Steve jabs at Randy Hogan a little in this article.

[AFCM]

Thank you for illustrating our concerns along with our praises.

http://newsok.com/bricktown-canal-to...mment#comments

[kevinpate]

It's come a long ways for certain. Here's to where it may go
And,
here's to a hope some, if not all, of the canal side parking is replaced by a better use of the space.

[bluedogok]

Well, the good thing is most of the stuff built down there could be considered "temporary" at best so when it starts decaying and looking like crap maybe some proper development can occur.

[BDP]

Hogan was permitted to build his canal-side parking by the Urban Renewal Authority, which oversaw the development of the Lower Bricktown area.

And in doing so, they severely hobbled the potential for lower bricktown and the surrounding area, while completely wasting land on which tax payers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve. They actually thought we envisioned boat rides through parking lots when we voted for MAPS.

It's not like anyone needs any further evidence of OCURA's incompetence, but their ability to consistently screw things up in major ways is mind blowing. Their idea of urban renewal is literally tax payer enhanced surface parking lots.

[Steve]

OK, now that you've repeated all of your objections, let's take this discussion in a different direction and show you're more intelligent than the folks who comment on the NewsOK stories. How would you develop the existing surface parking lots in a manner that would end up with more, and not less, parking or access to parking, than what exists currently? Note my wording... "access to parking." All of these folks need someplace to park.

[Grant]

Anybody have a copy of the early renderings for lower Bricktown mentioned in the article?

[feconi]

OK, now that you've repeated all of your objections, let's take this discussion in a different direction and show you're more intelligent than the folks who comment on the NewsOK stories. How would you develop the existing surface parking lots in a manner that would end up with more, and not less, parking or access to parking, than what exists currently? Note my wording... "access to parking." All of these folks need someplace to park.

Future developments could have underground parking. For example, here in Austin, Whole Foods Market's downtown store/headquarters has three levels of underground parking. There's a (very) small surface lot in front of the building but the vast majority of the parking is underneath the store. Not only is this convenient for customers, but it retains the urban "feel" of downtown rather than compromising it with large surface lots. Granted, this may not be feasible in all cases but larger developments (such as on the scale of Bass Pro) could successfully integrate an underground garage into their building.

[Steve]

The original concept Randy Hogan pitched for Lower Bricktown

[Comm'l Real Estate Guy]

Underground parking costs MUCH more than surface parking. If you want underground parking (which I absolutely prefer)...it will cost us more money.

It's a double edge sword.

[OKCMallen]

.it will cost us more money.

Who cares. Do it once, do it right. Provide tax-incentives and subsidize the thing. Get creative on the financing, but get. it. done.

Screwing up Lower Bricktown with parking on the canal just confirms all the stereotypes we fight from out-of-staters about being a bunch of poor, dumb hicks. We can't even develop the one major tourist draw we have...we have parking lots and empty buildings?

[Drake]

Who cares. Do it once, do it right. Provide tax-incentives and subsidize the thing. Get creative on the financing, but get. it. done.

Screwing up Lower Bricktown with parking on the canal just confirms all the stereotypes we fight from out-of-staters about being a bunch of poor, dumb hicks. We can't even develop the one major tourist draw we have...we have parking lots and empty buildings?

While I don't disagree with all your post, I think this board is much harder on Bricktown than most of the tourists. Most people are generally impressed with whats been done down there. I sent some stuff to some people that were interested in making a trip to OKC and they were very impressed with what they saw.

I realize they are not aware of what was promised etc.

[Architect2010]

Hello? Cotton Exchange had a great plan for its parking woes. These new buildings could make use of underground parking. On some of the larger lots on Reno, you can create a building that wraps around a small parking garage or one that simply integrates parking in the interior to ensure retail/restaurant footage on Reno and the canal. Plaza Court Building? Ever been on top of it? Smaller 1 to 2 story buildings could have a rooftop parking if the building is more wide and spread out than high. Turn part of the Bass Pro Parking lot into parking structure with retail on bottom if it were located close to the canal or Reno. Rip up the parking lot that is next to the landrun monument and put a parking garage there! Good lord. Just put something into those effing lots thats more efficient that a PARKING LOT and preferrably something that has leasable space and a facade that would add to the urban fabric. Put a huge parking structure where the Coca Cola Event Center is located at [the huge parking lot in front of it actually] and that would take out all of the need of those parking lots and add some. It's close to all of the Lower Bricktown parking also.

Now. I know, I'm just spewing stuff here and it's much easier said than done, but it's not a hard solution. That space was so prime for Urban Development. And while, I am not complaing about Lower Bricktown. I do love the Centennial Plaza and the surrounding buildings such as the Centennial, Falcones/Sonic/Firefly, and theater because that is a true mix-used urban space. Even if the some of the buildings have a suburban look. But there is no excuse for those parking lots. None at all. It should have been done right in the beginning.

[metro]

The original concept Randy Hogan pitched for Lower Bricktown

Don't make us cry again Steve. Randy might think he's made a name for himself now, but when he's long gone, I imagine history might write his book a different way.

[metro]

And in doing so, they severely hobbled the potential for lower bricktown and the surrounding area, while completely wasting land on which tax payers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve. They actually thought we envisioned boat rides through parking lots when we voted for MAPS.

It's not like anyone needs any further evidence of OCURA's incompetence, but their ability to consistently screw things up in major ways is mind blowing. Their idea of urban renewal is literally tax payer enhanced surface parking lots.

WELL SAID (sadly).

[metro]

Hello? Cotton Exchange had a great plan for its parking woes. These new buildings could make use of underground parking. On some of the larger lots on Reno, you can create a building that wraps around a small parking garage or one that simply integrates parking in the interior to ensure retail/restaurant footage on Reno and the canal. Plaza Court Building? Ever been on top of it? Smaller 1 to 2 story buildings could have a rooftop parking if the building is more wide and spread out than high. Turn part of the Bass Pro Parking lot into parking structure with retail on bottom if it were located close to the canal or Reno. Rip up the parking lot that is next to the landrun monument and put a parking garage there! Good lord. Just put something into those effing lots thats more efficient that a PARKING LOT and preferrably something that has leasable space and a facade that would add to the urban fabric. Put a huge parking structure where the Coca Cola Event Center is located at [the huge parking lot in front of it actually] and that would take out all of the need of those parking lots and add some. It's close to all of the Lower Bricktown parking also.

Now. I know, I'm just spewing stuff here and it's much easier said than done, but it's not a hard solution. That space was so prime for Urban Development. And while, I am not complaing about Lower Bricktown. I do love the Centennial Plaza and the surrounding buildings such as the Centennial, Falcones/Sonic/Firefly, and theater because that is a true mix-used urban space. Even if the some of the buildings have a suburban look. But there is no excuse for those parking lots. None at all. It should have been done right in the beginning.

Cotton Exchange was doomed for failure from the start. He never had financing. Anyone can draw up fancy pictures without financing. Now, I am for and do believe underground parking is feasible if the developer has enough vision to get it done. The sad thing is, our current developers DON'T have the vision, so in that case the CITY and BRICKTOWN ASSOCIATION needs to have higher standards in place, to not make it optional. You'd be surprised what would happen if we had higher standards in place.

As far as Centennial Plaza goes, our very own Urban Pioneer designed it!

[Luke]

The original concept Randy Hogan pitched for Lower Bricktown

Looks awesome.

[SoonerDave]

While I don't disagree with all your post, I think this board is much harder on Bricktown than most of the tourists.

Agree completely.

[kevinpate]

I'm not opposed to surface parking in general. I just think it ought not to be almost right up to the edge of the canal, and certainly not to the extent that was allowed to happen from east of Harkins on down to the end of the canal.

[BDP]

OK, now that you've repeated all of your objections, let's take this discussion in a different direction and show you're more intelligent than the folks who comment on the NewsOK stories. How would you develop the existing surface parking lots in a manner that would end up with more, and not less, parking or access to parking, than what exists currently?

What was Humphrey's and Cowan's answer to this question when you asked them? It says Cowan is paying someone else to answer this question, but what does he think should be done?

Like Metro pointed out, the city first has to have higher standards so that developers can not trash our public investments. For the canal to have continued success it needs to maximize the real estate around it with an eye to maintaining its status as a stand alone attraction. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to realize that a parking lot is not high on most lists that rank attractions. The real estate around the canal should be used only for actual real estate development, landscaping, and/or other attractions like art installments. A surface parking lot is not only not an attraction, but it prevents any attractions from being built on that real estate and severely diminishes the quality of attractions adjacent to them.

The city needs to find a way to restrict the building of surface parking lots within, say, 200 feet (even more would be better) of the canal and reclaim that space for landscaping or future development, to ensure that the canal has a future with new attractions in it.

Parking can go up, it can go under... ultimately it's up to the developer to work within the parameters and it's not asking that much given what the city has invested in improving their property. Sure, that's more expensive, but it should be and the canal should be able to support that extra expense. It may not seem like it now, but that's because it is has been compromised by the way it was developed. If you can get the canal to the point where it actually demands more parking by the nature of its draw, parking garages built with respect to the canal's integrity will not only seem a lot cheaper, but they also represent a potential revenue stream for the developer with some of the lowest operating costs of any other development they could build. But again, that's ONLY if the appeal of the attraction people are trying to park to see in the first place is worth it.

People may complain about paying for parking, but that's largely because of what they are paying access for. If done right, paying $5-10 to park to enjoy a world class attraction with several more shops and restaurants will seem perfectly reasonable. As it is now, no one wants to pay to park down there because it doesn't make sense to pay when the parking lot itself is such a dominant feature of the attraction. You can park next to a concrete water way for free in Belle Isle and actually have more shops and just as many restaurants to go to.

Note my wording... "access to parking." All of these folks need someplace to park.

I'd say that even more folks simply need a reason to go there in the first place. Honestly, if access and parking are Bricktown's and Lower Bricktown's current Achilles' heel, then it is doomed to flat growth and a future of mediocrity.

The area's current focus should not be "how do we increase parking at any cost". It should be "how do we create more value for bricktown's current and potential visitors". To end complaints about parking availability and costs, it would go a lot further to increase what people are getting for their $5 parking fee or for their slightly-longer-than-at-the mall.

Instead of saturating the area with surface parking at the expense of the area's value is stupid. Instead of simply adding more parking spaces, they need to make every parking space more valuable, to the point where the expense of constructing parking garages or underground parking is nominal relative to the demand for those spaces. The only way to increase that demand is with a greater density of attractions for visitors, which can not be accomplished unless both developers and the city work to maintain both the quality of current attractions and the potential for the addition of future attractions.

[Urban Pioneer]

I heard from my next door neighbor that LIT Clothing in the Centennial building is gone. I am going to go by today and see if its true.

[metro]

Well said BDP.

[Steve]

What was Humphrey's and Cowan's answer to this question when you asked them? It says Cowan is paying someone else to answer this question, but what does he think should be done?

I think Humphreys' thoughts were clearly stated in Sunday's story. Cowan answers the question in tomorrow's paper.

[AFCM]

Perhaps I'm overly critical, but even this concept seems a bit suburban to me. That today's Bricktown seems inadequate, even when compared to this design, demonstrates Hogan's utter lack of ambition and foresight.

[BDP]

I think Humphreys' thoughts were clearly stated in Sunday's story. Cowan answers the question in tomorrow's paper.

Actually, Humphrey's just stated his concerns, which is what some of us did in the initial responses of this thread. He did not answer the question that you posed to us (as a test of our intelligence), which was "How would you develop the existing surface parking lots in a manner that would end up with more, and not less, parking or access to parking, than what exists currently?".

Specifically he raised the issue when he said, "I don’t think it’s a good use of land to have surface parking on canal frontage. It’s some of the best land in Oklahoma City, and that’s not the highest and best use.”, but that in no way offers a solution.

So, while I think he stated his thoughts clearly, he did not answer the question you posed to us and, since you asked us, I assumed you asked him. I am looking forward to Cowan's contributions to this thread. ; )

[Steve]

Cowan is asked about criticism of the undeveloped land and surface parking lots in my story. He has told me it's unlikely he'll ever comment on this site and from all appearances he doesn't visit it either.