“I Have a Bone to Pick With You …”
Yeah, as you can imagine, I hear that sometimes. And I start off by listening.
This time, the complaint was voiced by a member of the Downtown Design Review Committee. He noted that with the Palo Duro project they were only holding to what the ordinance allows them to dictate.
Exactly.
I’m not arguing that point at all. But other design review committees have found a way to use, how shall we refer to it?… Peer Pressure.
Think about it. When McDonalds wanted to build a restaurant in Bricktown, they only had a compliance problem with the the footprint of the building, not the exterior design itself. The design committee knew they couldn’t really dictate the exterior design in that part of the district, and yet they demanded and urged McDonalds to do better. They used their bully pulpit to tell the community that McDonalds was trying to settle for a franchise design for this historic district. McDonalds got the message and changed their designs. They worked with city staff and architects on the committee to come up with a design that most felt was much more appropriate for the old warehouse district.
We’ve seen this done on other projects as well, and with other urban design districts.
So what do you think? Should a design committee only concern itself with what does or does not comply with the letter of the law? Or should they try to influence property owners to come up with better designs when the designs they submit are judged to be detrimental to the community?
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
the design review committee just wants to do what the “ordinace says” quote quote. Too many of the members or the committee may have to come before other design boards and they don’t want to cause too much trouble because the paybacks could be hell. Remember a certain historic preservation member that when their designs came to the committee they had to deal with a dose of their same medicine they had dealt out.
If the first rendering is what they used to sell the project, and then they cheaped out on the construction phase because they could – then the ordinance need to be tightened up.
Obviously, they should also help determine how that future building not only fits “with the letter of the law,” but also how it’s presence maybe in or out of context with it’s direct surroundings and if it is deterring or adding to the environment. Obviously this building does not add to the urban environment of the area.
If they merely wish to just serve the compliance of the law and don’t give crap about the fragile environment that the building may affect, then they need to leave. It should be a balance.
…the Bricktown Fire Station is another example of the Committee exercising influence beyond the letter of the law. The Palo Duro approval smells like the Chamber of Commerce approval… Kent might be right about the politics.
A simple computer program can “hold to what the ordinance allows.” If that’s the excuse, why HAVE a committee? Committees are like a drip of water following the path of least resistance. If there are no obstructions, they must expedite. If anyone voices “concern” during the approval process, they have to address it (drip around the obstruction).
There must not have been any obstructions at the last Palo Duro review meeting. Too bad.
Why have a committee if they’re just going to look at the ordinance? An assistant who works for the city could do that.
Frankly, this morning I’m more upset that the city is going to waste taxpayer dollars and tear up downtown streets twice for Project 180 and MAPS3– rather than do them at the same time. They are also going to delay the streetcar system for years.
They should be encouraged to view their charter more broadly – I would definitely echo there would be no need for a committee otherwise. I’m also not surprised that they are going to tear up the streets twice. Denver voted in a tax for its streetcar system starting in the 1970s. It wasn’t until a few decades later the plan finally got going on implementation. Hopefully, ours won’t take so long as Denver’s streetcar system, and all the basic prep work will already be done.
Kris Bryant, I don’t get your analogy of comparing the political parties to a design review process. Not coming after you, I think the committee should be free of politics and should govern to higher standards for everyone.
I think the design review committee should force architects/ designers to come up with something better than what could be built along the highway in the suburbs. I don’t think that just anybody should be allowed to develop downtown either. Have the right amount of funds to be able to do a project right, not value engineer it into mediocrity…I just hope in 80 years someone doesn’t think the building is historical just because it is old…
In my opinion, the difference appears to be: should the Committee have regulatory power or just an “influential” power once the letter of ordinances have been met (i.e. should the Committee have some additional powers beyond that of seeing an ordinance is adhered to). I think I agree with the premise of this post that the Committee should encourage developers to design and build in a qualitative manner befitting the area. My problem is going beyond this encouragement and bestowing powers upon the Committee that would halt a developer’s ability to build without meeting whatever whims the Committee may have. If a builder wants to risk protests, letters to the editor, and decreased citizen goodwill by building a classless eyesore I am fine with that as it is their property and they are meeting the letter of the law.
If you give the Committee broad powers to dictate that developers must build whatever the Committee feels best for the area you run the risk of personal grudges, individual caprices, and a whole host of other issues I think we would like our development committees to avoid. Besides, where does it end? What if Mr. X doesn’t like the shrubs, Mrs. Y doesn’t like the color of brick, etc. etc.? What would be the limit of such powers? It can be one of those slippery slopes. With all that said though, this project certainly seems to be in sharp contrast to the building it is supposedly expanding upon and appears that it will look rather odd once it is complete and standing next to one another.
Matt, my infusion of politics was meant to illustrate my understanding that political philosophy guides how we see the role and function of municipal committees. They question always becomes: how should we balance public and private interests?
Matt – I can almost guarantee you that it is designed to the wishes of the developer and/or budget set forth by that particular developer. Most of us would rather do something “nice” rather than mundane but the developers are the ones who approve the designs and pay for your services, so if you want to keep an office open in this environment, you design to their wishes. That is the unfortunate reality most of the time and even more so right now.
There has to be a balance between what cities and committees want and what they demand. When jurisdictions start demanding a certain style you end up with a cookie cutter world where everything looks the same. Some people love while others do not but it gets to a point where you can only use “this type” of stone, window, roof, etc. We have quite a few jurisdictions/neighborhood areas around Austin which do this and then “design” is completely removed from the designer and developer. I personally don’t like the dictating of standards in most cases, it panders to the lowest common denominator.
That all depends upon your view of the role of government. The tea party and libertarian advocates among us would say that committees have no business dictating the specificities of private enterprise. The “socialists” among us prefer to work for the common good. My feeling is that the former outweighs the latter in these parts, for the most part.