Okay so I was watching Ch. 20 this weekend on last week's city council meeting. Some developer proposed a Mixed Use Development at SW 15th. They mentioned Portland and Meridian both so I was confused. They were seeking approval for their plans and from what I can tell it passed and is moving forward. Anyone know anything more about this? The developers name escapes me, but not one that I recognized.

You can find the documents about PUD-1417 on last week's council agenda at okc.gov- about 3/4 of the way down on the 8/17 agenda.

It's called Riverport and it looks like it will just be a super suburban but sort of dense development along the river north of 15th and also south of 15th, between Portland and about halfway to Meridian. Including residential, retail, hotels, office space, and maybe an event center. A whole lot of parking.

Courtesy of Johnson and Associates

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/Riverport.jpg

Interesting. When will this be built?

Sweet!Never heard of this before,interesting.

"Including residential, retail, hotels, office space, and maybe an event center. A whole lot of parking."

This isn't necessarily directed at the person who posted it but those that are anti-parking. Parking is needed. You have to have a place to park if attending the event center. Shopping at the stores. Parking your car at your house etc. Unless if the only customers you want are the ones that live right there. A business' success is iffy at best (most fail within 3 years) so you need as many customers as you can get. Especially if this is all new construction, you have to pay for all of that somehow.

If they would have used a structured parking system then that sea of surface parking could have been used for a much higher purpose and allowed for more lease able buildings ore more residential to have been developed. Not to mention the other negative impacts that vast expanses of surface parking have on an area. Just look at the area around Cross Roads mall, The cowboys old Stadium in Irving, or any other event center that made the mistake of not providing structured parking and see what a negative psychological effect it can have on the surrounding areas, not to mention the heat island effect that is an area that most cities are trying to reduce.

I am all for development that will further support the quality development of the downtown area and the riverfront. All investments that the citizens of the city have put their hard earned money behind. I will be very interested to see more specific plans and renderings as they become available on this one though.

That is all true, but cost probably plays into it...structured parking probably costs more than a surface lot even when you factor in the extra cost of land. Not positive about Crossroads in particular, but most places build the parking needed for the customers they are expecting. When Crossroads was at its peak, and especially during the holiday season, that sea of parking is utilized. The massive parking lot around Texas Stadium, is again needed. PennSquare has some structured parking but they really didn't have much choice as they are landlocked. Parking can be quite challenging there at times. Some over build I am sure. But Wal-Mart or Target knows that they need a parking lot that holds "x" number of spaces. Course the "danger" is when the Wal-mart/Target or Football team relocates and trying to find a replacement tenant that needs not only the physical sf of the facility but the parking as well.

I think the negative psychological impact you mentioned is when the parking lot is empty. When it is full that means business is booming, cash is flowing in, people are employed, sales tax revenues increase...all is good.

In the planned development, what you said is true, but I presume that the "loss" is fine with the developer.

At the other end of the spectrum is not providing parking at all. The MAPS 3/Core to Shore Park was supposed to have underground parking but that proved to be cost prohibitive (even with $130M going to the Park). They say that there is enough parking on the perimeter and is something they will be keeping an eye on (but by the time the Park opens and someone realizes that parking is an issue, then it is too late to do anything about it. Think it was cost prohibitive before, just try to add underground parking after the lakes and structures have already been built. There may actually be enough parking for the Park itself, but if the Park spurs the development that is anticipated, again, that development takes up any potential parking and requires parking of its own. Structured parking is not always the most convenient in terms of access/distance either. Sure you can park in garage A, but it is blocks away from whatever business you are trying to patronize.

To put it in perspective, the new Parking Garage at the airport cost $20 million, and it slaved it's ramp system off the older garage. It was also government bidded and took 2 years to build. So we can say 1 year off of that in labor would take it to maybe $15 million or so plus additional design and construction costs for a ramping system. Compared to the maybe $2-5 million for pavement. Until the land is worth more than pavement or grass, parking garages for this stuff won't come. Unless it's mega funded like those Indian Casinos...now they have some parking garages.

You can find the documents about PUD-1417 on last week's council agenda at okc.gov- about 3/4 of the way down on the 8/17 agenda.

It's called Riverport and it looks like it will just be a super suburban but sort of dense development along the river north of 15th and also south of 15th, between Portland and about halfway to Meridian. Including residential, retail, hotels, office space, and maybe an event center. A whole lot of parking.

Courtesy of Johnson and Associates

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/Riverport.jpg

We recently had people in another thread questioning the wisdom of a nice apartment complex being built on South MacArthur because of the proximity of public housing at 15th and I44. This is much closer so are they going to complain about this also? Or is it possible that this kind of development will make apartments on MacArthur more attractive and maybe those people were crazy like a fox?

To put it in perspective, the new Parking Garage at the airport cost $20 million, and it slaved it's ramp system off the older garage. It was also government bidded and took 2 years to build. So we can say 1 year off of that in labor would take it to maybe $15 million or so plus additional design and construction costs for a ramping system. Compared to the maybe $2-5 million for pavement. Until the land is worth more than pavement or grass, parking garages for this stuff won't come. Unless it's mega funded like those Indian Casinos...now they have some parking garages.

True, true...but even the Casinos have massive parking lots. Suspect that some that do have parking garages, only did so until after their surface lots were filled...

I am well acquainted with the costs associated with structured parking, and that surface parking is vastly cheaper to install in terms of first time costs. Once you factor in maintenance which may or may not get done, and the resulting degredation of the asphalt. surface run off for rain events and then how the storm sewer system in the area can deal with the huge I mean huge amount of discharge that has to be treated as hazardous due to it being, parking lot with oil, gas, coolants and hundreds of other auto related fluids, and the fact that the existing system (which may or may not even exist will then place the load on the sewer system with increased costs. And by costs I do not only mean initial costs, use of land for its highest and best use.

I agree that there is not an easy answer here, just a wish that a development of this nature would consider itself in a longer term than a flip cycle. The river has vast appeal now and there will no doubt be more development to come. It would just be nice to have those developments meet a certain standard thus protecting the investment of the citizens, and ensuring quality around the key ammenities that are precious and have the potential to draw national attention. (ie. the row houses, native american culture center, and just access to the river front)

I just hope that there is some oversight or design review being done beyond just the something is better than nothing approach. I can definately tell that the plan that has been presented at least on this forum is schematic in nature at this point, and hope that as the project develops that it will become more mature and will address some of my concerns. But really just look at the site rendering, and let your eye wander...ask yourself where you want to be and where do you want to avoid?

The way they have articulated the parking lot looks like a vast wasteland! I mean they didn't even bother to put in islands and trees or any of the things that you would want to minimze the harshness that is created. From a design standpoint, vast parking lots become an off putting barrier to pedestrians. Integrate the structured parking facilities along side the event center and throw in some retail on the street level and you have event parking immediately adjacent to the event space with less travel to the patrons of the event. Things for them to do on there way to and from the event. (i.e. retail on the street front) and you have increased density, your property value and have preserved land that could be used for an expansion phase at a future date or that could be sold off to other developers.

Some total to my somewhat rambling post is that the costs to the developer in the longrun are usually worth the investment. I approach this having myself worked with a number of developers on Mixed use retail and residential developments, with Gables, Trammell Crow, and Hospitality developers. I have seen the ones who do it right, and they all without exception, recognize that the right way to do it is always worth it in the long run. Doing it on the cheap ends up costing you patrons and opportunity in the future.

All that said it will probably improve on what is already there and in the surrounding areas and so if it will be a catalyst to improve the adjacent areas then here is my hope that it is a success. I always try to view things with an eye to the future and what could be and what could be surrendered and never realized when done with shortsighted ends in mind. The side along Meridian is already not too bad, but there are some questionable neighborhoods to the south east of the site.

Looks a lot like the Riverwalk Crossing thing in Jenks. A LOT like it.

This looks great! We really need to fill that area in... Would like to see some hotels be built closer to the water than the new ones on 15th and Meridian.... And bigger! Never the less this looks to be a great addition to the city and river front!

After reviewing the application with the city, I am surprised this isn''t a front page story, this is a major development!

Retail, Office space, Residential Condos, this will be the first of it's kind in Okc.

Structured parking is not always the most convenient in terms of access/distance either.

I don't understand this.

Structured parking is the ONLY way to put more parking closer to the destination. The problem with surface parking, in addition to being a total waste of real estate, is that it puts more and more space between the customer and the destination.

What I don't get is how many people in Oklahoma seem to think walking the equivalent of 3 blocks through surface parking and/or mall space is better than walking three actual city blocks with something to walk by other than cars on the scorching black top.

Structured parking, while it may cost more to build, allows for a greater density of lease-able space which provides for easier access to more services and attractions, which provides more incentive for people to come in the first place, which ultimately adds more value to a development than surface lots ever could.

In the end, I don't think it's going to change here in my lifetime, so it's really all academic. But it's pretty obvious that surface lots do nothing to add to a development and that the most enjoyable parts of the city to spend time in are the ones without it. Yeah, I may sometimes have to walk a block or two to get to bricktown, paseo, ford center, or mid-town, but I'm always happier about going there than any time I go to the mall or lower bricktown or any other strip center in the city. I have to walk similar distances, but in the case of the former examples, it's actually enjoyable to do so.

If they would have used a structured parking system then that sea of surface parking could have been used for a much higher purpose and allowed for more lease able buildings ore more residential to have been developed.

I see what you are saying but if they build a parking garage (which costs approximately $10,000/space) which would allow them to build more lease-able space, it could make it unaffordable or impossible to get financing. Going with the plans they have now to new plans with parking garages and more buildings the cost of the project would rise significantly and probably to the point where the developer couldnt do it.

All in all, this is good if it happens.

Going with the plans they have now to new plans with parking garages and more buildings the cost of the project would rise significantly and probably to the point where the developer couldnt do it.

This is probably true, mainly due to the market. The market can't support a more expensive development, even if that development has more value and more lease-able space. The average consumer here just doesn't care much about aesthetics or overall experience. At least not to the point where they add a premium value to it. We've shown time and again you can put a box in a sea of black top and we'll be ecstatic, even try and call it urban. What's funny though is they'll probably try and put an urban premium on the rates, even though it will be anything but urban.

This is probably true, mainly due to the market. The market can't support a more expensive development, even if that development has more value and more lease-able space. The average consumer here just doesn't care much about aesthetics or overall experience. At least not to the point where they add a premium value to it. We've shown time and again you can put a box in a sea of black top and we'll be ecstatic, even try and call it urban. What's funny though is they'll probably try and put an urban premium on the rates, even though it will be anything but urban.

I disagree that the market can't support it! It takes a developer who can pitch the longer term stability of the project. Banks like stability and success in the long run. Let’s not fool ourselves they want the return on their investment, but they would really like to capitalize on the property multiple times even after the initial developer has sold it off and has moved on.

What I see is the bigger hurdle is our expectations being set so low!!!!! Of course developers will only do what they feel the "market" (and by market in this instance I absolutely mean customers) will demand. Why do more since they can get away with doing less? Have you ever had a home builder do things that they didn't absolutely have to do? Rarely, except that a magical thing happens overtime as economies improve and better developers strive to set them apart from the "rest" of the competition and put together better developments that are more on par with developments that others enjoy in other cities. Then suddenly all of the follower developers go, "aww Heck, now we have to do stuff..." and consumer expectations increase as do their awareness of other areas. This also happens as more outside jobs, move in to OKC we will likely see a demand for improved shopping options and services that are on par with what they were used to and as they expose other locals to the places that they had...developers realize that once again this is an opportunity for a niche if they could get them into one of their developments.

Oklahoma City is growing and changing...the quality of life is on the increase!!! As people become more tuned into the options that are available other markets we will see an increased demand for those same options, only now that we are getting more national exposure and doing well through the worst economic down turn since the depression, they are finally taking notice of us in return.

This is the time for the consumers and citizens of OKC to demand higher standards! They have paid from their own wallets to set this in motion and it is all of our duty to use our voices to make sure that the developers who are looking to build and capitalize from the investments know that the citizens expect more from them than the run of the mill, business as ususual strip malls.

On parking...

It all boils down to how we distribute costs. Surface and structured parking actually cost the same. Structured parking costs more for developers, but surface parking will eventually cost more for taxpayers. OKC@heart mentioned the vast amounts of polluted runoff from surface parking lots- that is a serious problem that will eventually be paid by the city. So should we require developers to build in higher quality, more sustainable, more environmentally friendly ways, or should we let them build cheap and then cover the costs of the consequences with taxpayer money?

So, the runoff disappears with structured parking? I'm pretty sure it goes into drains, then ends up in storm water detention or a drainage ditch. It's the exact same thing sliced vertically instead of horizontally.

Actually it is a question of area...If you take the area of the surface parking (which is non permeable therefore causing water to run off rather than be absorbed and recharge the aquifer)
That vast area of water that would have otherwise soaked into the soil now runs off at a higher volume and must be contained because of the polutants it picks up. That all goes to the storm sewer. As was mentioned above.

The differnce in volume of runnoff is easily evident by stacking much smaller areas vertically=the same area as the surface lots, however the difference is that only one of the much smaller floor plates is running off. So the result is vastly reduced runoff, less pollutants, less load on the storm sewer system, increased weather protection for the patrons, shorter walking distances for the patrons, less required use of the site, Less heat Island effect due to reduced surface area, less need for future maintenace on an exposed surface lot, and opportunities for additional retail and increased density.

These are just a few of the benefits, there are others as well but this will suffice for the point.

The vastly reduced runnoff that hits the top of the building does go into drains and must go through a sand oil separator prior to entering the storm sewer system.

There's a lot of good information in this thread. Very thought-provoking and much of it I had never stopped to think about at any project. It makes you realize what all goes into something like this. The nuances of parking, etc. Very interesting.

Parking is a tough question for this site--because usually it's a problem that can be minimized easily by just having the surface parking lots in the rear of the development, as long as the front facade enclosing the street space is still interactive. But this is in a chute of frontage, and you definitely don't want to turn your back to 15th nor the river. Perhaps the solution is to frame both 15th and the river with buildings and put the parking in between those streetwalls.

Of course, structured parking makes the problem go away altogether. This seems like a very interesting project with the potential to be an alright/decent faux town center like the Jenks RiverWalk Crossing project, or the potential to be another damn strip mall. The details currently available aren't all-inclusive enough to make any kind of definite judgment yet.

Here's the thing--drainage for the site is going to have to be addressed in particular. The runoff should simply not be allowed to drain into the Oklahoma River directly, because we've seen the disastrous effects of that happening. Parking lot runoff can be just as toxic as animal fecal matter being dumped into the river by some careless company. It's true that the runoff for asphalt seas are not much more intense than runoff from buildings, but I just don't see low-density justifying the cost of drainage infrastructure that will have to be put on this site for it to be developed with massive parking lots.

Of course, if OKC were actually into sustainable city code and building requirements, we would see this all the time where the cost issues of sustainability are turned on their head to actually benefit sustainability. In the long term though, even in OKC, it will always be more cost efficient to be sustainable and green. There will always be an economic cost for the compromising of natural resources, even if it's a cost that's not put directly on the developers right this second.

A lot of info that I hadn't considered but will.

Spatan, you said "it will always be more cost efficient to be sustainable and green". To me, sustainability means that it essentially pays for itself (in theory). But I am reminded about the "sustainability" of corn based ethanol. Read a year or so ago that it takes either an actual gallon of gasoline (may have been the equivalent) to produce one gallon of ethanol. Where is the sustainability in that? Not only do you have to grow the crop (which is renewable) but you have to do the oil based part too. How are you ever going to come out ahead? While I support the concept of recycling,the more I have read about it, in many cases it actually costs more to recycle than to create it from scratch. Like I said, I practice "reduce/reuse/recycle" when I can but it has to make economic sense as well.

I also appreciate the title of the thread "M.U.D. coming to the Oklahoma River"...LOL

'sustainability' has turned into a feel-good buzz word co opted by whichever interest wants you on their side . nothing more, nothing less. and there are some other catchy feel-good buzz words in vogue these days...

after all, these days: coal is 'clean burning', natural gas is 'green' (everything is these days), and strip malls are now 'sustainable'. I don't buy any of those claims...

go figure... who in his or her right mind would ever want to be 'unsustainable' or 'ungreen'...'smart growth' is another one - might even be a few years outdated by now. usage of these phrases is becoming especially meaningless, or maybe just confusing, in regards to development, planning, building designs, etc....Let me LEED you to the promised land-lol!

Larry, your definition of sustainability is flawed. Sustainability has nothing to do with something eventually paying for itself- sustainability means that we are doing an activity or consuming a resource at a rate that will allow us to continue the practices far into the future. Corn-based ethanol is an outdated idea that is still being promoted by corn growers in the Midwest.

The whole bit about "making economic sense" is also a part of the failed mentality that has led to so many environmental problems. We consider our own individual economic benefits without considering detrimental effects to the total system. Look up the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons." Imagine a public grazing area for cattle being used by five farmers. One farmer will imagine that adding a few cows to his herd will increase his revenues and would make a negligible difference on the vast grazing area. However, if all the farmers make the same decision the grazing area can become overpopulated quickly and all the grass will turn to dust. Obvious economic decisions by individuals lead to disastrous impacts upon common resources.

Similarly, imagine surface parking runoff (which is uncontrollable, unlike surface parking runoff which is forced into filtering drainage systems). If one developer saves a buck by building a surface parking lot for his huge development, it may not impact pollution and drainage systems that much. But if every developer is allowed to do so, it adds up to a tremendous cost that is NOT the burden of the individual developers, but of the taxpayers and the people who have to live with the contaminated environment.

In short- when a shoddy cheap option makes sense for an individual, the costs are actually still there, but hidden because they take the form of environmental damages, cleanup costs, and health problems. We all bear the costs while the developer saves money and gets rich.

Shane, I looked it up before my post and think it still applies

Definition of SUSTAINABLE
1: capable of being sustained
2a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged <sustainable techniques> <sustainable agriculture> b : of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods

What it boils down to is essentially something that pays for itself (not necessarily in the monetary sense). A crop is renewable/sustainable. When it costs you more to get the TV repaired than it does to buy a new one, what do you think most people are going to do?

Reminds you have a couple of local charities that are/were paying their heads 6 figure salaries. Left out the City's newly created Office of Sustainability that is anything but. It is being paid for with Federal funds. If memory serves, the office costs $300,000 and has a director and 2 employees. That's $100K/employee.

How sustainable is that? When the Fed money runs out, unless the cost savings generated by the office are substantial and can cover the cost of the employees, it's demise will be swift. Unless its one of those PR/image things and no matter what it costs they will keep it around. "Look, we saved "X" amount" (not mentioning it cost 2, 3 or 10 times the amount to save it). Economic realities are what they are.

A lot of info that I hadn't considered but will.

Spatan, you said "it will always be more cost efficient to be sustainable and green". To me, sustainability means that it essentially pays for itself (in theory). But I am reminded about the "sustainability" of corn based ethanol. Read a year or so ago that it takes either an actual gallon of gasoline (may have been the equivalent) to produce one gallon of ethanol. Where is the sustainability in that? Not only do you have to grow the crop (which is renewable) but you have to do the oil based part too. How are you ever going to come out ahead? While I support the concept of recycling,the more I have read about it, in many cases it actually costs more to recycle than to create it from scratch. Like I said, I practice "reduce/reuse/recycle" when I can but it has to make economic sense as well.

I also appreciate the title of the thread "M.U.D. coming to the Oklahoma River"...LOL

Well what I meant was that I was generalizing the long-term picture. It's going to cost more to convert to different fuel sources now while there are options than later when there aren't. There's savings. Also, it takes time for inventions and new technologies to become economically viable. By getting a head start now on ethanol and wind energy and stuff like that, it is virtually guaranteed that it WILL be more financially feasible to rely on here in 20 years than it would be if we were switching to renewable energy sources for the first time at a time that it is crucial. In essence we're giving it time to mature into an economically feasible technology, because lets face it, a lot of the science needs to improve still.

Just like railroads and canals were initially cost prohibitive when they were prototypes and then eventually became the norm. Once anything becomes standardized the costs quickly go down.

An important part of my point was also looking at the big picture. It's going to cost more to keep the U.S. on the receiving end of foreign oil than the actual cost of this oil alone. There's also the environmental impact if we don't deal with it now, it will come back to bite us later, including in financial ways. So even though it may be somewhat more expensive for the developers to think about sustainability on a riverfront plot of land, there are major cost savings to the city--keeping the river as a potential economic boost by not having another bacteria scare in the media, the city not having to divert the drainage on its own, the city not having to treat the river for bacteria and toxins, and so on.

I just simply meant nothing more than that it will always pay to be green. Obviously the initial cost of a particular way of doing things may be more at first, because it's always been that way--even though myopic cost cutters will look at the short-term. And beyond the modest subsidies required to make wind and ethanol economically viable on the consumer end (which is truly a new thing, in terms of modern world history) there may even be junk science that requires such a ridiculous subsidy it has no reason to exist yet, such as solar. I think hopefully there is some middle ground that can actually be found on sustainability when one throws out the hopeless political context around it.

And blangtang, open your eyes man and see the world around you. Sustainability applies to anything and everything, that's why you're hearing a lot about it. Sustainability does not mean dealing with a single pollutant or one particular method of constructing buildings. It's very comprehensive and can apply to anything that uses resources, even man-made and human resources. The point is that resources have scarcity and everything is a resource, ergo, everything is becoming scarce--generally speaking.

Unsustainable merely means you should be able to look back and say, "Geez guys, we may not be able to keep doing this exactly this way, or else there may be some consequences of some sort."

No qualms there....Its all good Spartan...

OMG how many people have to ask the same stinking question about parking?! It's cost folks, plain and simple. It's not a mystery and you won't find anyone building it just for density. Parking spaces don't make money unless you charge for parking. And what retailer is going to do that? None.

Anyway, it's an interesting project for sure. That's a pretty dead area of prime flat land that's just been waiting for something other than a box hotel to go in.

Talking proximity to the "projects", you realize Dell is right across the street from them right? Oh yeah, and they have surface parking too....hmmm.

Commercial development decisions are made according to economics, not some opinion and ideology. We can discuss the feel good about design, land use, etc., but in the end if you are relying on private enterprise to invest money they need some assurance it is worth it. Things that we legislate that affect the cost just make the investment decision more difficult. When we have property with high demand and great economic potential then we can dictate how it is to be done. Until then, you are just asking someone to "donate" to your good idea.

Actually it is a question of area...If you take the area of the surface parking (which is non permeable therefore causing water to run off rather than be absorbed and recharge the aquifer)
That vast area of water that would have otherwise soaked into the soil now runs off at a higher volume and must be contained because of the polutants it picks up. That all goes to the storm sewer. As was mentioned above.

The differnce in volume of runnoff is easily evident by stacking much smaller areas vertically=the same area as the surface lots, however the difference is that only one of the much smaller floor plates is running off. So the result is vastly reduced runoff, less pollutants, less load on the storm sewer system, increased weather protection for the patrons, shorter walking distances for the patrons, less required use of the site, Less heat Island effect due to reduced surface area, less need for future maintenace on an exposed surface lot, and opportunities for additional retail and increased density.

These are just a few of the benefits, there are others as well but this will suffice for the point.

The vastly reduced runnoff that hits the top of the building does go into drains and must go through a sand oil separator prior to entering the storm sewer system.

So what you have instead of massive runoff with a surface parking lot is a parking structure that has oil, antifreeze/coolant, tranny fluid, etc. all over the lots except the top one? The cars are still going to be leaking the same amount of these things and there will be no rain to wash them away because the lower floors will be covered.

Anyone figured in the cost of an elevator and making the structure handicapped-accessible?

I would rather just walk through a parking lot as long as the drainage is adequate in a rainstorm (few puddles or none would be even better, anyone ever been in PSM by Dillards when snow is melting? That place is a lake). Surface parking lots are easier and quicker to get in and out of.

The cost of vertical travel (elevators) are factored in the per space cost estimation that was presented earlier., ADA requirements apply to a surface lot just as well as a structured one so do not know what your costing implication intentions were there...

The issue isn't that there are fluids, but that when mixed with water in large volumes as in an Oklahoma rainstorm, that large volume is contaminated. Conversely in a parking garage the much reduced water runnoff is sent to to a sand oil separater and then on to the storm sewer. As a part of routine maintenance from time to time they can use a pressure washer to clean needed spills up in the garage, which then go to the sand oil seperator....you get the drift...I hope....

For your last comment I almost have no words unless you are afraid of heights or something...it just makes no sense. You are using a clogged drain as a reason to discount a structured parking over a lot, diregarding all of the previously stated benefits...Ok well then go ahead and park at the back of the lot and enjoy your walk. Or you could just park on the open level and walk a short distance and take a elevator ride down a few floors and be delivered to your destination in a weather protected environment. You have options!

For your last comment I almost have no words unless you are afraid of heights or something...it just makes no sense. You are using a clogged drain as a reason to discount a structured parking over a lot, diregarding all of the previously stated benefits...Ok well then go ahead and park at the back of the lot and enjoy your walk. Or you could just park on the open level and walk a short distance and take a elevator ride down a few floors and be delivered to your destination in a weather protected environment. You have options!

Not afraid of heights at all. Parking is just easier and faster in a surface lot. That's all.

i would bet that very very few if any parking garages in okc have a "sand oil separater"

What are you basing this supposition on? Are you actively involved in the Commercial Plumbing trade? To my understanding it is a part of the International Building Code and OKC is under IBC 2003 if I remember correctly. More particularly OKC uses IPC 2000 for its plumbing code with approved amendments. I am very sure that a sand oil separator is required prior to allowing the storm water from entering the Storm Sewer system, at least for new garages going in.

True on the older parking garages I doubt that they would have had them, but no excuse for those moving forward not to.

Am I the only one here that actually likes this project, and isn't stuck on the parking issues?

I agree parking garages are better but that isn't going to happen anytime soon especially in this area. I do hope they have a good security for the parking areas, this area is a little rough around the edges.

Commercial development decisions are made according to economics, not some opinion and ideology. We can discuss the feel good about design, land use, etc., but in the end if you are relying on private enterprise to invest money they need some assurance it is worth it. Things that we legislate that affect the cost just make the investment decision more difficult. When we have property with high demand and great economic potential then we can dictate how it is to be done. Until then, you are just asking someone to "donate" to your good idea.

Very true. But we as part of the discerning public can always chose to not "donate" our approval to such projects, especially if they endanger higher goals like you know, having clean water in the Oklahoma River so we can keep attracting events. The majority of the public do not care about what happens to the sliver of land behind Dell between 15th and the River that nobody even sees anyway--the majority of the public does however care about things that may environmentally impact the Oklahoma River, an open ecological system, especially as the Oklahoma River has proven its potential to be a useful resource in many different ways, not just as a natural one--agreeing in part that people in OKC generally don't give a hoot about nature.

And bomber--you're saying that you can prove that the site plan as laid out ahead is the one that absolutely maximizes ANY profit potential on the land? I am sure you have some business acumen or enough to preach that profit drives motive blah blah blah, don't you have an OCU business degree or something? But do you really understand enough about site planning and development to know that this is for certain the best alternative to maximize that potential?

Or is it more likely that this site plan wasn't reached through keen site planning to reach the highest development value, but rather, what is considered the norm for development in OKC? I'm sure with that preachy business acumen you also know how powerful norms are and how non-receptive people can be toward unproven innovations--unproven innovations in OKC and perhaps Phoenix, but proven everywhere else in the "industrialized world," that is.

I don't post as often, and I am not a developer, but I would think cities like Tulsa and OKC would catch up with other cities and start utilizing mixed-use parking garages (like Spartan mentioned in one of his posts) and under ground parking.

And in a lot of posts I see a lot of people in OKC clamoring for better stores and better retail. Well, in the cities I have been to where there are upscale stores and retail, you have to pay to park in the parking garage or the underground parking; HOWEVER, you get your parking "validated" if you eat their or if you spend money buying something from one of the shops.

So you can park for free at a crappy new development like University North Park in Norman and shop at Petco, Academy, Dollar general, and Pei Wei or you could have paid parking and valet at a development that has Dick's, Restoration hardware, Saks, and Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.

i guess things like private ownership should have no bearing??

Very true. But we as part of the discerning public can always chose to not "donate" our approval to such projects, especially if they endanger higher goals like you know, having clean water in the Oklahoma River so we can keep attracting events. The majority of the public do not care about what happens to the sliver of land behind Dell between 15th and the River that nobody even sees anyway--the majority of the public does however care about things that may environmentally impact the Oklahoma River, an open ecological system, especially as the Oklahoma River has proven its potential to be a useful resource in many different ways, not just as a natural one--agreeing in part that people in OKC generally don't give a hoot about nature.



I assume they will have to provide an environmental impact report before getting permitted to build. Runoff, pollutants, etc. will have to be identified and quantified and control will have to be planned.

i guess things like private ownership should have no bearing??

Nope, none at all. We need to confiscate all private property, actually. I was just getting to that point...

nope, none at all. We need to confiscate all private property, actually. I was just getting to that point...

lol

I am pretty sure that they will only have to comply with a NEPA Phase 1 Study. Which is pretty much limited to observing any endangered species that might live on site, and any Native artifacts on site that would indicate a potentially significant find worth looking into for further preservation. Generally beyond the site plan and the Landscape architects and civil engineers grading and drainage plans there will not be much in the way of pollutants that are identified, unless it was classed as a brownfield site or was adjacent to industrial and or old service or filling stations.