Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 105

Thread: 700 West

  1. #26

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I really like the idea of aiming to offer something not already represented in the market.

    There are plenty of people who would trade space for less rent. You just don't need that much stuff, especially if you are always out and about and enjoying everything the central city has to offer.


    As a reminder, this is just a proposal. It has to be blessed by OCURA then, go through design review.

    However, it seems to satisfy all of OCURA's requirements and meet the standards set forth by the Downtown Design Review Committee.


    This is now the third project so I'll declare it a trend: 700 West, 10th & Shartel and the Metropolitan are all large housing projects funded almost exclusively by out-of-state developers.

    We've seen outside investors for a while, but virtually everything that has come before these three project were done by locals.

    Could represent the beginning of a shift towards lots more capital flowing in for development projects.

  2. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I think that is a good thing. Not knocking in-market developers, but in general they don't have much experience with urban infill. Even the better local developments (Level, for example) have had strong out-of-market influences.

  3. #28

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Yes, it took the passion and love of the community by the locals to even get us to this point. Quite a long list of those that have done great work, both restoration and new construction.

    But there is still plenty of room for others and we still have lots of holes to fill.

  4. #29

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I did research recently about ultra-dense housing like this and found that similar proposals had been turned down in Norman and Stillwater (although two were ultimately approved in Stillwater).

    Does OKC have unit-per-acre density caps? Should it?

  5. #30

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by tomokc View Post
    I did research recently about ultra-dense housing like this and found that similar proposals had been turned down in Norman and Stillwater (although two were ultimately approved in Stillwater).

    Does OKC have unit-per-acre density caps? Should it?
    no way man

  6. #31

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I love it. You'll add a lot of young people who can't afford to live in some of the other areas. There'll be a huge influx of people there and that will really help that part of the city. It's got good urban design and the surface parking is something that can be remedied later. It's not that far from Midtown, and not too far a walk from where the streetcar will run. You wouldn't even really need a car at that point.

  7. #32

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    The surface parking is fine, completely hidden. The structure will still do a great job of framing the street.

  8. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    So far it looks pretty good to me and the parking seems to be all in the center of the block behind the structure with very little of it visible from the street. They should be able to hit a real good price point.

  9. #34

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    If you look closely at the proposal, it calls for concrete drive areas but the parking spaces themselves -- more than half the parking lot area -- will be crushed and compacted granite.

    It allows water to drain naturally, looks nicer, doesn't get baking hot in the summer and doesn't freeze and crack in the winter.

  10. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Is it allowed under current code? I suppose so if they proposed it, but frankly I'm surprised...

  11. #36

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I like it. And while I don't reject it for this area, this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to occur in Bricktown and around old Central High for ACM and OCU Law students and service industry workers... (though probably with structured parking)

  12. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I get the sense that the parking isn't intended to be permanet. The streetcar might be the anticipated mode of transportation.

  13. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Yeah, it's still a wonderful project even if this is all there is, but you get the distinct feeling that this might be part of a larger plan.

  14. #39

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Steve's article about this.

    Five-story apartments proposed for west downtown Oklahoma City arts district | News OK

    A partnership consisting of the new owners of the Sycamore Square Apartments and local developer Andy Burnett is proposing to build a five-story, $23.4 million apartment complex at the southeast corner of NW 4 and Shartel.

  15. #40

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by shawnw View Post
    I like it. And while I don't reject it for this area, this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to occur in Bricktown and around old Central High for ACM and OCU Law students and service industry workers... (though probably with structured parking)
    There are plenty of smaller blocks near the new OCU law school to do something similar. That would bring great life to the area.

  16. #41

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    2 things bother me about this development, one only marginally and the other, fairly insignificantly:

    Marginally, I wish the 1st floor were 2 to 4 feet taller with more emphasis on retail.

    Insignificantly, the parking…not because it's surface, but because that means other solutions will have to be found in this area before anything can be built to fill out the lot. Not that there should HAVE to be, but knowing OKC, nothing will move forward until residents of this development have been assured they have parking during construction.

  17. #42

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by Urbanized View Post
    Is it allowed under current code? I suppose so if they proposed it, but frankly I'm surprised...
    Not that I'm aware of. They'll have to get a variance. Hanz already has a test parking area that the Board of Adjustment allowed, but requires yearly reports on its effectiveness. I believe planning staff have tried to get this ordinance updated, but since it's regulated by other departments it hasn't moved...

  18. #43

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Didn't Chip Fudge use similar materials for the parking lot behind the Hart Building?

  19. #44

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Didn't Chip Fudge use similar materials for the parking lot behind the Hart Building?
    I believe he went through the same process, with Hanz. Hanz has become the de facto permeable paving specialist in OKC.

  20. #45

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    I agree. Surface parking is fine if hidden from view. This development does it right by having it in the back. The style is very different than anything we've seen, almost 1970s government looking.

  21. Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Neither 4th or Shartel will really be 'retail streets' so the lack of retail isn't such a big deal to me. They did at least put the retail on the corner and I love that they propose reducing both Shartel and 4th to two lanes and adding on street parking. Re-opening Lee would help get rid of another IM Pei superblock as well. There is way more to like in this plan than there is to dislike.

    Might I suggest something like this for the retail space. It's prices will be sure to curry favor with the residents of this development and will probably be a favorite hangout.

    http://www.mezzo-di-pasta.com/international/

    Here is a good video that sums the place up

    http://www.mezzo-di-pasta.com/intern...what-is-mezzo/

    On edit - scratch my retail comment as I forgot about the 15 'live/work units' that will line both Shartel and 4th. Couple those with on-street parking, 2 lanes of traffic, and a retail anchor at the corner and this area could have a very good commercial presence.

  22. #47

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Upon reading the article it seems that Andy Burnett is leading this project, with outside investors... So is this really a case of outside money being smarter and more innovative? Come on.

    Also I have ZERO concerns about the parking (I love the drainage solution), just don't care about what I can't see - but it also looks like restoring Lee through this block is part of the proposal. Will that be a public cost, if so what cost? I love reconnecting the grid through there, but the weird map on Newsok shows some jagged driveway that just skirts the Sycamore property line and isn't even flush with where Lee begins and ends. I hope they just straighten it out and meaningfully reconnect Lee. It will serve downtown well as this section of town has evidently become the next Deep Deuce.

    I can't believe that the area around Sycamore has become such an area that every site is getting nabbed for developments.

  23. #48

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by Urbanized View Post
    I think that is a good thing. Not knocking in-market developers, but in general they don't have much experience with urban infill. Even the better local developments (Level, for example) have had strong out-of-market influences.
    Not to completely correct you, but I wouldn't consider GFO an out of market developer. I guess I consider that kind of person someone who has no ties to OKC and is doing their first project here. GFO has at least three commercial properties for lease in the OKC metro area and a few other apartments complexes that I know of. I know they have offices in LA and San Fran, but they have multiple people working multiple deals in OKC as well.

  24. #49

    Default Re: 4th & Shartel

    Quote Originally Posted by warreng88 View Post
    Not to completely correct you, but I wouldn't consider GFO an out of market developer. I guess I consider that kind of person someone who has no ties to OKC and is doing their first project here. GFO has at least three commercial properties for lease in the OKC metro area and a few other apartments complexes that I know of. I know they have offices in LA and San Fran, but they have multiple people working multiple deals in OKC as well.
    Right, but only because they are concentrating on Oklahoma City as an investment.

    Their principals -- the people with the money -- are in Los Angeles.

  25. Default Re: 700 West

    Has anything new been said about this? I know nothing has been released publicly other than what we see here, but I don't know what or if anything is being said about it behind the scenes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lift
    By andrew3077 in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 502
    Last Post: 03-17-2017, 08:58 AM
  2. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 02-25-2016, 05:30 PM
  3. 1226 N. Shartel
    By Pete in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 09:22 AM
  4. Abandoned Church W. California / Shartel Demo
    By jccouger in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 08:59 PM
  5. Shartel Underground Cafe
    By OKCMallen in forum Restaurants & Bars
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-24-2012, 08:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO