This is the real problem. It's not that we don't have guidelines, it's that they are so often compromised by the process. Often I think the guidelines could be better, but it doesn't matter if they don't have the marbles to enforce the ones we do have.
I actually emailed the review board about the law offices and the response I got was pretty illogical. It basically said that the developer can't build according to the guidelines, but they could always change it in the future to comply. To which I asked what will be different in the future that would enable them to do then what they can't do now. No response.
Basically, our review boards have historically been easily romanced by the developers to give them variances. It's gotten better in some places and I don't remember many instances where requiring a developer to comply has killed a development, but it's still pretty prevalent and, like lower bricktown, these variances can often stunt an area to a point where major changes (and investment) would be needed to fully realize an area's potential and bring it in line with the original vision that informed the guidelines in the first place. And, as pointed out above, no one would want to locate a development in some of these areas without the major investment made by the public. So, IMO, if there were ever examples for justification of strict design and development oversight by local government entities, bricktown and C2S are it.
Maybe Devon and its proxies have earned the right to turn historic city blocks into urban dead zones dominated by parking, but I don't think any developer should think they are above city guidelines if they want to build within close proximity to a more than $130 million investment by the people of OKC to create an inciting new park district for the community.
Bookmarks