As if OKC development doesn't need any critique whatsoever.

Snarky comment, Spartan, for something that was obviously tongue in check.

Oh, ok, phwew..

The Kevin Durant restaurant is extremely disappointing for such prime real estate.

Or at least what should be prime real estate. KD's is simply a result of what was built before it and is a good example here. A good development would actually look strange on the KD lot, just as anything nice in east bricktown would look bizarre if this was built as first proposed.

Here are the designs to be considered by the Bricktown Design Review Committee on March 13.

First image is the one Steve snapped at the last meeting... The rest are all part of their current application package.

Looks like all brick with stone accents.



http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2013/02/sb1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge5.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge6.jpg

They clearly just don't get it. This is the Bass Pro urban design playbook, in which they care about fronting I-235 and nothing else.

We don't NEED another hotel. This is a perfect opportunity to make a point with urban design and just kill this development.

That's one good looking parking lot.



Sigh...

on this site with the issues it has (easements on the south side of the lot) i think this project is fine .. they added brick and the building looks pretty good

Parking lot capital of the western hemisphere.

You can see where the easements are in the site plan. Looks like it would take very little effort to move the building to have frontage on Lincoln and Reno.

And this is an urban hotel, not a single family house. Ditch the pitched roof.

Why would they build a hotel next to that easement. What if ODOT does build the ramp there, do they want their hotel to have an on ramp within a few feet of their rooms.

If this site is that challenging, fitting a square peg in a round hole maybe ought not to be done. This whole proposal is garbage.

You can see where the easements are in the site plan. Looks like it would take very little effort to move the building to have frontage on Lincoln and Reno.

And this is an urban hotel, not a single family house. Ditch the pitched roof.

don't see how that is possible with this building

They clearly just don't get it. This is the Bass Pro urban design playbook, in which they care about fronting I-235 and nothing else.

We don't NEED another hotel. This is a perfect opportunity to make a point with urban design and just kill this development.

I would be in favor of this approach at this point. Just tell them their plans can't be done on that piece of ground. Either get a new plan or a new piece of ground.

I would be in favor of this approach at this point. Just tell them their plans can't be done on that piece of ground. Either get a new plan or a new piece of ground.

or build a building that meets the BUD guidelines which they are doing

or build a building that meets the BUD guidelines which they are doing

Maybe we should eliminate the 'Urban' part of that. Maybe just Bricktown Design.

Hideous, such a cool corner lot and it will be mostly parking lot.


I agree to tell them to take a hike.

Hideous, such a cool corner lot and it will be mostly parking lot.


I agree to tell them to take a hike.

easements cover almost all of the parking lot

Like I said before. They'll HAVE to go to the Board of Adjustment for a Variance to the code for parking and building location. If I were still staff, I'd recommend they try that before even getting Bricktown Urban Design review. No sense in reviewing something if it's not even legal.

Like I said before. They'll HAVE to go to the Board of Adjustment for a Variance to the code for parking and building location. If I were still staff, I'd recommend they try that before even getting Bricktown Urban Design review. No sense in reviewing something if it's not even legal.

but wouldn't they have a better chance with the BOA if they have a recommendation from the BUD to approve the variance?

I love hearing about all these new Hotels, its just makes us more and more eligible to host an NBA All Star Game :-)

but wouldn't they have a better chance with the BOA if they have a recommendation from the BUD to approve the variance?

You have a point. In a way it's a lose-lose and/or Catch 22, whichever phrase you want to use.

The code specifically states 60% of the building HAS to be at or within 10' of the right of way. Additionally, it says new parking lots CANNOT be located within 75' of a street corner, period.

Generally, the City processes these applications through the design district and then on to Board of Adjustment (usually with the clause "approved on the condition of BOA approval"). However, what if BUDC can find no way to approve and they say "denied". Then BOA goes and approves the whole dang thing regardless?

Therefore, I think Planning ought to recommend continuing the application until such time that BOA can review the two code issues first. Why spend a ton of money on design regulation issues when you can't even build it in the first place. Get that straight then worry about brick, EIFS, etc.

You have a point. In a way it's a lose-lose and/or Catch 22, whichever phrase you want to use.

The code specifically states 60% of the building HAS to be at or within 10' of the right of way. Additionally, it says new parking lots CANNOT be located within 75' of a street corner, period.

Generally, the City processes these applications through the design district and then on to Board of Adjustment (usually with the clause "approved on the condition of BOA approval"). However, what if BUDC can find no way to approve and they say "denied". Then BOA goes and approves the whole dang thing regardless?

Therefore, I think Planning ought to recommend continuing the application until such time that BOA can review the two code issues first. Why spend a ton of money on design regulation issues when you can't even build it in the first place. Get that straight then worry about brick, EIFS, etc.

thank you for the info your insight is always helpful

it would seem to me that they would have a decent BOA case because of the unusual nature of the sight creates a "hardship"

Why can't they put up a flatiron shaped building aka triangle.

I love hearing about all these new Hotels, its just makes us more and more eligible to host an NBA All Star Game :-)

Careful what you wish for...

thank you for the info your insight is always helpful

it would seem to me that they would have a decent BOA case because of the unusual nature of the sight creates a "hardship"

Yeah, it's a tricky case. As Steve has noted, the property owner may have been duped into buying the property without knowing about the easement and stormwater line issues. But, that said, generally people are told Buyer Beware, and I believe BOA has been known to tell people "so sorry" when using the "I didn't know" excuse. I feel for the property owner if they were duped, but also, I find it hard to believe that a developer would have bought that property without doing a thorough analysis of existing conditions.

I seriously doubt the land was bought not knowing the easements were there. However, they could have been told that getting a variance was easy.

Buzz, your girlfriend, woof!

Parking lot or no parking lot, that is one ugly motel, and cheap looking. Not only shouldn't we want it near the street, we shouldn't want it near downtown.

Parking lot or no parking lot, that is one ugly motel, and cheap looking. Not only shouldn't we want it near the street, we shouldn't want it near downtown.

I agree. There's nothing about this proposal that warrants a variance of any kind. They can build this on Memorial Rd.

I agree. There's nothing about this proposal that warrants a variance of any kind. They can build this on Memorial Rd.

Hey, no need to bash Memorial. This would be ugly anywhere.

Parking lot or no parking lot, that is one ugly motel, and cheap looking. Not only shouldn't we want it near the street, we shouldn't want it near downtown.

My thoughts exactly. I'm guessing it's a very standard design model for them, with similar builds plopped throughout the nation. However, this one is slapped with brick facades to get approval through BUDC. It is terrible.

LMFAO (Laughing My Fu**ing A*$ Off) at this design.. This is so ridiculous. They ALREADY have a hotel like this being built a mile south at S. 15th and I-35. I would personally rather see the lot vacant for future development than have that crap design approved... But OF COURSE the Bricktown Design Review Committee will approve it because they have zero standards.

Is there anything we can do to try and stop this from happening? I mean, the public has to have some sort of input. I don't think the hotel is horrible, but I certainly don't think it has any place in Bricktown. I believe someone mentioned earlier that the developer wasn't a bad guy and would work to redesign it, so maybe something could be done.

No way in Louisiana's green mile does this belong in even the shadows of the urban core. At this point I would rather see them just completely denied & not even have the chance to build this piece of trash. Nothing against the developer, this garbage is just beyond old is all. Like Spartan said, it's not like we need another hotel in Bricktown currently.

They ALREADY have a hotel like this being built a mile south at S. 15th and I-35.

Thank you. I've been wondering what that was & couldn't figure it out.

new flat roof design was on the agenda at the BUD committee special meeting today at 8 am any one know if it got approved??

Here are the renderings...

Looks like the only change was the flat vs. previously gabled roof:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge7.jpg


Previous rendering:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge1.jpg

The gabled roof over the front entryway needs to be flat as well. Looks like a ski lodge...and unfortunately...the closest ski hills are over by Crossroads Mall and south of Rockwell just south of I40.

At least they have more brick and less stucco, which is a +.

At least they have more brick and less stucco, which is a +.

To me, nothing in that rendering is a +.

I know good development is expensive, but can they not shrink the footprint by building taller?

I actually think it would be cool if they would push it right up against the street and keep the height and everything and put a little shopping mall/"upscale" flea market behind it with a nice park or garden area. They could also build one or two more buildings on that lot. The ought to really get rid of the stucco though. Add a parking garage as opposed to a parking lot and this would be nice, imo.

I saw that about a week ago. They're just slapping on a flat roof to get acceptance from the Design Committee and I feel as if it might work too.

Hopefully not until they change that site plan!

Making changes to the building are fine and dandy, but the main problem is the site plan. I would have been happy with the original building if it made better use of the land, location, and street.

I understand the need for growth in the area and the potential economic impacts. I understand the need for more hotel rooms in the area and cheaper ones at that. However, I am not at all satisfied with any part of these plans. In fact, originally and especially in light of the changes, I am truly offended by this project [per the information presented in this blog]. We do need steady momentum of construction and buildings to maintain the already beautiful progress we have achieved, and infill is an issue we seriously need to address. With all that said, I believe it is very important at this stage in our growth not to just settle with any development we can get. As we have seen over the past decade, and escalating more so in the past few years, is that the Bricktown area is filling up fast and has the potential to be a truly significant space. Our space downtown is now especially valuable, monetarily but also as a sociable piece of our living environments. We need to demand more out of the designs of the buildings filling these spaces. Minor alterations like this presented just won't work.

Did anyone read and save the original staff report? I didn't get a chance to read it... I'm really interested in what that staff report said about the site plan.

I want this project to die so badly.

Did anyone read and save the original staff report? I didn't get a chance to read it... I'm really interested in what that staff report said about the site plan.

i read it originally and if i recall correctly they did not find it ideal however were ok with it because of the issues with the sight .. (easements) clearly not a quote

now i have slept sense then so someone please correct me if i am wrong

I understand the need for growth in the area and the potential economic impacts. I understand the need for more hotel rooms in the area and cheaper ones at that. However, I am not at all satisfied with any part of these plans. In fact, originally and especially in light of the changes, I am truly offended by this project [per the information presented in this blog]. We do need steady momentum of construction and buildings to maintain the already beautiful progress we have achieved, and infill is an issue we seriously need to address. With all that said, I believe it is very important at this stage in our growth not to just settle with any development we can get. As we have seen over the past decade, and escalating more so in the past few years, is that the Bricktown area is filling up fast and has the potential to be a truly significant space. Our space downtown is now especially valuable, monetarily but also as a sociable piece of our living environments. We need to demand more out of the designs of the buildings filling these spaces. Minor alterations like this presented just won't work.

I agree skh5. The problem here is that the developer has the land and he has an idea, but his idea doesn't fit on his land. He needs to change one of them. Either build something that fits his land, or build his hotel vision somewhere else.

If he doesn't like those two option he can do a Meet-up with David Box and compare 'due diligence' notes.

If they shrink the footprint by building taller, could they not more easily push this building to the street and rework the plan to reposition parking behind the hotel?

I agree skh5. The problem here is that the developer has the land and he has an idea, but his idea doesn't fit on his land. He needs to change one of them. Either build something that fits his land, or build his hotel vision somewhere else.

If he doesn't like those two option he can do a Meet-up with David Box and compare 'due diligence' notes.

where the building is located is the only spot on his land that he can build anything because of the easements

where the building is located is the only spot on his land that he can build anything because of the easements

And? He either needs to build something that does fit according to city codes, or build his hotel somewhere else. It is just that simple. Those easements where there when the land was bought and the city codes existed before that as well.

Now if it was me, I would uncover the drainge easment, reroute it behind the building, and make it a feature that enhanced my development - but that is just me.

http://krcrock.com/uploads/gallery_images/KRC_Dry_Creek_Bed_344_medium.jpeg

And? He either needs to build something that does fit according to city codes, or build his hotel somewhere else. It is just that simple. Those easements where there when the land was bought and the city codes existed before that as well.

Now if it was me, I would uncover the drainge easment, reroute it behind the building, and make it a feature the enhanced my development - but that is just me.

or you go through the process (which he is doing) and get approved to build a hotel

or you go through the process (which he is doing) and get approved to build a hotel

Well, isn't that the whole point of this discussion - if it should be approved or not?

Well, isn't that the whole point of this discussion - if it should be approved or not?

the new building design pretty much meets the bricktown design guidelines .. so the only reason for it to get denied is the sight plan ... which IMHO would qualify for and get a variance .. so for what reason would you like it to get denied??

If only we could get a modern flatiron shaped hotel on this odd-shaped parcel. Man how awesome that would be, a developer with vision and community pride.

3549

The covered drainage ditch is only there because 20 years ago a train track went along that route. Just move it. Problem solved.

the new building design pretty much meets the bricktown design guidelines .. so the only reason for it to get denied is the sight plan ... which IMHO would qualify for and get a variance .. so for what reason would you like it to get denied??

The irony of this misspelling is just too funny! In my opinion, "sight plans" should be perfectly valid reasons for denying a project.

Failure to meet standard district setback requirements? Do we need additional reasons?

that is why we have a BOA and so if they get a variance at the BOA to that requirement .. what other reason would you have??

JTF, I don't think a lot of developers in this area really understand what it is they are doing wrong. They are so used to suburban development that they propose things like this, which would be a perfectly nice hotel if it were built in Norman or Moore, and they think it will work in Bricktown. They use red brick and think everything is okay. Even people on this thread say "red brick, what's the problem?" They aren't looking at how it interacts with the surrounding area. Hell if they'd just put the parking lot behind the hotel, just swing the thing around like a Tetris block, it would be okay. It will take time before developers figure out what it is that is needed downtown.

that is why we have a BOA and so if they get a variance at the BOA to that requirement .. what other reason would you have??

They shouldn't get a variance. We want new construction downtown to look like this:

http://www.guide-to-hotels.com/images/raw-pics/new-york/54351/2082950.jpg

Not like this:

http://blog.lampartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2_parkinglot_WalmartStores.jpg