Comments on: Attention Architects, Designers, Architectural Students!

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:15:12 +0000

As an architect, I question the claim that there were no feasible alternatives. I also take issue with the claim that supporting a clearly uninspired design was the only option. Rees is a big company, and could certainly weather the loss of this project if they so chose. Perhaps the rejection by the committee will free up some of those “design constraints” that seem to be developer imposed or self imposed.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:11:53 +0000

I think he was in a no win situation.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:43:04 +0000

Matt, this still brings us back full circle to one fundamental question: do you really believe any architect who stands up at a public meeting, presents this design, and declares there is no feasible architectural alternative? And is it really that horrible for someone to then publicly challenge that declaration and ask those more knowledgeable to explain whether this is true or not? (I have been privately told by several architects that there are other ways to do this design in a manner that would address concerns stated to date).

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:22:43 +0000

I just wish the line would have been drawn 5 years ago. Now there is all that crap there. You can’t fix it.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:16:17 +0000

I think in this case the developer has had a hand in design. I am not sure how the inner workings of Rees works but I have heard that Hogan is involved. Looking at the rest of his work, it is very suburban and with little cohesiveness. This seems to fit that mold.

By: Daniel Douthit

Daniel Douthit — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:11 +0000

Steve yes the developer does have that much sway in the design. Just look at the crap we got after design approval. The legacy is a great example.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:27:38 +0000

Matt, I’ve always valued your contribution to this site. Please take this as a sincere question, not an argument or snark: are you suggesting that in this situation Jason is just a proxy for the developer, and that’s it really the developer who is creating and guiding the design? Is there that little involvement by the architect in this sort of project?

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:14:47 +0000

I am not arguing for the architecture. I didn’t like your approach that’s all. Lower Bricktown has been botched, plain and simple – we agree (I see Broadway heading into Edmond, personally). That isn’t Jason’s fault, that’s all I’m saying.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:29:48 +0000

Yes Matt, I’m sure. In this case, you have a developer who felt he needed to have hundreds of parking spots to ensure he could satisfy the demands of his tenants. He could have approached the city about doing a TIF-funded garage, as other developers have done. If you look at any other major development going on downtown, most go to great pains to incorporate structured parking (Level, The Edge, 2nd Street Lofts, Central Avenue Villas, 4th Street Apartments). A garage is about to be built to allow for more development of the area around NW 10 and Broadway. But Hogan has avoided any such effort, going instead for buildings that critics compare to Brixton Square, the suburban shopping center built along NW Expressway in the 1980s.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:04:53 +0000

Are you sure, Steve? If there isn’t a requirement, how come there is so much surface parking with tree plantings and concrete curbs in lower Bricktown? If a developer doesn’t have to pay for that, why would they?