http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/korralwiki1.jpg
Information & Latest News
NE 8th & Laird (http://g.co/maps/pdhn3)
status=Complete
owner=Toby Keith Foundation
cost=$8.5 million
start=5/18/12
finish=October 2013
height=2 stories
sq. feet=28,000
acerage=2.0523
other=16 suites

5/19/12: Toby Keith breaks ground on OK Kids Koral (http://newsok.com/toby-keith-breaks-ground-on-ok-kids-korral/article/3676723)

OK Kids Korral will provide a home for pediatric cancer patients and their families while they are receiving treatment at The Children’s Hospital at OU Medical Center, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center and other nearby facilities. OK Kids Korral will offer the warmth and security of home in a setting where the love and encouragement of others enlighten and inspire guests.
Links
Toby Keith Foundation (https://www.tobykeithfoundation.org/)
Downtown Hotel Summary
Urban Project Summary
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R021601010)
Gallery

From www.todykeithfoundation.org:

"OK Kids Korral will provide a home for pediatric cancer patients and their families while they are receiving treatment at The Children’s Hospital at OU Medical Center, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center and other nearby facilities. OK Kids Korral will offer the warmth and security of home in a setting where the love and encouragement of others enlighten and inspire guests."

https://www.tobykeithfoundation.org/assets/images/okkorral-photo1.jpg

https://www.tobykeithfoundation.org/assets/images/okkorral-photo2.jpg

I was wondering where this was being built. TBK has a billboard up advertising it on I-40 eastbound, just before you hit downtown.

Fantastic venture. The kids need a place to be comfortable, safe and secure after frightening treatments. Good for Toby.

But I am sure we will get a great many complaints here that the building is too suburban, has parking, needs to butt up against the street, should be taller, shouldn't have grass or trees, should be more contemporary, mid-modern or brutalistic, needs LED lights, needs the light rail to go by, should be mixed use, and on, and on, just like the requirements for any other core development. (Sorry, just poking a little fun)

Fantastic venture. The kids need a place to be comfortable, safe and secure after frightening treatments. Good for Toby.

But I am sure we will get a great many complaints here that the building is too suburban, has parking, needs to butt up against the street, should be taller, shouldn't have grass or trees, should be more contemporary, mid-modern or brutalistic, needs LED lights, needs the light rail to go by, should be mixed use, and on, and on, just like the requirements for any other core development. (Sorry, just poking a little fun)

You're right, I really hope people don't complain about this, I think it's probably the most uplifting development I can remember happening in a long time. Alot of the things we talk about here are exciting, but this seems to go above excitement. Good causes are always something to smile about.

I once read--and then borrowed, later, for "illustrative puposes"--a story/modern parable about a rich man (perhaps involved in "the oil industry"?) who donated millions and millions of dollars to a college building fund and had several campus structures named after him.

(This was all a long, long time before T.Boone Pickens, btw. =)

A few years later, situations and circumstances changed and the formerly "rich" man lost all of his [available financial resources].

One day, not too long after that, he was walking across the campus with a kindly student.
The student noticed the man's name on many of the buildings.

The student said: "I guess you sometimes wish you had all of that money back . . ."

The man replied (with a smile): "No, not really . . . All I have left is what I gave away."

Kudos to Toby Keith.
I think that maybe we can see him now. =)

(as if we couldn't previously . . .)

Years ago, I lost a baby brother who spent many days in Children's hospital here in OKC. Though we lived 100 miles away and means were very limited, Mom was here constantly and Dad would drive down after work. I know how much mercy and kindness meant...especially to my fatally ill brother. Toby being involved in this is very special and a mercy that will mean unbelievable things for the kids. This is God's work. Thanks Toby.

Fantastic venture. The kids need a place to be comfortable, safe and secure after frightening treatments. Good for Toby.

But I am sure we will get a great many complaints here that the building is too suburban, has parking, needs to butt up against the street, should be taller, shouldn't have grass or trees, should be more contemporary, mid-modern or brutalistic, needs LED lights, needs the light rail to go by, should be mixed use, and on, and on, just like the requirements for any other core development. (Sorry, just poking a little fun)

I laughed. I'll admit it.

I laughed. I'll admit it.

I didn't laugh but I smiled. LOL

Thumbs up to Toby. This is an extraordinary contribution to the community.

Toby has been working on this for several years...

I'm going to take the uncomfortable position and defend our ideal development standards. Compliance with good form in a highly-dense urban district as the OUHSC undeniably is isn't something that would devastate this project. It would make it better.

Nobody is saying that Toby Keith ever claimed to assert this design as the most pro-urban, so the issue isn't a matter of confrontation. It's a matter of applying a fair standard to all projects that fall within an urban district. For example, the OBI project should have also been held to a better standard.

I'm not complaining about how UGLY and bland the OBI building was (and this hotel actually has a kinda cool aesthetic), but instead pointing out the negative site layout. Parking can be just as functional in the back of a building. Fixing that should be cost neutral, and possibly even cheaper for moving automobile egress/ingress away from the main vantage point.

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.

Great post...

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.

Wow. Nicely said.

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.

Not to disrupt your egalitarian pontificating, but what exactly has urban development done to harm grieving families? I'm not going to get into a contest with you to write the most touching poem about the building. It's a great undertaking, and I'm sure it will be an excellent addition. I like the way that we are creating community within the medical district, so that families of patients can be part of a community. That community benefits from having a quality environment, so let's also endeavor toward making this district better than our abysmally low building standards.

Function ALWAYS trumps Form.

But maybe "the critics" might like to build another such facility--serving the same function--with their money . . .

Fantastic venture. The kids need a place to be comfortable, safe and secure after frightening treatments. Good for Toby.

But I am sure we will get a great many complaints here that the building is too suburban, has parking, needs to butt up against the street, should be taller, shouldn't have grass or trees, should be more contemporary, mid-modern or brutalistic, needs LED lights, needs the light rail to go by, should be mixed use, and on, and on, just like the requirements for any other core development. (Sorry, just poking a little fun)

I'll say it - great cause but the design is terrible. I understand the "special needs" angle but all joking aside, this should be held to the same design criteria as everything else.

However, I will chalk this up to an urbanism victory because everyone who looked at that proposal instantly thought "suburban design" and for some of you that is progress. At least everyone can now tell the difference between suburban and urban design when they see it.

This has "Urban" written all over it. (At least it did before the sandblasting.)
Hook three or four of these together and the improvement is obvious.
http://history-wiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/557634eb39.jpg/165650017/557634eb39.jpg
Connecting the buildings with HamsterHabitatesque tunnels would be even better.

(Good job not listening to the naysayers, Toby. Or should that be baa-sayers?)

A structure doesn't have to be modern architecture to be urban. Instead of putting all the landscaping along the street he could have created an inner courtyard and put all the landscaping there so it could be enjoyed without cars going by at 50 mph. The whole thing is also surrounded by fence thus ensuring that taking a simple walk will have as many obstacles as possible.

This is a suburban design. The building is fine, it is just the location on the site. It should be moved closer to the street with parking in the back. Spartan knows what he is talking about. This is a simple fix that will add to the district and make it feel/be more walkable for the people working and staying at the hotel. This hotel is supposed to be walkable to the children's hospital. That is the point of the hospital. So, make the emphasis of the hotel walking instead of the car.

I know Rover doesn't understand urban design.... He just sees pretty pictures and that is what excites him. He can't get into the details of design.

Toby has been working on this for several years...

This is what I heard.^

I recently talked to someone who works at the OUHSC and knows some of the things that are planned.
In the coming months and years we should expect to be hearing more great things about the OU cancer center.
I expect to eventually see the OU cancer center to become regarded as a world class cancer research institution.

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.


well said

For once, we should be thinking of the occupant of the structure and the kind of layout that comforts them. Buildings are for people, not for themselves, not for ideologies, not for art, but for people. The only design elements essential here is that the kids feel good coming here and feel as normal as they can. Bricks and mortar be damned...flesh and blood be cherished.

What a load of crap. Bad design even for that right reason is still bad design. Urban development is a far more "people" oriented design philosophy than parking lots and 6 foot fences.

What a load of crap. Bad design even for that right reason is still bad design. Urban development is a far more "people" oriented design philosophy than parking lots and 6 foot fences.

He never said it wasn't a bad design. LOL it's a very bad design for something being built in the urban core. Honestly it belongs in the suburbs and it would be "perfect" but I'm not going to complain about it too much, it seems you have that covered. LOL

Not to disrupt your egalitarian pontificating, but what exactly has urban development done to harm grieving families? I'm not going to get into a contest with you to write the most touching poem about the building.

I actually expected more and better of you than mocking. You seemed like a better person than that.

What a load of crap. Bad design even for that right reason is still bad design. Urban development is a far more "people" oriented design philosophy than parking lots and 6 foot fences.

You still don't get it. What is IN the building is more important that what is outside the building. This is why I knew and kidded in my earlier post that something really, really humanly positive would soon get attacked for pretty superficial reasons. Guess it wasn't a joke after all. If there was a design discussion I would have hoped it centered around the kids and what could be done better in the design to help them feel safe, protected, calm, etc. not how close it is to the street and whether it creates an urban canyon or if it is nice to walk by. The designer was trying to create the best possible environment for the occupants.

If you guys detest this design so much, why don't you contact the Toby Keith Foundation and offer some input? Until you do something constructive, can we just appreciate that a local celebrity is doing something amazing for our community and the kids at OU Hospital? A little perspective would go a long way.

What a load of crap. Bad design even for that right reason is still bad design. Urban development is a far more "people" oriented design philosophy than parking lots and 6 foot fences.

I love urban settings...in fact spending a week in NYC now... but this idea that urban is necessarily more "people" oriented is hogwash. It may be more efficient and sustaining. If may be more convenient for some. It may be a preferred lifestyle for some. But this superiority complex that certain urbanites have exhibited here is pretty narrow minded. Large numbers of people prefer space and privacy, nature and calm, private ownership, etc. Some of us like various lifestyles which includes elements of urban and nature. The arrogance of assuming everyone else is stupid if they don't subscribe to your own narrow view is pitiable.

Check out the Ronald McDonald House in Austin. It is a far superior design for the patient, the parents, and the neighborhood.

I love urban settings...in fact spending a week in NYC now... but this idea that urban is necessarily more "people" oriented is hogwash. It may be more efficient and sustaining. If may be more convenient for some. It may be a preferred lifestyle for some. But this superiority complex that certain urbanites have exhibited here is pretty narrow minded. Large numbers of people prefer space and privacy, nature and calm, private ownership, etc. Some of us like various lifestyles which includes elements of urban and nature. The arrogance of assuming everyone else is stupid if they don't subscribe to your own narrow view is pitiable.

That's great. OKC has about a million places just like that which you can select from. The urban core should not be one of them. And heaven forbid a sick child should have easy access to a streetcar or a pedestrian friendly environment to walk in. Honestly - talk about a superiority complex.

You still don't get it. What is IN the building is more important that what is outside the building. This is why I knew and kidded in my earlier post that something really, really humanly positive would soon get attacked for pretty superficial reasons. Guess it wasn't a joke after all. If there was a design discussion I would have hoped it centered around the kids and what could be done better in the design to help them feel safe, protected, calm, etc. not how close it is to the street and whether it creates an urban canyon or if it is nice to walk by. The designer was trying to create the best possible environment for the occupants.

No, you don't get it. This is a development forum. It IS about the buildings.

And what exactly is supposed to make them feel safe and protected about a cabin? Something modern, futuristic, and imaginative seems like it would be a great distraction for kids with cancer. To me it seems it was designed less for the kids and more for Toby Keith.

No, you don't get it. This is a development forum. It IS about the buildings.

And what exactly is supposed to make them feel safe and protected about a cabin? Something modern, futuristic, and imaginative seems like it would be a great distraction for kids with cancer. To me it seems it was designed less for the kids and more for Toby Keith.

Wow. So now it is turned all around that this is about Toby is being selfish because the structure isn't what a true "urbanist" would like.

No, you don't get it. This is a development forum. It IS about the buildings.

And what exactly is supposed to make them feel safe and protected about a cabin? Something modern, futuristic, and imaginative seems like it would be a great distraction for kids with cancer. To me it seems it was designed less for the kids and more for Toby Keith.

+1

Wow. So now it is turned all around that this is about Toby is being selfish because the structure isn't what a true "urbanist" would like.

Are you saying Toby Keith didn't have a hand in the design and maybe selected a design he liked, even if it might be out of place? Because I'll be honest, I think that is what happened.

And once again, everyone is in favor of the hotel for families of sick children. That isn't the issue even though you keep hiding behind it.

That's great. OKC has about a million places just like that which you can select from. The urban core should not be one of them. And heaven forbid a sick child should have easy access to a streetcar or a pedestrian friendly environment to walk in. Honestly - talk about a superiority complex.

Keep on with the personal attacks please.

I doubt after the cancer treatments the kids and parents are focused on urban canyons. I don't see many hospitals who create "wall and window gardens" for their patients to go sit in to get a sense of calm and peace. Maybe they should. LOL

Are you saying Toby Keith didn't have a hand in the design and maybe selected a design he liked, even if it might be out of place? Because I'll be honest, I think that is what happened.

Yes, Tony's objective was to suburbanize OKC. I am sure that is what he was focused on and thinking. It had nothing to do with the kids.

Yes, Tony's objective was to suburbanize OKC. I am sure that is what he was focused on and thinking. It had nothing to do with the kids.

Whether he set out to do it or not - that is what his project does. I am sure he didn't concern himself with it, but he should have taken the urban location into consideration. Instead of hotel for sick kids he could have a hotel for sick kids that also enhances the area for everyone else. A two-for if you will.

Wow....just wow.

Frankly I'm disappointed, not with the development, but with this attitude on here. Wow.

Wow....just wow.

Frankly I'm disappointed, not with the development, but with this attitude on here. Wow.

Agreed.

To make this debate easier - try leaving the sick kids out of it. If it was just a regular hotel would the design be appropriate?

To make this debate easier - try leaving the sick kids out of it. If it was just a regular hotel would the design be appropriate?

No, but it's not a regular hotel. I do agree that the layout is bad, but it's not that big of a deal. This project will do way more good than harm upon completion.

I don't know where the idea comes from that the HSC is urban. It is dense, but I never see people walking.....it is also extremely single use. Even with a few hotels and restaurants....it's still basically a single use.

Given the nature of the project, we can lay off the design a bit. It takes up an empty lot...that's a positive.

This property is part of the Presbyterian Health Foundation PUD but I'm not sure of the particulars that were set forth in that document.

Here's what was on the property before (now razed):

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

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

So this project sets the standard for everything that comes after it.

This is a suburban design. The building is fine, it is just the location on the site. It should be moved closer to the street with parking in the back. Spartan knows what he is talking about. This is a simple fix that will add to the district and make it feel/be more walkable for the people working and staying at the hotel. This hotel is supposed to be walkable to the children's hospital. That is the point of the hospital. So, make the emphasis of the hotel walking instead of the car.

That's what I was also thinking. Why can't a medical district at the very least encourage healthy habits? I get it that some people have medical problems preventing them from walking the 2 blocks to the front door of the cancer center, or the 3 blocks to the children's hospital, but they can use the extremely easy auto entrance in the back. Not only should urban design encourage everyone else to walk, but that hospital and the other medical organizations in the district should outright tell all the families they should walk. That's what's wrong with health in America, why everybody's health is so ailing, and so obese. And then look at the response when somebody attempts to challenge it: "(Wind being sucked out!!) You're against the children!! Shame on you, you miserable person you.."

This project is also missing on other fronts that I just think this district should have. Why are we settling so low just because it's a charity? Sustainable development? Worthwhile design? I think that the built portion of this project is something that deserves a shot at being a 100-year building. If you're surrounding something with this parking around all sides, it won't be a 100-year building, and that's a shame.

I actually expected more and better of you than mocking. You seemed like a better person than that.

Well and likewise, I am shocked that you would stoop so low in your latest argument against proper urban standards, by side-tracking from the real issue by such a wide margin and painting it as a moral issue rather than a planning one.

I propose that we leave the kids out of it, and then maybe get on with a respectable discussion over this project.

Of course, we know that the ONLY thing that is important is proper standards of development and thanking someone for a gesture like this is not allowed on this board. The only thing allowed is criticizing and sniping I guess.

First of all I think this is a wonderful addition to the OUHSC and think Toby Keith is a really great guy for supporting this.

I am a little confused about some of your comments along the lines of a lack of design consideration in this project. When I look at this project I think there actually was a lot of thought that went into the design... your beef is more with the aesthetic elements of the design right? I tend to think it is an argument of aesthetics vs. functionality.

For example, anyone who has spent time in hospitals with sick families knows how horrible your typical hospital parking lot is on the sick family members, or the healthy but elderly family members who come to visit them. Pick just about any hospital in the metro and the parking is a veritable sea out behind the hospital (usually because the ER entrance is up front, which has some parallels to the desired design that many of you are talking about). I think the design of this center is clearly very patient friendly in that parking is right up against the building... limiting the amount of walking that has to be done. Yes this is probably in direct conflict with an urbanist's view that walking is a good thing, but good grief people consider the users of this building... many are in such poor health they can barely walk... all probably have family members who are older and would have trouble walking. And yes I realize there's got to be some sort of loading area up front, but that doesn't matter it's still a problem. If you don't believe me go set in front of an ER for a few hours and watch how many people still have to walk the distance for whatever reason. Along those sames lines of considering the building's users, consider the fact that they are children. It would seem to me if you're a parent you wouldn't necessarily want this building budding right up against a street, with no buffer zone whatsoever. The way this facility is designed you have a green space buffer, then parking lot, and then what looks like a tree line or fence perimeter around that. Stop to consider for a moment the building codes that are in place everywhere in the metro for day cares... lots of lot and green space requirements right? Well those same kinds of concepts seem to be in play here. The enclosed playground in the back also seems very secure... and in addition to that I noticed that it is noted that the play area floor is made of rubber. Stop to consider that many people with compromised immune systems are never supposed to go play out in the dirt, and this is clearly a well thought out feature. There was a comment made that there should be an atrium or such inside the building... the truth is we don't know whether or not that will be the case since interior renderings are not present here, but I did notice that there is a stream that seems to bisect the entire building. It wouldn't surprise me if that carries-through to the main foyer interior. Finally, aesthetics really are something that impacts a sick person. Personally I am a big fan of modern design, but I don't know that such design would be appropriate for something like this... even the best modern design on some levels tend to be more cold than say a place with a deliberately cozy feel. Even if you disagree with this realize that 90% of Oklahomans are going to agree with my statement. I usually agree with many of you but on this issue I think you guys are going way overboard in the wrong direction.

I propose that we leave the kids out of it, and then maybe get on with a respectable discussion over this project.


It's a project for kids and their families, where the children are cancer patients. Here's an idea. Leave the needs and comfort of the patients and their families front and center of this project rather than fretting over the building's skin, parking placement or set back from the street.

Leave the kids out of it? poppycock, hogwarsh and balderdash.

Plans were approved today by OCURA.

Lots more info. here in a nice article by Steve:

http://newsok.com/ok-kids-korral-development-in-oklahoma-city-to-move-forward/article/3630145

Of course, we know that the ONLY thing that is important is proper standards of development and thanking someone for a gesture like this is not allowed on this board. The only thing allowed is criticizing and sniping I guess.

What makes you think that thanking somebody very distant from yourself on an Internet message board is a heart-felt way of showing thanks? Rover, I took you to be way way way more mature than that. I'm so underwhelmed by anyone who is naive enough to think that a message board show of support for a charity is somehow a meaningful form of expression. So pardon me, but I'll keep my good works and egalitarianism off the message board showcase and stick to the facts.

egalitarianism

Spartan, we know you've been to school. You don't have to keep trying to impress us with the big words. LOL

Wow....just wow.

Frankly I'm disappointed, not with the development, but with this attitude on here. Wow.
I completely agree. The attitudes expressed by several in this thread evidence, to me at least, a screwed up sense of priorities. "Urban design" is not all that there is. And, sometimes, it is the very least, if not trite, of considerations. In this instance, the urban design argument serves as the basis for honoring form over substance, and a very needed substance at that.

As has been said already, see the article and video at http://www.newsok.com/article/3630145.

What makes you think that thanking somebody very distant from yourself on an Internet message board is a heart-felt way of showing thanks? Rover, I took you to be way way way more mature than that. I'm so underwhelmed by anyone who is naive enough to think that a message board show of support for a charity is somehow a meaningful form of expression. So pardon me, but I'll keep my good works and egalitarianism off the message board showcase and stick to the facts.

You can play god and judge all you want. To publicly express thanks to someone for championing an effort like this and to be personally attacked for it, to have motives questioned, is just mind boggling. This forum is about DEVELOPMENT. Not just architecture. Not just engineering, Not just about urban planning. It is about what, why and how things are being developed. I am sorry if positive expressions of appreciation are resented by some. If I wanted to express personal and direct thanks to Toby, I would do it, and you have no clue whether I have or not. But to publicly support something like this and say thanks is not immature, is not self serving. It says to others on this board who might be so inclined to do similar projects or to support similar projects that there are many of us out there who encourage it and are appreciative.

I have seen many many projects that celebrate the ego of the planners, architects, engineers and developers. I am sorry my expression of appreciation for one that celebrates the occupant seems to make you uncomfortable and apparently in fact hostile.

The overarching issue I see here is how the Oklahoma Health Center continues to develop without any kind of adhesion to a Master Plan, urban design guidelines, landscape guidelines, transportation plan, etc. Although I think the design of the lodge is out of place for an urban medical center, I applaud Mr. Keith's contribution to the mission of the OHC.

Anyone who has studied the history of the OHC is well aware of the fact that this is the place master plans go to die. Over the course of fifty years the OHC has developed into the labyrinth it is because at junctures like this there has never been any debate over setbacks, cohesive materiality, walkability, transportation, infrastructure or an overall urban place making strategy.

While we can all agree that the addition of a wonderful place for families during a time of great trials is appropriate and needed, this discussion over the look and placement of this building is important.

This development is the first new building to be built as part of the OHC South of 8th street and East of Lincoln. In essence, this marks the beginning of the OHC's expansion to the South. How does this development fit into the OHC Master Plan 2007-2022? Has there been an adoption of a concept for growth moving forward? How will this development impact future buildings, land use, transportation, etc.? These are the questions that should be asked and debated.

The overarching issue I see here is how the Oklahoma Health Center continues to develop without any kind of adhesion to a Master Plan, urban design guidelines, landscape guidelines, transportation plan, etc. Although I think the design of the lodge is out of place for an urban medical center, I applaud Mr. Keith's contribution to the mission of the OHC.

Anyone who has studied the history of the OHC is well aware of the fact that this is the place master plans go to die. Over the course of fifty years the OHC has developed into the labyrinth it is because at junctures like this there has never been any debate over setbacks, cohesive materiality, walkability, transportation, infrastructure or an overall urban place making strategy.

While we can all agree that the addition of a wonderful place for families during a time of great trials is appropriate and needed, this discussion over the look and placement of this building is important.

This development is the first new building to be built as part of the OHC South of 8th street and East of Lincoln. In essence, this marks the beginning of the OHC's expansion to the South. How does this development fit into the OHC Master Plan 2007-2022? Has there been an adoption of a concept for growth moving forward? How will this development impact future buildings, land use, transportation, etc.? These are the questions that should be asked and debated.

Thank you.

I have a dear friend who lost her son to cancer and who spent quite a bit of time in hotels similar to this, back east where he was getting treatment. It was a godsend to be able to bring the child's siblings; have room for them to stay with him; have birthday parties while he was receiving treatment far from home; and otherwise attempt to have some feeling of normalcy in the midst of a family nightmare. Bless Toby Keith for doing this. The design may offend people who are only seeing the design, but for the families, it will be beautiful. My sincere hope is that the critics never find themselves in the shoes of these families but if they do, I imagine the design will be the last thing on their minds.

Years ago, I lost a baby brother who spent many days in Children's hospital here in OKC. Though we lived 100 miles away and means were very limited, Mom was here constantly and Dad would drive down after work. I know how much mercy and kindness meant...especially to my fatally ill brother. Toby being involved in this is very special and a mercy that will mean unbelievable things for the kids. This is God's work. Thanks Toby.

I'm very, very sorry about your brother.

The overarching issue I see here is how the Oklahoma Health Center continues to develop without any kind of adhesion to a Master Plan, urban design guidelines, landscape guidelines, transportation plan, etc. Although I think the design of the lodge is out of place for an urban medical center, I applaud Mr. Keith's contribution to the mission of the OHC.

Anyone who has studied the history of the OHC is well aware of the fact that this is the place master plans go to die. Over the course of fifty years the OHC has developed into the labyrinth it is because at junctures like this there has never been any debate over setbacks, cohesive materiality, walkability, transportation, infrastructure or an overall urban place making strategy.

While we can all agree that the addition of a wonderful place for families during a time of great trials is appropriate and needed, this discussion over the look and placement of this building is important.

This development is the first new building to be built as part of the OHC South of 8th street and East of Lincoln. In essence, this marks the beginning of the OHC's expansion to the South. How does this development fit into the OHC Master Plan 2007-2022? Has there been an adoption of a concept for growth moving forward? How will this development impact future buildings, land use, transportation, etc.? These are the questions that should be asked and debated.

I think the reason I like this post so much is because it's so reasonable, he/she isn't attacking anyone for why they agree/disagree with this project. I applaud you for making a point rather than making a personal attack, that is rare on this forum.