Fairfield Inn

[Spartan]

^

Right.

Very recently he had that property listed for sale.

Then suddenly, the signs come down and he applies for a demo permit and quickly produces plans for the largest hotel he could possibly place on that site. Keep in mind, there is no place for hotel guests to park. I suppose that only matters if he actually builds a hotel.

Also, I called him several times and he never returned my calls. Now all the sudden he's splashing out renderings when we still haven't seen anything on the Canopy Hotel that was announced months ago.

If the City does try to buy his land, he can now claim lost revenue in addition to the value of the land.

Bingo. The plans also look like the Staybridge. This was obviously just slapped together for some negotiating leverage and never intended to actually get built. His underwriters would want to see parking. Our design review also would supposedly not approve this jumbled mess...but who knows on that front.

[Village]

They really shot for the bare minimum here,didn't they?

[hfry]

I think he shot for the bare minimum on purpose though. It was simply a demolition permit which if everyone remembers the first rendering for OGE building, it was just to get the permit and awful. But here he has to be playing a bigger game. He has seen the scrutiny the other downtown hotels have seen recently so he has to know it will take more. I've also been curious to see if we see a new Core 2 shore design committee put together to really make sure the district has a distinct(and consistent) identity. Now would be the time to get it started instead of waiting to late and having bare minimum projects slip in.

[Motley]

I thought having buildings pushed out to the sidewalks and no parking was what everyone has been clamoring about on the site. The new Staybridge Inn doesn't have parking either.

[Pete]

I thought having buildings pushed out to the sidewalks and no parking was what everyone has been clamoring about on the site. The new Staybridge Inn doesn't have parking either.

All I meant by my comment about the lack of parking on site is there isn't anything other than street parking in that area and given the nature of that neighborhood, I wouldn't think that would be an acceptable strategy for a 110 room hotel.

With SpringHill, the developers actually own the lot to the east and there are also several surface lots they could contract with (as did the Holiday Inn Express) and the Power Alley garage that other hotels like the Hampton and Homewood Suites use.

If this Fairfield Inn was built in the next few months in Core to Shore, I simply don't know where people would park other than some streets in very bad condition in front of mainly abandoned buildings. I'm trying to imagine people walking to and from their car and I just can't see it. Even with valet, where would they put the cars that was even remotely safe?

[UnFrSaKn]

Plans unveiled for first hotel to be built in Oklahoma City's Core to Shore | News OK

[UnFrSaKn]

Since no one has brought up the International Harvester Building yet, how does this affect that building and the possibility of the new convention center going in this area? I would hope efforts to save the building for reuse can start now and not at the eleventh hour like the film exchange building down the street and all the other buildings lost or about to be lost.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/willia...7634784488953/

[UnFrSaKn]

By the way, it's obvious this building would add a lot of character to the area if it was restored like the Rock Island Plow Building since it's pretty much the only structure of its kind in that whole area.

[hoya]

I actually like the design. I know there are concerns as to how feasible that design on that site may be, but I like the picture.

[Pete]

"Welcome to Fairfield Inn!"

"Thanks. Uh, where should I park my car?"

"Oh, just drop your bags and then find a spot on the street -- there's plenty!"

[hoya]

A parking garage will probably get built sometime in the future in that area. But clearly it is not there now.

[Just the facts]

From what I have seen so far I like the proposed hotel. Some things could be better, and I am sure they will be in the final product. As for parking. I would have zero concern parking there. Downtown Memphis is orders of magnitude scarrier to park a car in than along streets with a clear view from almost everywhere.

[Urbanized]

It is?

[Rover]

It is?

Just my opinion. I don't have a vote on it or a seat on the committee.

[Pete]

OKCTalk - First hotel in Core to Shore area reveals design plans

The design calls for 42 on-site spaces, plus they plan valet parking as well.

[etsuco05]

Demolition of the building at this corner began early this morning.

[Dustin]

Design is so generic... I was hoping everything that got built in the C2S area would have a more modern feel.

[Pete]

All these 5-story 100-120 room hotels in the downtown area... And they all look so similar.

[Rover]

All these 5-story 100-120 room hotels in the downtown area... And they all look so similar.

They are relatively cheap to build the way they do it. Low architectural fees, basic stick construction, and cheap mechanical systems. They are modern day motels. But everyone on here seems to like them if they are just close to the street. Go figure.

[king183]

They are relatively cheap to build the way they do it. Low architectural fees, basic stick construction, and cheap mechanical systems. They are modern day motels. But everyone on here seems to like them if they are just close to the street. Go figure.

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

[DoctorTaco]

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

Wait wait wait. Am I the only one that remembers when we all agreed to be happy with things that were "better than crappy"?

[bchris02]

Exactly, Rover. I don't understand why everyone likes this so much. It's a cheap, low quality build that's located in an area primed for true urban and quality development. It's going to look so terrible as it ages, too. But, hey, it's close to the street and doesn't use EIFS! What a low standard we now have for what constitutes a quality development.

I have by doubts about Core 2 Shore and whether it really will see true urban and quality development. So far that is not the precedent being set. Core 2 Shore developments should be required to not only adhere to urban principles in terms of street frontage, but also have a specific level of street interaction. For instance, this development would be nice if the first floor had retail or bars/restaurants. Architecturally it is nothing special but it isn't that bad. One only has to go a few blocks east to Lower Bricktown to see much worse.

[Pete]

Here you go:

[king183]

The design is unimpressive and a waste for what Core to Shore could represent. Get ready for the design standards of Lower Bricktown to extend to Core to Shore.

[AP]

I'm not sure how fully brick and cast stone is mimicking LB. Sure it's a little generic, but it will still be a nice looking hotel that will not be an embarrassment.