http://newsok.com/competing-developers-hope-to-build-high-rise-housing-in-downtown-oklahoma-city/article/5349293
(http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stagenew2.jpg)
(http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stagenew3.jpg)
(http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stagenew4.jpg)
I hope it turns out as attractive as the art.
The top looks a little familiar.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRUiIBZdvYw/Um_aOn7Lj1I/AAAAAAAANHQ/HUulNR8JhP8/s1600/gozer.JPG)
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 08, 2014, 05:54:00 PM
The top looks a little familiar.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRUiIBZdvYw/Um_aOn7Lj1I/AAAAAAAANHQ/HUulNR8JhP8/s1600/gozer.JPG)
Well played!
Quote from: Hoss on October 08, 2014, 07:33:06 PM
ZOOOOOOOL!
Yeah, OK, I'll be a Gozer worshiper.
Anybody up for roasting marshmallows?
Amazing....there are some actual artistic touches there! I "hearkened back" to an earlier golden age of architecture that is still modern and refined, when I saw that picture!
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
I'd contribute to this conversation but I'm afraid I'd come off negative as hell...and we've covered most of the mistakes made that have damaged Downtown Tulsa development.
Quote from: Townsend on October 09, 2014, 08:10:00 AM
I'd contribute to this conversation but I'm afraid I'd come off negative as hell...and we've covered most of the mistakes made that have damaged Downtown Tulsa development.
Awww....come on.... give it a shot!! I am probably the most negative person in the state on recent architectural designs - like the last 40 years or so - don't think you can be any more negative than me.
The designer took a nice small positive step, I think. Coulda gone a little further even, but small steps!!
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
As mentioned in our downtown housing event, lenders still don't believe in the viability of downtown, so unless you have cash on hand you're usually stuck.
The biggest takeaway for me in this OKC project is that two (TWO!) out of stated developers are competing to build something on this site. Who is competing to build anything in downtown Tulsa? What out of state developer is coming in to downtown Tulsa to do anything?
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
It really shouldn't be all that surprising that Tulsa's downtown is developing more slowly than OKC. First, oil & gas is booming in OKC. While Tulsa's energy sector is doing well, it is not growing nearly as fast as that same sector in OKC and we simply do not have any companies that currently compare to the growth of Devon, Chesapeake and Continental (just to name the 3 largest). Second, OKC's downtown development is at least a decade ahead of Tulsa. We got to the game late, and arrived at about the same time as the financial collapse of 2008. Third, Tulsa's population/job growth has been and continues to be much slower than OKC. If you want new office and residential buildings, you need to have employees and residents to fill them up.
Quote from: DTowner on October 09, 2014, 10:13:42 AM
It really shouldn't be all that surprising that Tulsa's downtown is developing more slowly than OKC. First, oil & gas is booming in OKC. While Tulsa's energy sector is doing well, it is not growing nearly as fast as that same sector in OKC and we simply do not have any companies that currently compare to the growth of Devon, Chesapeake and Continental (just to name the 3 largest). Second, OKC's downtown development is at least a decade ahead of Tulsa. We got to the game late, and arrived at about the same time as the financial collapse of 2008. Third, Tulsa's population/job growth has been and continues to be much slower than OKC. If you want new office and residential buildings, you need to have employees and residents to fill them up.
Well if getting ahead means having something as butt-ugly as the Devon tower, then we should just stay behind....
Quote from: Townsend on October 08, 2014, 02:40:14 PM
I hope it turns out as attractive as the art.
If something like this were proposed for our downtown I would hope the footprint would be smaller. The buildings in the rendering are beautiful, but something this large would not easily fit into any of our available plots inside the IDL without ripping out some existing building stock. It really feels like a suburban office complex/campuus more than something that will mesh with a dense walkable downtown.
Outside of the IDL there is room of course (in Uptown or next to OSU Tulsa or east of Crosbie Heights).
Quote from: carltonplace on October 09, 2014, 11:09:52 AM
If something like this were proposed for our downtown I would hope the footprint would be smaller. The buildings in the rendering are beautiful, but something this large would not easily fit into any of our available plots inside the IDL without ripping out some existing building stock. It really feels like a suburban office complex/campuus more than something that will mesh with a dense walkable downtown.
Outside of the IDL there is room of course (in Uptown or next to OSU Tulsa or east of Crosbie Heights).
The rendering of Spook Central OKC is more attractive than the latest addition to Tulsa's skyline imo.
(http://www.flintco.com/uploads/gallery_images/cache/1714_570x470_crop_p18anft5b81piob2k1drm5t06tn5.jpg?1410976259)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 09, 2014, 11:04:37 AM
Well if getting ahead means having something as butt-ugly as the Devon tower, then we should just stay behind....
The Devon Tower is really just the landing bay from Battlestar Galactica stood on end.
(http://titch1992.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/01.jpg)
Quote from: carltonplace on October 09, 2014, 11:09:52 AM
If something like this were proposed for our downtown I would hope the footprint would be smaller. The buildings in the rendering are beautiful, but something this large would not easily fit into any of our available plots inside the IDL without ripping out some existing building stock. It really feels like a suburban office complex/campuus more than something that will mesh with a dense walkable downtown.
Outside of the IDL there is room of course (in Uptown or next to OSU Tulsa or east of Crosbie Heights).
If you're not limiting "downtown" to the two entertainment districts, there's actually a huge amount of open space available for large-scale development. We do, after all, have the largest parking crater in the country, and it's likely to grow.
There is simply no demand for development on that scale. As has been mentioned, Tulsa is late to the game. It took decades for the Brady District to achieve critical mass, but it finally did. The giant parking lot in the Blue Dome District and the parking crater south of 7th Street are ready whenever the demand arises.
Tulsa's political culture doesn't go in for much pump priming, and state law makes it difficult to use eminent domain to develop property over the objections of landowners.
It is interesting that the Mayor and a bunch of movers and shakers are visiting Portland at this moment to try to figure out how it achieved its "vibe." Don't hold your breath for the time they actually figure it out. It will come, but it will be driven by private initiative, not public policy.
Quote from: cynical on October 09, 2014, 12:11:46 PM
If you're not limiting "downtown" to the two entertainment districts, there's actually a huge amount of open space available for large-scale development. We do, after all, have the largest parking crater in the country, and it's likely to grow.
I'm not making any limitation and I agree that we have plenty of surface parking. I'm just saying that this rendering appears to cover at least a 5 block radius and that size of foot print is more Richardson TX than Downtown Dallas, More Oakbrook, IL than CBD Chicago. Do we need to insert that size of campus into our downtown? I'd rather see the smaller organic kind of infill that we are seeing now than a giant office park. [
Quote from: Townsend on October 09, 2014, 12:07:41 PM
The rendering of Spook Central OKC is more attractive than the latest addition to Tulsa's skyline imo.
Yes these buldings are attractive; I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't find the scope of the footprint to be density friendly.
Quote from: cynical on October 09, 2014, 12:11:46 PM
It is interesting that the Mayor and a bunch of movers and shakers are visiting Portland at this moment to try to figure out how it achieved its "vibe." Don't hold your breath for the time they actually figure it out. It will come, but it will be driven by private initiative, not public policy.
The answer to how Portland did it is so obvious and simple as to be laughable that they would even ask the question....but the answer is, stop electing people like our Mayor and get a new set of movers and shakers.... You can't be the reddest of the red and achieve progressive goals like Portland - they are mutually exclusive!
Can you imagine the uproar at someone trying to get zoning and city approvals of any part of it - for something like Voodoo Donuts? Remember the trouble Artist had getting his nice little shop set up and running?? And even if you could get past the religious stigma, how are you gonna get an address as cool as "located where Sandy, Davis, and 15th street meet...." It would violate our sense of order and propriety way to much to be allowed to exist!!
And Bacon Maple Ale...!!! Served with donuts..??? Heads would explode!!
Quote from: carltonplace on October 09, 2014, 01:21:37 PM
I'm not making any limitation and I agree that we have plenty of surface parking. I'm just saying that this rendering appears to cover at least a 5 block radius and that size of foot print is more Richardson TX than Downtown Dallas, More Oakbrook, IL than CBD Chicago. Do we need to insert that size of campus into our downtown? I'd rather see the smaller organic kind of infill that we are seeing now than a giant office park. [
Yes these buldings are attractive; I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't find the scope of the footprint to be density friendly.
The site is actually two square blocks (700' x 400'). Theoretically, something similar could fit in a lot of places in the IDL where there are whole blocks of surface parking.
Here is a size comparison: http://mapfrappe.com/?show=23405
Quote from: heyerdahl on October 09, 2014, 03:21:31 PM
The site is actually two square blocks (700' x 400'). Theoretically, something similar could fit in a lot of places in the IDL where there are whole blocks of surface parking.
Here is a size comparison: http://mapfrappe.com/?show=23405
I think there's about three blocks worth of dead parking space south from TCC to BAUMC between Cincinnati and Boston.
We have plenty of room. Just missing a company that needs a big building complex....
The buildings do look "suburban" in nature. A little of that is the isolated setting. They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street. Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street. But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.
I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.
1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.
This would....
A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
This would...
a. Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")
All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.
If only I were to win that lottery lol. Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.
What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:02:40 PM
The buildings do look "suburban" in nature. A little of that is the isolated setting. They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street. Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street. But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.
I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.
1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.
This would....
A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
This would...
a. Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")
All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.
If only I were to win that lottery lol. Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.
What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.
I have the near outer edge of the city version of that lottery "what if"....Start with a couple square miles of bare land and build a community a lot like what you are talking about. Without the skyscrapers....
Maybe a lottery "what if" topic is needed here....
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:02:40 PM
The buildings do look "suburban" in nature. A little of that is the isolated setting. They buildings do not appear to be connected to a lively, pedestrian friendly street. Nor do they, because of their design, act as a catalyst in that area to begin to create that pedestrian friendly street. But perhaps it's in a part of town where it wouldn't matter, I am not that familiar with their downtown.
I was just imagining this morning that if I won the lottery and were able to build hundreds of housing units downtown, that I would make it extremely pedestrian friendly and would not put in any parking.
1. Keep costs down and be able to offer more affordable rents.
2. If someone wants a place to park, there are pay parking in other parts of downtown and or the market would build it elsewhere.
This would....
A. Create sidewalk traffic as those people, who wanted parking, walked to and from their parking.
B. Create more sidewalk traffic via those people who did not want parking.
This would...
a. Spur pedestrian friendly business growth and vitality as there would be people now walking past shops and restaurants that they would more likely visit since it's right there.
b. More people on the sidewalks also creates the look and feel of a more interesting and vibrant downtown making it more desirable and attractive.
c. The added businesses and business vitality would also add to downtowns desirability and attractiveness.
d. More transit options would become more viable and active (from pedicabs to jitneys and the "trolley")
All of the above would help increase the desire for more housing downtown and would help make wanting or needing a car less necessary for ever more people, creating a virtuous cycle.
If only I were to win that lottery lol. Course I don't play but whatever, one can still daydream lol.
What I would hate to see is what you see in Dallas with more and more tall buildings that should have all kinds of density, but you still don't see pedestrians and don't have a real, lively, interesting, city feel, because everyone still drives from their building and parking garages to... everywhere, including to places to walk lol.
I love the concept and never thought when I lived at Center Plaza from late '87 to mid '89 it was anything special that I usually walked or rode my bike where I needed to go in downtown. Hell, there wasn't much to do there then other than walk to Homeland or across the street to the Cellar Dweller or to an event at the Civic Center or one of the two major festivals at that time: Mayfest or Glendi. I worked in Sapulpa at the time though, so that required a car.
Without rail or other mass transit to places which make sense, I'm afraid your building would sit vacant. Even though I'm an avid cyclist, I can probably count on both hands (or less) the people I personally know of in Tulsa who can survive without a car in the urban core.
I love your idealism, I just wish it checked with the mentality of today's society.
OKC deal .....Aint gonna happen.....
Did anyone else take the time to read the story or look at the images?
The proposed residential towers (yes two 25 story towers) and commercial tower (26 stories) proposed by Clayco share a block with the new HQ for OG&E which is also being developed by Clayco. The project also will have a 450 spot garage and possibly a hotel on top of the garage. Milhaus' proposal is much smaller and is only on the city owned portion.
The block is catty-corner to the new Devon Tower site and is across the street from the Myriad Gardens. It also happens to be very close to the location of their new convention center. It is two blocks to the downtown library and art museum. Three blocks to the Civic Center Music Hall and a walk thru the Myriad Gardens to the Chesapeake Arena. Film Row (similar to Blue Dome) is growing and is just a block away. This is not a suburban development, far from it.
As was previously posted this a large site, but is roughly the same square footage as the OneOk Field area and not that much smaller than the Williams Tower + City Hall site. It would also fit on two of the parking lots that sit in the Cathedral Square/TCC parking crater in south downtown.
I am very jealous of this development. 250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space. I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.
Quote from: rdj on October 10, 2014, 09:31:47 AM
Did anyone else take the time to read the story or look at the images?
The proposed residential towers (yes two 25 story towers) and commercial tower (26 stories) proposed by Clayco share a block with the new HQ for OG&E which is also being developed by Clayco. The project also will have a 450 spot garage and possibly a hotel on top of the garage. Milhaus' proposal is much smaller and is only on the city owned portion.
The block is catty-corner to the new Devon Tower site and is across the street from the Myriad Gardens. It also happens to be very close to the location of their new convention center. It is two blocks to the downtown library and art museum. Three blocks to the Civic Center Music Hall and a walk thru the Myriad Gardens to the Chesapeake Arena. Film Row (similar to Blue Dome) is growing and is just a block away. This is not a suburban development, far from it.
As was previously posted this a large site, but is roughly the same square footage as the OneOk Field area and not that much smaller than the Williams Tower + City Hall site. It would also fit on two of the parking lots that sit in the Cathedral Square/TCC parking crater in south downtown.
I am very jealous of this development. 250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space. I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.
Suburban as in auto oriented versus urban=pedestrian/transit friendly. Doesn't matter how tall it is or where it's located, if the design caters to the automobile and not the pedestrian, then it's suburban. The Philtower and Mayo Hotel lofts in Tulsa are urban. Up to the sidewalks, the buildings are part of the urban, pedestrian friendly fabric of downtown and positively contribute to that fabric. The Central Park condos in downtown Tulsa are suburban in nature. They are not part of an urban, pedestrian friendly streetscape and actually harm that from forming.
I wouldn't call it good urban living if it were an area full of high-rise buildings but nobody ever out walking around. I would rather live in an area with smaller buildings but busy, lively, sidewalks full of interesting things to see and do. Good urban design promotes that, suburban design does not. Suburban design encourages you to get in your car and drive somewhere, good urban design entices you to walk down the sidewalks. Good urban/pedestrian friendly design also requires large uninterrupted streetscapes of other pedestrian friendly buildings. The more "gaps" in that fabric, the less pedestrian friendly it is and the less people you will see out walking, no matter how many people live in the area.
Quote from: rdj on October 10, 2014, 09:31:47 AM
I am very jealous of this development. 250 high rise apartments and 500,000 sq ft of Class A office space. I only wish downtown Tulsa could absorb this development.
I agree. Although with oil prices now in the low $80s and dropping and gas still relatively flat, the threat to OKC's recent boom may already be on the horizon.
OKC's new streetcar route will run right in front of this great development.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 10, 2014, 09:47:40 AM
Suburban as in auto oriented versus urban=pedestrian/transit friendly. Doesn't matter how tall it is or where it's located, if the design caters to the automobile and not the pedestrian, then it's suburban. The Philtower and Mayo Hotel lofts in Tulsa are urban. Up to the sidewalks, the buildings are part of the urban, pedestrian friendly fabric of downtown and positively contribute to that fabric. The Central Park condos in downtown Tulsa are suburban in nature. They are not part of an urban, pedestrian friendly streetscape and actually harm that from forming.
You know that the green space in the renderings is a park, right? It's OKC's equivalent of Guthrie Green only 4x larger. The podium and tower buildings have retail/restaurant space coming up to a wide sidewalk overlooking the park. It looks like the corners have cutouts that I guess could be good places for a big outdoor dining space (Colcord hotel next to Devon Tower has a fantastic outdoor dining area like that). The artist of the renderings didn't show some of the nearby buildings, I guess to make the focus solely on the development itself.
Great new construction that doesn't consider cars/parking is rare and probably impossible in most places (especially OKC and Tulsa, the two absolute worst transit cities). The exceptions to the rule are historic preservation stories like Mayo/Philtower.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
I blame I-44 being a toll road
Quote from: heyerdahl on October 10, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
You know that the green space in the renderings is a park, right? It's OKC's equivalent of Guthrie Green only 4x larger. The podium and tower buildings have retail/restaurant space coming up to a wide sidewalk overlooking the park. It looks like the corners have cutouts that I guess could be good places for a big outdoor dining space (Colcord hotel next to Devon Tower has a fantastic outdoor dining area like that). The artist of the renderings didn't show some of the nearby buildings, I guess to make the focus solely on the development itself.
Great new construction that doesn't consider cars/parking is rare and probably impossible in most places (especially OKC and Tulsa, the two absolute worst transit cities). The exceptions to the rule are historic preservation stories like Mayo/Philtower.
Good to know. As I mentioned earlier the development "looked" suburban in the rendering and could not tell that it was up to the sidewalk and next to other pedestrian friendly buildings for I was not familiar with the area. What I was replying to was a comment that seemed to suggest that it was urban simply because it was downtown, which is not always true. Just as you can have urban development and design in a suburban context and can likewise have suburban design in a more urban context.
Quote from: heyerdahl on October 10, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
You know that the green space in the renderings is a park, right? It's OKC's equivalent of Guthrie Green only 4x larger. The podium and tower buildings have retail/restaurant space coming up to a wide sidewalk overlooking the park. It looks like the corners have cutouts that I guess could be good places for a big outdoor dining space (Colcord hotel next to Devon Tower has a fantastic outdoor dining area like that). The artist of the renderings didn't show some of the nearby buildings, I guess to make the focus solely on the development itself.
Great new construction that doesn't consider cars/parking is rare and probably impossible in most places (especially OKC and Tulsa, the two absolute worst transit cities). The exceptions to the rule are historic preservation stories like Mayo/Philtower.
You understand that those are just pretty pictures from a developer that is trying make a deal, right? Theses are not based on any architectural work and if the developer builds anything you can be sure it will look very little like the current rendering.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 10, 2014, 02:21:01 PM
Good to know. As I mentioned earlier the development "looked" suburban in the rendering and could not tell that it was up to the sidewalk and next to other pedestrian friendly buildings for I was not familiar with the area. What I was replying to was a comment that seemed to suggest that it was urban simply because it was downtown, which is not always true. Just as you can have urban development and design in a suburban context and can likewise have suburban design in a more urban context.
You still haven't read the article or looked at all the images in the linked article have you?
Why pontificate for multiple paragraphs about your urban development theories and how they may or may not apply to a development you've only viewed two-three artists rendering of?
Quote from: rdj on October 10, 2014, 03:36:57 PM
You still haven't read the article or looked at all the images in the linked article have you?
Why pontificate for multiple paragraphs about your urban development theories and how they may or may not apply to a development you've only viewed two-three artists rendering of?
I have read the article multiple times and looked at all the photos. Watched the video too. Just read it all again and looked at all the photos again just to be sure, but I still come away with the same impression. Would like to eventually see and hear more detail. My "multiple paragraph theories" will still hold irrespective of my current limited understanding of the development and irregardless of how this development actually turns out ;D.
And don't get me wrong. One way or the other I think this is a great project for OKC, am thrilled for them, and would be excited to see a similar project in Tulsa. Hope it's even better than it looks at first glance and hope that any changes made as things move forward will only be for the better.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 09, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
Very nice. Am still puzzled at how slow our downtown development is in Tulsa.
Inside the IDL has blown up in the past five years. I think you're talking more about the business district, but that'll come soon.
Quote from: DTowner on October 09, 2014, 10:13:42 AM
OKC's downtown development is at least a decade ahead of Tulsa.
Key point.
High Rise housing means OKC is in with the big boys. It should be remembered though that OKC is a bit bigger than Tulsa with a metro population of about 1,300,000 in 2014 and a city population of almost 600,000. Tulsa's city population is about 390,000 and a metro population of about 900,000. OKC is bigger so I guess it gets more toys. I dunno, OKC has really been advancing fast this past decade. Tulsa will be stuck playing 2nd fiddle for a while it seems.
I guess it's like that old saying people in 2nd place try harder, & work harder. :)
Quote from: rdj on October 10, 2014, 03:36:57 PM
You still haven't read the article or looked at all the images in the linked article have you?
Why pontificate for multiple paragraphs about your urban development theories and how they may or may not apply to a development you've only viewed two-three artists rendering of?
One other thing.
I find it interesting that people here get ideas like "minimum parking requirements" and think of them as important "facts" when talking about auto oriented development, but when you mention ideas like "building up to the sidewalk" as being important for pedestrian friendly development, well those things are poo poo'd as mere "theories".
I could put up two sheets of paper and on one lay out a list of zoning regulations, requirements and or design features that would help make auto centric developments work smoothly and efficiently, then on the other lay out an equal number of zoning regulations, requirements and or design features that would help make pedestrian/transit friendly developments work smoothly and efficiently....
and despite the fact that I could also lay out just as much logic, case studies, examples, etc. for each. Somehow the first would still be seen as matter of fact don't even need to think about it, while the latter would be looked down upon as mere "theory".
Quite telling.
Quote from: davideinstein on October 11, 2014, 09:26:13 AM
Key point.
Exactly. Bricktown was a thriving entertainment district when the Blue Dome was still vacant boarded up buildings. The growth over the past 5 years in downtown Tulsa will eventually lead to developments like this.
As an aside OKC has been busy building up their other inner city neighborhood districts that Tulsa already had in place.
Quote from: SXSW on October 13, 2014, 10:36:58 PM
Exactly. Bricktown was a thriving entertainment district when the Blue Dome was still vacant boarded up buildings. The growth over the past 5 years in downtown Tulsa will eventually lead to developments like this.
As an aside OKC has been busy building up their other inner city neighborhood districts that Tulsa already had in place.
And now bricktown is facing increasing vacancy, maintenance issues, and about 30% attendance at baseball games.
Downtown OKC is growing, but Bricktown is not the centerpiece it once was.
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 14, 2014, 08:07:42 AM
And now bricktown is facing increasing vacancy, maintenance issues, and about 30% attendance at baseball games.
Downtown OKC is growing, but Bricktown is not the centerpiece it once was.
http://newsok.com/pending-developments-could-restore-the-luster-to-bricktown/article/5353337
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 14, 2014, 08:07:42 AM
And now bricktown is facing increasing vacancy, maintenance issues, and about 30% attendance at baseball games.
Downtown OKC is growing, but Bricktown is not the centerpiece it once was.
Looks modernism beat me to it, but I hear Bricktown will be home to the next big development for OKC downtown. The most-recent developments in downtown and the improvements of their near downtown single family neighborhoods (Uptown, Plaza, Paseo, etc) actually makes me pause and wonder if moving back to Central Oklahoma wouldn't be such a bad thing. My 11+ years in Tulsa has finally worn enough pessimism into me that I'm not so sure Tulsa can catch up to the cities in our region that are doing great things.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2014, 03:55:55 PM
I think there's about three blocks worth of dead parking space south from TCC to BAUMC between Cincinnati and Boston.
That doesn't mean that we should plop a Warren Place there.
Quote from: carltonplace on October 14, 2014, 11:05:57 AM
That doesn't mean that we should plop a Warren Place there.
I wouldn't want that either. Sure would be a great place for mixed use including affordable student/young adult type housing.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 14, 2014, 11:28:56 AM
I wouldn't want that either. Sure would be a great place for mixed use including affordable student/young adult type housing.
Yes, perfect.
Quote from: rdj on October 14, 2014, 10:46:49 AM
Looks modernism beat me to it, but I hear Bricktown will be home to the next big development for OKC downtown. The most-recent developments in downtown and the improvements of their near downtown single family neighborhoods (Uptown, Plaza, Paseo, etc) actually makes me pause and wonder if moving back to Central Oklahoma wouldn't be such a bad thing. My 11+ years in Tulsa has finally worn enough pessimism into me that I'm not so sure Tulsa can catch up to the cities in our region that are doing great things.
But, but, but we might finally be able to put water in the river. Isn't that an exciting enough prospect to keep people here?!
Quote from: TheArtist on October 14, 2014, 05:09:26 PM
But, but, but we might finally be able to put water in the river. Isn't that an exciting enough prospect to keep people here?!
How about if we put the housing skyscraper in the river, build the dam to fill it around the housing like a moat!! Elevated parking cantilevered around as a skirt of the building. so could have a view when parking AND when at home!!
Quote from: swake on October 10, 2014, 03:33:26 PM
You understand that those are just pretty pictures from a developer that is trying make a deal, right? Theses are not based on any architectural work and if the developer builds anything you can be sure it will look very little like the current rendering.
According to Steve Lackmeyer's (NewsOK) chat transcript, these renderings are equivalent to the final ones Devon released back in 2008, so they are much more than pretty pictures from a developer and there is architectural work behind them. The only change made to the Devon Tower complex after they released their renderings was the floor count reduction from 54 to 50. While there could always be changes made prior to construction, it most likely will look very similar to this. They plan to begin the first two towers of this development in March 2015.
Quote7:15 p.m. Steve, I am confused. Are these renderings final from RAMSA or still conceptual from Clayco? Are these heights final? What from today is certain and what is still flexible?
Steve Lackmeyer 7:16 p.m. These are the real deal Mark, subject to response by Urban Renewal and the Downtown Design Review Committee. This is the equivalent of the day the renderings for Devon Energy Center were unveiled at the downtown library way, way back in 2008.
http://newsok.com/stage-center-site-chat-with-steve-lackmeyer/article/5349363
New nine-story boutique hotel planned for Bricktown
by Steve Lackmeyer Modified: October 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm • Published: October 15, 2014
A parking lot in the heart of Bricktown will be home to a new boutique hotel unveiled Wednesday to 1,900 hoteliers and developers at a conference hosted by Hilton Worldwide.
A parking lot at the southeast corner of Oklahoma and Sheridan Avenues, best known for the large flagpole that often flies flags for the Thunder, Barons and RedHawks sports teams, is set to be developed as the home to a nine-story Canopy by Hilton boutique hotel. Photo by Steve Lackmeyer, The Oklahoman
Tulsa hotelier Andy Patel bought the southeast corner of Oklahoma and Sheridan Avenues this week, paying $2 million to Bricktown Central LLC. Andy Burnett and Zach Martin with Newmark Grubb brokered the sale. Patel, CEO of Anish Hotels, could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
...
http://newsok.com/new-nine-story-boutique-hotel-planned-for-bricktown/article/5356778
Looks like this is going as approved...