Full Moon

[Plutonic Panda]

Please feel free to show this kind of building in the suburbs. This seems to be the remark when legitimate criticism can't be concocted.." .oh, it should be in a suburb". You need to do better than that.

oh I don't know, any other city besides OKC has these kinds of buildings spread out in various areas around the suburbs.

You seem to misinterpret my stance on this building. It isn't because I don't like it that it should be in the suburbs, it's that if the architect wants to prevent future developments from being around it that it belongs in the suburbs. This isn't some work of art, it's standard architecture here in LA. But have fun salivating over this, Rover.

[ethansisson]

Of course, Elliott can't expect for nothing with height to be built next door, but I got the sense that he just didn't expect that there is any density forthcoming when he chose this lot.

That's what I was thinking. It's not like he's plopping this thing right between two lots that are prime for mid-rise development with the intention of fighting anything getting in the way of his precious masterpiece. Judging from his comments about the lot's characteristics and the prospect of future adjacent development it seems like his choice to pursue this design direction was informed in part by a reasonable expectation that the views of/from the building aren't likely to be obstructed any time soon. That doesn't necessarily mean that if that turns out not to be the case he won't try to keep someone else from building next door, but I'd just as soon let that issue play out in the future where it belongs and enjoy a nice addition to Midtown in the meantime. I'm admittedly ignorant of any similar past behavior/attitude from Rand Elliot, but in general I try (and don't always succeed) to assume good intentions from someone until there's a reason to think otherwise.

I'm not a huge fan of Elliot's work (not necessarily because it's not good), and there are definitely issues with this design, but I applaud his effort to make effective use of a relatively narrow plot. Most people would look at it and see very little opportunity.

[ethansisson]

Of course, the real solution to the problem of future projects getting in the way of the view is to build two more identical buildings west to the corner of Hudson.

[ethansisson]

…in every single one of his designs he completely ignores the street and the pedestrian…

What about this design is not considerate of pedestrians and doesn't fit with good urban principles?

Disclaimer because trying to have a good conversation online sucks: I'm not trying to suggest that you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

[Rover]

oh I don't know, any other city besides OKC has these kinds of buildings spread out in various areas around the suburbs.

You seem to misinterpret my stance on this building. It isn't because I don't like it that it should be in the suburbs, it's that if the architect wants to prevent future developments from being around it that it belongs in the suburbs. This isn't some work of art, it's standard architecture here in LA. But have fun salivating over this, Rover.

So now, LA is you bible on things urban or suburban? First, LA has more of about everything than OKC and most cities. Second, OKC has been a small city with virtually no really creative architects or architecture EVER. Love or hate his style, Rand has stretched the art of architecture here and has added much needed visual diversity to an otherwise pretty boring scope of buildings. His peers recognize him nationally and internationally for good reason.
That said, he doesn't design boring buildings that serve strict new urbanism principals, and I get that. That makes him a target to many on here. But we will get a visually stimulating building. If it gets covered up, then he will be proved wrong I guess. In the meantime, I hope the snarking stops. We should celebrate some chances being taken to make this a more interesting city to live in.

[catch22]

What about this design is not considerate of pedestrians and doesn't fit with good urban principles?

Disclaimer because trying to have a good conversation online sucks: I'm not trying to suggest that you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today. It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests. Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.

[gopokes88]

Can we not have like one thread not poisoned by useless negativity?

[Ross MacLochness]

The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today. It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests. Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.

Ok, Obviously Rand has influence and has been involved in some annoying situations. Admittedly he doesn't always build the most pedestrian friendly designs. However, it's totally unfair to bash him like this.

He has worked closely with the developers of Hudson Park and they are working to streamline the two lots. He also said that he hopes to be a friendly neighbor and work togetherwith whoever decides to develop the parking lot to the east should that ever happen. He was asked at the DDRC meeting what he'd do if these lots were developed and he said he didn't think they would be for a long time, hence why he designed the building like he did, and that he'd try to work civilly with his neighbors to come up with compromises should anything happen next door.

It's easy to make some people out to be bad guys. And too often we make assumptions about things on the board we know little about. Rand has done some stuff I don't appreciate, sure, but he isn't a bad guy and we're lucky to have him in our city.

[5alive]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[shawnw]

it's totally unfair to bash him like this.

IMO this part was very objective and factual and not bashing of Rand.

The prime focus of the building is literally the side of the building. It will function fine if either or both sides are covered, but the expectation that the lots on either side will indefinitely remain parking lots is a dangerous assumption. They may not be prime lots now, but neither were many of the lots that are being or have already been built on today.

You can argue that this part was bashing (however if the "bully" part had been taken out, I doubt you could), but it's based in reality. Rand has gotten his way in scenarios you or I would not have, and Catch is not the only one to point this out. Steve has as well.

It's a recipe for disaster - you have someone (a bully) who gets his way 100% of the time who will likely stop at no ends to make sure those adjacent lots remain empty or underused to protect his own interests.

Back to a very solid point.

Empty lots are good for no one in an advancing urban environment.

[Ross MacLochness]

IMO this part was very objective and factual and not bashing of Rand.



You can argue that this part was bashing (however if the "bully" part had been taken out, I doubt you could), but it's based in reality. Rand has gotten his way in scenarios you or I would not have, and Catch is not the only one to point this out. Steve has as well.



Back to a very solid point.

I agree, good points. It's not this post singularly that I was referring to, he's easy to villainize anyone and anything without knowing all the facts (see the p180 thread). Even Steve doesn't know everything when he reports on certain issues. I said in my post, there are plenty of things regarding Rand I'd criticize, but it's just poor taste to blindly bash him based on those things all the time.

[shawnw]

While I gripe about Rand, I definitely recognize his value to the fabric of our city. The boathouse district is a unique gem in the world, architecturally. My issues are with his apparent abuse of influence (I admit to not having all the facts/details here) and his seeming refusal to engage the street with many, though not all, of his projects.

[Ross MacLochness]

While I gripe about Rand, I definitely recognize his value to the fabric of our city. The boathouse district is a unique gem in the world, architecturally. My issues are with his apparent abuse of influence (I admit to not having all the facts/details here) and his seeming refusal to engage the street with many, though not all, of his projects.

agreed

[catch22]

I agree, good points. It's not this post singularly that I was referring to, he's easy to villainize anyone and anything without knowing all the facts (see the p180 thread). Even Steve doesn't know everything when he reports on certain issues. I said in my post, there are plenty of things regarding Rand I'd criticize, but it's just poor taste to blindly bash him based on those things all the time.

How is it blindly bashing him if you say it is based on his previous behavior?

His previous behavior has earned him his reputation. He has used his name and influence to strong-arm developers in the past and to gain approval on projects that likely would not pass if you or I proposed them. I think it's completely fair to call in to question how he will handle this 5-10 years from now when someone buys the lots next to his Full Moon. Hopefully he doesn't try and stifle what is proposed. You can place me on ignore if you seem to have a beef with me. I have no beef with you. In fact it seems we agree on everything, so I'm not sure why you are choosing this thread to launch a personal attack on me.

[Ross MacLochness]

How is it blindly bashing him if you say it is based on his previous behavior?

His previous behavior has earned him his reputation. He has used his name and influence to strong-arm developers in the past and to gain approval on projects that likely would not pass if you or I proposed them. I think it's completely fair to call in to question how he will handle this 5-10 years from now when someone buys the lots next to his Full Moon. Hopefully he doesn't try and stifle what is proposed. You can place me on ignore if you seem to have a beef with me. I have no beef with you. In fact it seems we agree on everything, so I'm not sure why you are choosing this thread to launch a personal attack on me.

Hey man, I'm definitely not attacking you personally. I enjoy reading your posts and didn't mean to pick on you specifically. And after re-reading your post that I quoted, my post seems more like a non-sequitur. I probably shouldn't have picked what you wrote as the quote before my post. I quickly read all of the comments posted since I last read and got a sense of rand Rand bashing. I don't have any problem with this particular project and thought that much of the negativity toward Rand was gratuitous.

[catch22]

Hey man, I'm definitely not attacking you personally. I enjoy reading your posts and didn't mean to pick on you specifically. And after re-reading your post that I quoted, my post seems more like a non-sequitur. I probably shouldn't have picked what you wrote as the quote before my post. I quickly read all of the comments posted since I last read and got a sense of rand Rand bashing. I don't have any problem with this particular project and thought that much of the negativity toward Rand was gratuitous.

No harm no foul, partner.

[Plutonic Panda]

So now, LA is you bible on things urban or suburban? First, LA has more of about everything than OKC and most cities. Second, OKC has been a small city with virtually no really creative architects or architecture EVER. Love or hate his style, Rand has stretched the art of architecture here and has added much needed visual diversity to an otherwise pretty boring scope of buildings. His peers recognize him nationally and internationally for good reason.
That said, he doesn't design boring buildings that serve strict new urbanism principals, and I get that. That makes him a target to many on here. But we will get a visually stimulating building. If it gets covered up, then he will be proved wrong I guess. In the meantime, I hope the snarking stops. We should celebrate some chances being taken to make this a more interesting city to live in.

LA has great architectural. That's all I'm going to say.

So let me ask this, are you for or against the notion that nothing should be built on either side so people can see Rand's brilliance?

I also want to add that it is quite sad that OKC has so few people like Rand who come out with bold and inspiring architecture to the point where they can get away with wanting to block certain developments or severely alter them so get don't detract from his. Then you'll have others defending him against statements like he should take that crap to another city. For me at least, it shows how far OKC has to go.

[Rover]

It shows me you also know nothing about Rand. You should get to know him and THEN make judgement. I doubt you've even ever met him, let alone visited with him regarding his motives or philosophies. It sure is easy to surmise things and imagine things when facts don't seem to be important at all.

As far as to whether I believe things should be built on either side, well, I imaging that someday those areas will be worth enough for others to want to develop them. Ironically, this project helps make those lots more valuable for investment.

[hoya]

He seemed pretty nice when I met him. I'm glad that OKC has somebody like Rand who is very invested in the community. He really intends on making a mark here in OKC. He gives this city a lot of interesting designs that we wouldn't otherwise have. He's definitely an asset to the city.

That said, he's clearly not afraid of using his influence to get what he wants. Powerful people rarely are. And what he wants isn't always good urbanism.

This building is pretty cool. Yes, at some point in the future I'm sure somebody will want to build on an adjacent lot and Rand won't like it. But let's not condemn the guy for something he hasn't done yet. This lot that he's building on was probably going to sit empty without him.

[Plutonic Panda]

It shows me you also know nothing about Rand. You should get to know him and THEN make judgement. I doubt you've even ever met him, let alone visited with him regarding his motives or philosophies. It sure is easy to surmise things and imagine things when facts don't seem to be important at all.

As far as to whether I believe things should be built on either side, well, I imaging that someday those areas will be worth enough for others to want to develop them. Ironically, this project helps make those lots more valuable for investment.

Okay. I'm not going to get to know someone personally to make a judgement whether or not I like them based on their designs. That makes no sense.

Furthermore, I think you also misunderstand my position. I'm probably one of the most pro-suburban/sprawl poster on this forum. So I'm not suggesting something that is "not good enough" for downtown to be "thrown" in the suburbs. I'm simply saying that if Rand wants an unobstructed view of the build, he should build it in the suburbs. You have larger setbacks and it makes more sense. Another option is find an area next to a park or perhaps work with the city to form a flatiron building or find a lot already like that. But to build your building in a city block and try and stop other buildings from being built there is not right.

You didn't really answer my question but that's fine. What facts here am I missing?

All I know about Rand is he is a great architect but he also abuses his power which I did not appreciate what he did to the Broadway Park building. I lost all respect for him and he doesn't have the worth to salivate over or morn his loss should he decide to relocate to another city, at least in my eyes. I'm sure he's a very nice man in person, many people are.

Anyways you can have the last word I don't want to hijack this thread and I am excited for this development. I don't have any problems with the lack of pedestrian interaction, just the fact that he wants to prevent development that might obstruct the views on each side of it. If a private developer wants to work with Rand or on his own accord suit the development to compliment Rand's Full Moon, I'm completely fine with that. But it wouldn't surprise me to see a quality development proposed and Rand go after it and f#ck it up like he did with Broadway Park which as the renderings now indicate, seems like it won't be a very visually pleasing development now.

[bchris02]

I think OKC really needs more developments that are eye catching and that draw attention. Not everything has to be a glass tower or a cookie cutter urban apartment building i.e. Metropolitan that are a dime-a-dozen in every city. There needs to be more developments that add uniqueness and character to the city. This is exactly that kind of development. I am really glad this is moving forward.

In terms of Rand potentially blocking other developments surrounding it in the future, I can understand that worry, but let the city cross that bridge when it comes to it.

[warreng88]

Committee approves Elliott’s Full Moon apartment building plan

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record May 18, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – Architect Rand Elliott is going to bring the moon to Midtown.

At its Thursday meeting, the Downtown Design Review Committee approved Elliott’s 10-unit Full Moon apartment building unanimously. He owns the small parcel at 322 NW 12th St., between N. Hudson and N. Harvey avenues.

Elliott said he didn’t have a cost estimate yet. Lingo Construction is the general contractor.

He said he went through 30 variations of the building before settling on what he presented Thursday. The units range in size from 884 square feet to 1,060 square feet. There are eight loft-style apartments and two flats. The building stands 57 feet tall.

“We are offering an opportunity to have an experience,” he said. “It’s really about an experience. How cool is it to be able to live in a piece of sculpture?”

Urban planner Lisa Chronister said during the meeting that the staff had only two concerns about the building. She said Elliott is still working on his fencing plan.

Also, the downtown guidelines do not mention sprayed concrete, which will be the building’s exterior.

The review committee did not have any critique of the building. Committee member Danielle Theriault said the white exterior will tie in with some nearby apartments.

“When I saw this – it was so unique,” she said. “I think people will drive by and be curious.”

Committee member GiGi Faulkner praised Elliott for having a different multifamily design. Nathaniel Harding, who is also on the committee, echoed Faulkner’s sentiments about residential design.

“I think it sets a new benchmark for what people can imagine,” she said.

Committee Chairwoman Betsy Brunsteter referred to the building as sculptural.

“It will definitely become a landmark,” she said. “It already has.”

Elliott said he’s visited with Joe Jungmann and his business partner, Dale Cazes, about their neighboring food truck park. The park uses the old Foodie’s diner building.

Cazes said the partners are considering reconfiguring their site so the Full Moon building is the backdrop.

“It would have a nice dramatic effect as opposed to buildings,” Cazes said.

Elliott said the building will be home to unique people, who he said will become a tribe as they live there. A full moon will align annually with the center circle, which measures 42-feet in diameter.

He said construction will start in three months, though he’s already starting to recruit tenants.

“I’ve got leases in my pocket if anyone wants to sign up today,” he said to the committee.

[Pete]

Nothing happening thus far:

[ChrisHayes]

What are the two old buildings back there? The one on the right looks really run down.

[Pete]

What are the two old buildings back there? The one on the right looks really run down.

That is the Uptown Theater which will be renovated for multiple tenants including Elk Valley Brewery.