable anywhere else in OKC.