Bob Moore HQ

[Pete]

The Bob Moore Auto Group is planning to renovate their large collision center at 700 NW 5th Street into a modern new corporate headquarters.

AHMM Architects of London have drawn up plans to renovate the one-story 24,500 square foot building by demolishing the roof on the west end and replacing it with a vaulted steel and glass structure.

A courtyard will be created on the north and west sides and two internal courtyards will also be created to introduce natural light to the middle of the building.

In addition, the Moore group plans to re-landscape and re-pave the parking lot to the immediate west and on the north side of 5th.

In, the longer term, It is envisioned this building will be one part of a campus of buildings for the company.

[poe]

Very nice. It would be great if they moved one or two of their brands to this location or around it. Their current Audi and Porsche building/lot feels really cramped.

[LakeEffect]

Very nice. It would be great if they moved one or two of their brands to this location or around it. Their current Audi and Porsche building/lot feels really cramped.

No. Don't need an actual dealership in the urban environment, unless it's all indoors and built up, not out. W/ car elevators like Auto Alley used to have.

[Just the facts]

All that parking should be a big no-go, especially with both lots facing the intersection at Shartel and 5th.

[Pete]

All that parking should be a big no-go, especially with both lots facing the intersection at Shartel and 5th.

Nothing there now and their plans call for more buildings in the future.

[Just the facts]

Nothing there now and their plans call for more buildings in the future.

Technically, there are parking lots there already, but we have to aim higher than making old parking lots into new parking lots. Parking lots should never be allowed at an intersection. I thought this area already had this requirement. The City (Public Works) just needs to get on the ball and start narrowing all of the downtown adjacent streets to 2 lanes and adding on-street parking.

[Teo9969]

Technically, there are parking lots there already, but we have to aim higher than making old parking lots into new parking lots. Parking lots should never be allowed at an intersection. I thought this area already had this requirement. The City (Public Works) just needs to get on the ball and start narrowing all of the downtown adjacent streets to 2 lanes and adding on-street parking.

So they shouldn't be allowed to renovate the old building because they're not ready to build a new building on a parking lot? That is exactly what you're suggesting.

[Just the facts]

So they shouldn't be allowed to renovate the old building because they're not ready to build a new building on a parking lot? That is exactly what you're suggesting.

They want to move downtown for a reason - because it is becoming a great place to live, work and play. People and business new to the area should enhance it, not detract from it. They are planning 3X as much land dedicating to parking as they are to the office space. That is so far off the chart of acceptable I don't know where to begin. If they have plans to add more buildings then just plant grass there for now. OKC has a really bad track record with this kind of stuff and previous parties ruined it for everyone.

[justishudd]

Technically, there are parking lots there already, but we have to aim higher than making old parking lots into new parking lots. Parking lots should never be allowed at an intersection. I thought this area already had this requirement. The City (Public Works) just needs to get on the ball and start narrowing all of the downtown adjacent streets to 2 lanes and adding on-street parking.

While I understand not wanting a parking lot at an intersection, narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic. When it comes to parking the city should shift focus to parking garages (don't hate me yet) that are either underground, or are first level retail friendly so as to not dissuade foot traffic.

[Teo9969]

We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas.

No. Not even close.

[PhiAlpha]

While I understand not wanting a parking lot at an intersection, narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic. When it comes to parking the city should shift focus to parking garages (don't hate me yet) that are either underground, or are first level retail friendly so as to not dissuade foot traffic.

You realize the city just did the exact opposite of this to encourage a more pedestrian friendly environment and because we, in no way, need one way streets...right? No way we go back to one way streets again downtown. You want to become the next Dallas (in the worst way), adding one way streets would be a great start. I'm downtown every day and the roads are fine, even during rush hour.

[bchris02]

we're already on the verge of becoming the next dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.)

Nope, and its kind of laughable to suggest it. Traffic in downtown OKC is fine and there is plenty of room for expansion.

[Spartan]

While I understand not wanting a parking lot at an intersection, narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic. When it comes to parking the city should shift focus to parking garages (don't hate me yet) that are either underground, or are first level retail friendly so as to not dissuade foot traffic.

Your doomsday scenario, while redundant and all about traffic, is interesting but not even close to reality. You should spend more time in Dallas and study growth rates in Dallas now and in the last 40 years. Dallas now has nearly 8 million residents, and OKC has just over 1 million and virtually ZERO traffic outside a half-hour window at 5. We need to get to a point in society where kvetching about traffic at 5:15 ANYWHERE makes you look absurd.

WE ARE SO WHINY AS A SOCIETY. Traffic whining is the #1 threat to our cities.

[AP]

narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic.

Lol.

[BDP]

While I understand not wanting a parking lot at an intersection, narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic. When it comes to parking the city should shift focus to parking garages (don't hate me yet) that are either underground, or are first level retail friendly so as to not dissuade foot traffic.

Downtown is probably one of the least congested areas of the city at drive times. What little backs ups there are can pretty much be placed at the feet of ODOT who thinks building bigger freeways with less access points is how you manage "traffic".

[traxx]

Guys, justishudd is new (just joined the forum in March) and only has 3 posts. Instead of jumping all over him/her and guaranteeing they never come back, why don't we kindly explain new urbanism, why it's good and explain wy more, wider, one way streets won't help.

[Teo9969]

Guys, justishudd is new (just joined the forum in March) and only has 3 posts. Instead of jumping all over him/her and guaranteeing they never come back, why don't we kindly explain new urbanism, why it's good and explain wy more, wider, one way streets won't help.

…But seriously, my bad. I apologize, Justis, for not being a bit more aware before posting. I'd have been a little bit more thorough in my response.

[PhiAlpha]

Guys, justishudd is new (just joined the forum in March) and only has 3 posts. Instead of jumping all over him/her and guaranteeing they never come back, why don't we kindly explain new urbanism, why it's good and explain wy more, wider, one way streets won't help.

Yeah my bad...just noticed that...

[hoya]

Guys, justishudd is new (just joined the forum in March) and only has 3 posts. Instead of jumping all over him/her and guaranteeing they never come back, why don't we kindly explain new urbanism, why it's good and explain wy more, wider, one way streets won't help.

Excellent idea.

While I understand not wanting a parking lot at an intersection, narrowing all downtown streets to two lanes just to make street parking would result in absolute gridlock in the not-so-distant future. We're already on the verge of becoming the next Dallas (terrible traffic, not enough space for expansion, overpopulation of the roads, etc.). Instead of narrowing down to two lanes, the city should focus on expanding the lanes (where possible) and perhaps converting streets to alternating one way avenues as a way to relieve traffic. When it comes to parking the city should shift focus to parking garages (don't hate me yet) that are either underground, or are first level retail friendly so as to not dissuade foot traffic.

First, welcome to the forum.

The reason you've gotten such a strong response to your post is because a lot of people here subscribe to the idea of "new urbanism". It's an urban design philosophy that focuses on building the best cities we can. The biggest aspect to it is trying to build cities around pedestrians instead of cars. And generally, big wide streets that can handle lots of cars are going to end up being used by lots of cars. Those streets are also less safe for pedestrians who are trying to cross them. If you create a barrier that is dangerous for people to cross, then they normally won't cross it. Since new urbanism focuses on the pedestrian, we want to avoid this.

Wider streets, more lanes, and one-way streets all result in drivers feeling like they can drive faster. This is significantly more dangerous to people on foot.





You'll drive a lot faster on the road in the first pic than you will on the road in the second (even though the second one is a one way street, so the example pic isn't the greatest). As a pedestrian, you'd feel a lot safer crossing the street in the second picture than the one in the first. Like 100 times safer. That would encourage you to walk a lot more places.

The other thing to take into account is something called "induced demand". It basically says that if you build a bigger street, more people will choose to drive on it, and after a while, you lose the benefit of the bigger road. There are a lot of studies that have been done that show that induced demand is a real thing. Expanding the streets doesn't solve the problem. Right now the only time we really have traffic problems downtown is from 5:00 to 5:30. Most of that comes from the fact that ODOT built a very limited number of interstate entrances from downtown. So everybody gets funneled onto the same streets. Adding more lanes doesn't do anything to solve the problem. You'll just have more cars that are trying to cram in to use the same 3 interstate entrances.

[PhiAlpha]

Excellent idea.



First, welcome to the forum.

The reason you've gotten such a strong response to your post is because a lot of people here subscribe to the idea of "new urbanism". It's an urban design philosophy that focuses on building the best cities we can. The biggest aspect to it is trying to build cities around pedestrians instead of cars. And generally, big wide streets that can handle lots of cars are going to end up being used by lots of cars. Those streets are also less safe for pedestrians who are trying to cross them. If you create a barrier that is dangerous for people to cross, then they normally won't cross it. Since new urbanism focuses on the pedestrian, we want to avoid this.

Wider streets, more lanes, and one-way streets all result in drivers feeling like they can drive faster. This is significantly more dangerous to people on foot.





You'll drive a lot faster on the road in the first pic than you will on the road in the second (even though the second one is a one way street, so the example pic isn't the greatest). As a pedestrian, you'd feel a lot safer crossing the street in the second picture than the one in the first. Like 100 times safer. That would encourage you to walk a lot more places.

The other thing to take into account is something called "induced demand". It basically says that if you build a bigger street, more people will choose to drive on it, and after a while, you lose the benefit of the bigger road. There are a lot of studies that have been done that show that induced demand is a real thing. Expanding the streets doesn't solve the problem. Right now the only time we really have traffic problems downtown is from 5:00 to 5:30. Most of that comes from the fact that ODOT built a very limited number of interstate entrances from downtown. So everybody gets funneled onto the same streets. Adding more lanes doesn't do anything to solve the problem. You'll just have more cars that are trying to cram in to use the same 3 interstate entrances.

[Spartan]

Guys, justishudd is new (just joined the forum in March) and only has 3 posts. Instead of jumping all over him/her and guaranteeing they never come back, why don't we kindly explain new urbanism, why it's good and explain wy more, wider, one way streets won't help.

Because we don't have a problem. An explanation would be required for something for which there is a problem, and there are lots of problems, but TRAFFIC is not one in OKC.

Besides how do roads overpopulate? Roads do nothing for a community, let alone procreate. Luckily for the new poster we are welcoming, Kerry's level of crazy will never be matched (mine may come a close second)

[Just the facts]

Kerry's level of crazy will never be matched (mine may come a close second)

LOL.

[traxx]

**way too personal** - Pete

[Just the facts]

I am not saying to deny them their project, I am saying that they shouldn't use 75% of their land for parking. If they decide that can't live without that then they aren't the right fit for the neighborhood. The City could mitigate some of the parking issues by re-stripping the streets to allow on-street parking (something they are going to have to do eventually anyhow). I assume Bob Moore is planning some kind of parking structure in the future if they are going to build on these lots later. The on-street parking will hold them over till then. There are already 9 on-street parking spaces there. Remove two lanes and put it in angled parking and it will be close to 40 parking spaces - just in that one block, with 3 more streets that they could the same way.

[Teo9969]

I am not saying to deny them their project, I am saying that they shouldn't use 75% of their land for parking. If they decide that can't live without that then they aren't the right fit for the neighborhood. The City could mitigate some of the parking issues by re-stripping the streets to allow on-street parking (something they are going to have to do eventually anyhow). I assume Bob Moore is planning some kind of parking structure in the future if they are going to build on these lots later. The on-street parking will hold them over till then. There are already 9 on-street parking spaces there. Remove two lanes and put it in angled parking and it will be close to 40 parking spaces - just in that one block, with 3 more streets that they could the same way.

Worse than using 75% of your land for parking is letting 75% of your land collect weeds as a grass lot. They're obviously not interested in selling the lots, and wouldn't have buyers lined up at this current juncture any way. So given the choice between crappy surface parking (what exists now) and landscaped surface parking (because they're not going to demo the current parking and lay down sod), I'm going to go with the landscaped parking for now. It circulates some money into the economy which is the best argument of all potential outcomes.

I understand people's disdain for surface parking, and I share it, but making use of it while we still have it should not be frowned upon. The land is simply becoming too valuable to remain surface parking forever.

I, for one, appreciate that they placed the trees correctly between the street and the sidewalk.