City mulls choices for urban makeover
By Steve Lackmeyer
Main Street

Old-timers downtown still bristle at the mention of internationally renowned architect and urban planner I.M. Pei. Justified or not, they blame the man for the 1960s-era Urban Renewal program that successfully targeted more than half of the Central Business District for acquisition and demolition.

The Oklahoma City Council faces a similar crossroads today — buy property, either through the market or by eminent domain, all of the area dubbed as Core to Shore, or will the free market dictate the area's future? Or should the city pursue a bit of both approaches, as recommended by city staff?

The city already has started down this path, somewhat, with its recent $3.6 million purchase of the U.S. Postal Service distribution center at 320 SW 5. The site represented a large chunk of the land targeted for a park that is planned as part of revitalization of a largely blighted area between downtown and the Oklahoma River.

If the city were to avoid a repeat of the I.M. Pei plan approach, it would only buy properties for public use — mostly parks and parking lots. But, as noted in a report being delivered to the city council, a full market approach risks speculation that could lead to artificially high property prices and either scattered or poor development that could hurt the area's revitalization.

Assistant City Manager Cathy O'Connor, one of the key players in the Core to Shore planning, says the city doesn't have the resources to repeat the I.M. Pei plan. Back then, millions of federal dollars paid for acquisition and clearance. The feds aren't as generous these days.

But O'Connor notes some speculative purchases already have taken place. So, the city council is being advised to follow a mix of the two approaches. The city, likely through the Urban Renewal Authority, would acquire land for public use and also would seek to buy or claim eminent domain to obtain "strategic properties” deemed critical for ensuring implementation of Core to Shore.

What do property owners think?
Expect some controversy to follow, either way. Property owners along S Robinson Avenue — an area known as "hubcap alley” because of its mix of junk yards and auto parts shops — have met several times in the past few months to discuss whether they might be targeted for removal as part of Core to Shore.
Some property owners say they're ready for a buyout or are resigned to a change in the neighborhoods. Others have vowed to fight, though the city is not targeting any land south of the Interstate 40 alignment. Regardless, it's clear the days of simply discussing Core to Shore are over. Now, as in the early days of MAPS, we may very well be about to witness the "butchering of the steer.”

What's Next?
The offices of the Salvation Army, 311 SW 5, and Oklahoma Goodwill Industries, 410 SW 3, are scheduled to be acquired as part of Core to Shore. O'Connor said she doubts eminent domain will be needed with either of the landowners, since they are both nonprofit organizations.

IMO they should let the free market work with all the land for private use. Just make sure it is zoned very specifically to fit the C2S masterplan, and that the Downtown Design Board or something like it has to approve everything. The zoning/planning should set rental vs. for sale as well as a variety of price ranges.

Zoning dealing with massing is the most critical. Minimum heights, setbacks, and density.

Eminent domain should definitely not be used.

I still don't think you can compare this with the Pei plan. What is worth saving in that part of town is being saved (ex. Union Station building). It isn't like we are in danger of losing dozens of irreplaceable buildings.

Nm

Oklahoma City eyes buying land south of downtown
By Steve Lackmeyer
Business Writer

Oklahoma City will pursue "strategic properties” in the mostly blighted area dubbed Core to Shore, but city council members on Tuesday chose not to repeat an entire acquisition of the area similar to actions taken downtown 40 years ago.

Council members weighed three choices presented by Planning Director Russell Claus on how to proceed with Core to Shore, an area south of downtown bordered by the existing alignment of Interstate 40 to the north and the Oklahoma River to the south:


• Full market: Claus said the "purely public sector approach” would buy areas only needed for public purposes — a park and trails. The remainder would be left to private developers with the quality being directed by zoning and design guidelines. Claus cautioned such an approach is subject to speculation and uneven development.

• Full control: The city, likely through the Urban Renewal Authority, would acquire the entire 750-acres. The approach would require increased use of eminent domain and Claus said the city could be left holding some properties for 30 years.

• Direct market: The city would acquire land for public purposes and as well as properties deemed strategic for protecting public investment and catalyzing private development.

Claus recommended the direct market approach, telling council members it also would provide needed certainty for developers looking to invest in the area.

"We believe we would be able to implement the plan quicker this way,” Claus said. "It minimizes speculation. It reduces the amount of public sector intervention in the private sector as a whole. But it still allows us to have sufficient direction in implementation of the plan.”

Council members agreed the city shouldn't seek to acquire the entire Core to Shore area — but didn't agree with Councilman Brian Walters' opinion that they should limit their land purchases to property needed for the park.

So they agreed on Direct Market then? I think that's good.

Eminent domain should definitely not be used.

It's the cheapest alternative for the city though. It assures us that we don't have to be gouged by holdouts.

That's in everyone's best interest except for the person trying to gouge the taxpayer.

For what? What Core to Shore? I wouldn't buy anything until we know what's happening at Union Station. Why spend money for a park that no one will use? Why buy land for development when we don't know if anyone will even go there?

I guarantee you, if the real estate market can maintain these $250+/sq. ft. prices, anything and everything which can potentially be dubbed "urban" will be developed at a record pace.

It's the cheapest alternative for the city though. It assures us that we don't have to be gouged by holdouts.

They are talking about the land that will be private. They will only use eminent domain if necessary to obtain the land for the parks.

I guarantee you, if the real estate market can maintain these $250+/sq. ft. prices, anything and everything which can potentially be dubbed "urban" will be developed at a record pace.

But will they? If Core to Shore isn't developed as it was outlined, it would make me rethink moving downtown, although I'm already committed, and there's no way I'd move into the Core to Shore area without the park as outlined.

But will they? If Core to Shore isn't developed as it was outlined, it would make me rethink moving downtown, although I'm already committed, and there's no way I'd move into the Core to Shore area without the park as outlined.

The substantial redevelopment of the C2S area is at the minimum another twenty-five to thirty year process and would take even longer without the impact of the Devon building. Unlike C2S, Bricktown had a good stock of existing buildings and Neal Horton did the first rehab work down there in the late 70's and early 80's. Of course the oil bust stalled that revitalization process for several years, but it has still been over 20 years since Spaghetti Warehouse opened, which signaled the real beginning of Bricktown.

From the late 40's through the mid-60's, downtown was a vital, thriving urban community. No vacant land or empty buildings. Today, the Central Business District is just now turning the corner and heading for sustained redevelopment. I mark the low point of the destruction wrought by Urban Renewal at October 16, 1977 . . . when the Biltmore Hotel was taken down . . . 31 years ago. It's a long slide down and an equally long or longer time back.

If you add The Triangle, The Hill, Deep Deuce and all the rest to Bricktown, the area is about the same as C2S and that whole east of the tracks near downtown area is only about half developed at this point. So, betts, if you are going to wait until C2S has quite a bit of housing and commercial development before you consider a move, it will be a long wait.

Enjoy the process.

For once i agree with the old fart, I think a lot of people are thinking of C2S as a 10 year project or something. This is something that's going to be decades long folks. As much land as there is there, the city is going to be investing a CRAPLOAD of money just to buy it up, much less build it. We've got a LOT of land around the core that still has plenty life in it for development outside of C2S and it's currently much more attractive.

I'm extremely excited on the possiblities C2S has to offer, but I'm also a realist. It's not going to happen while I'm still young so I'm thinking of it as an investment in my children's future in OKC. How will it help their city....and it totally will.

The biggest point to think....look at the masterplan. Now consider this. How many times have masterplans come out, that the end result resembled the masterplan? It pretty much never happens. Every project gets changed and adjust to different influences. We just have to sit back, enjoy the ride, and see what happens.

For once i agree with the old fart, I think a lot of people are thinking of C2S as a 10 year project or something. This is something that's going to be decades long folks. As much land as there is there, the city is going to be investing a CRAPLOAD of money just to buy it up, much less build it. We've got a LOT of land around the core that still has plenty life in it for development outside of C2S and it's currently much more attractive.

I'm extremely excited on the possiblities C2S has to offer, but I'm also a realist. It's not going to happen while I'm still young so I'm thinking of it as an investment in my children's future in OKC. How will it help their city....and it totally will.

The biggest point to think....look at the masterplan. Now consider this. How many times have masterplans come out, that the end result resembled the masterplan? It pretty much never happens. Every project gets changed and adjust to different influences. We just have to sit back, enjoy the ride, and see what happens.Your point is right on. Remember the "String of Pearls" project? I can't wait until it's completed. I wonder what ever happen to those horses.

If you add The Triangle, The Hill, Deep Deuce and all the rest to Bricktown, the area is about the same as C2S and that whole east of the tracks near downtown area is only about half developed at this point. So, betts, if you are going to wait until C2S has quite a bit of housing and commercial development before you consider a move, it will be a long wait.

Enjoy the process.

I'm actually already moving to the Triangle. Money has been put down, and work is progressing. I'll be there by midwinter. But, every night I walk in the 2 mile park in our neighborhood, and I know I'm going to miss that terribly. My nephew lives in Manhattan, and he pops out his front door and walks in Central Park anytime he wants. I want the same for our downtown. I want a Central Park, because I think green is far more important to people than most of the urbanists realize. Yes, it's cool to have high rise commercial and apartment buildings and density. I appreciate that as well. But, people need green. People need to walk. Making a walkable city is far more important to me than mass transit. Mass transit allows the people who live in the suburbs to get to downtown. For those of us who live downtown, mass transit isn't as important as having places to walk to and in.

Maybe they will get rid of that eyesore U-Haul building when they demolish the old Crosstown. It would only take a slight miscalculation to accidentally knock the thing down!!

Seriously - does anyone know of any plan to encourage that business to relocate? The place is horribly out of place now and will only become more of a sore thumb as the boulevard and future development occurs in that area.

Yeah, it is ugly. What about doing some development the parking lots in front of it and are they going to develop the area between Sonic Headquarters and the hotel?

Yeah, it is ugly. What about doing some development the parking lots in front of it and are they going to develop the area between Sonic Headquarters and the hotel?
I think that you and CaptDave are being just a bit harsh with that building. Sure, I agree that it would be nice if the U-Haul truck and the facade that masks the real building would go, but not the building itself.

Originally, it was the Iten Biscuit Building, a basically white building, construction starting in 1911 and ending in 1912. Here's a postcard from Vanished Splendor -- a salesman's card --

Larger: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/bricktown/itenbiscuit.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/bricktown/itenbiscuitm.jpg

This Oklahoman article announced the building:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/bricktown/iten_7_22_1911.jpg

Steve's OKC: 2nd Time Around shows some great things planned for that building which looked very cool before Neal Horton's Bricktown plans stalled out; Steve's upcoming Bricktown book shows at least one marvelous photo of this building early on. Personally, I think that it is a treasure.

Change of use? Sure. Demolition? No way.

Doug thanks for the great piece of history. Interesting stuff. Is Oklahoma City still considered the center of the Southwest in the cracker industry? I think at one point in time another company by the name" Bake-Rite" had this building. But I could be wrong. Maybe they bought out the Iten Cracker Co.

Heh. As far as I'm aware, we've quackered out! ;) Maybe someone else knows differently, though.

Originally, it was the Iten Biscuit Building, a basically white building, construction starting in 1911 and ending in 1912. Here's a postcard from Vanished Splendor -- a salesman's card --


Steve's OKC: 2nd Time Around shows some great things planned for that building which looked very cool before Neal Horton's Bricktown plans stalled out; Steve's upcoming Bricktown book shows at least one marvelous photo of this building early on. Personally, I think that it is a treasure.

Change of use? Sure. Demolition? No way.


Wow - that facade is hidden under that building??!! You are correct Doug - I agree that should be restored and it would be a significant addition (or 're-addition') to the area.

You'd never guess it was there if we didn't have people like Doug around to remind us of things like this. I've been visiting OKC since 1990 and lived here since 2002. I remember thinking the first time I visited that was a silly place for such a huge U-Haul building.

I stand corrected - thanks Doug.

im amazed this would add some character to the rather suburban looking Lower Bricktown development. It would make for amazing loft space

It's the cheapest alternative for the city though. It assures us that we don't have to be gouged by holdouts.

That's in everyone's best interest except for the person trying to gouge the taxpayer.

I don't trust the practice of taking land for the "public good", usually way under paid of market value.

Wow - that facade is hidden under that building??!! You are correct Doug - I agree that should be restored and it would be a significant addition (or 're-addition') to the area.

You'd never guess it was there if we didn't have people like Doug around to remind us of things like this. I've been visiting OKC since 1990 and lived here since 2002. I remember thinking the first time I visited that was a silly place for such a huge U-Haul building.

I stand corrected - thanks Doug.
Well, it must be said that I'm pretty ignorant of the warehouse district and that it was STEVE that educated me about this building -- not the construction detail but what it looked like in the 1st place. I learned the construction and historic detail early this morning when surfing the Oklahoman on-line archives. Steve has a photo, at least one, which shows this building in a pristine and utterly "white" mode state, with cars circa the 1910s circumventing the building, and that photo is included in his upcoming Bricktown Arcadia book.

While I'm not at liberty to share that photo, I don't think that Steve would mind me posting this concept drawing of this building back in Neal Horton's day since it has already been published in his OKC: 2nd Time Around. Bill Peterson (my son's godfather, as a matter of fact) was one of Horton's Bricktown associates, and Steve included the following concept drawing for this building ... which, of course, never happened ... at page 55 of his OKC: 2nd Time Around, the source for the image below:

Larger: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/bricktown/biscuitsquare.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/bricktown/biscuitsquares.jpg

Now, to be sure, I'm in no position to say whether the nice "white" surface of this building, as shown in its very early day photos, is still "present" under the current U-Haul facade or not, and/or if it is not, what the cost would be to "reinvent" it as was done with so much of the much more recent Skirvin reconstruction, which was exceptionally pricey to do. I don't know. But, for sure, this building was, in its time, one of the most distinctive buildings in the warehouse district ... and, actually, downtown generally. It's construction being done in 1912, it remains as one of the oldest remaining "downtown" buildings that exist today.

Would be great for a project with retail on the ground floor and lofts above, like Ft. Worth's Montgomery Plaza.

http://atomicglee.com/blogpics/montgomeryplaza1.jpg

Not so magnificent a building, but you can see the similarities. And if the canal were ever extended between Harkins and the Centennial as originally planned, this would be right on it.

Doug, to answer your question, the facade of that building IS in fact substantially intact. In fact, the metal facade has actually entombed and preserved it.

Additionally, the original casement windows are there too. Highly unusual this day and age. I have a storage space in the building, and everytime I am in there I marvel at the condition of the windows, which you can see from the inside. The storage units have all been built freestanding in the space itself, and haven't altered interior of the building in any way that can't be undone with a Caterpillar and a dumpster. It would be possible for someone to do an amazing preservation/restoration of that place.

It's perhaps the best-suited building in the city for true New York-style loft housing, for instance, other than the old Fred Jones Manufacturing plant on west Main.

The challenge would be for someone to make it worthwhile for the U-Haul folks to move to a new facility, and not go broke doing it. That thing has to be a cashflow bonanza as it sits. It would probably be difficult to talk them into going through the hassle of moving all of their tenants. But hopefully the numbers will one day work to do just that. The building is beautiful under that skin, and it would be a shame for that beauty to never again see the light of day.

Forgot to mention: those casement windows are floor to ceiling, and wrap the building on all four sides. EVERY apartment would have a view, assuming it was adapted to lofts.

It never ceases to amaze me how anything really cool in OKC is ignored. Are there no developers with any vision there? You could have awesome loft spaces in a historic building in Bricktown and yet we get crap like the Legacy at Arts. Will OKC ever join the rest of the country in turning its historic places into real assets?

Is it lack of vision, or lack of adequate wallet.

Presume you're the U-haul chap. You've been in that location over 25 years. Via the rooftop truck, you own your own billboard next to a route tens of thousands travel daily. When it goes, there's supposed to still be local traffic via a new blvd.

You're in place, minimum expenses at this point, lots of space rented contracts, likely many customers who prefer the convenient access to you.

And so, you should give this up, relocate, disrupt your customers, possibly lose some long term customers, advertise to reestablish what you already possess so someone can have a nifty loft in a few years.

Can't speak for you, but if I'm the UH chap, yes, it's going to cost someone, if I'm even willing to consider it.

TaurusNYC, I hear your point, but would you mind watching the language? Thanks.

Oooohhh, TaurusNYC got in trouble.

Well when they move the crosstown, they won't be as close and hence they won't have the advertising spot anymore. Maybe that will help?

Will OKC ever join the rest of the country in turning its historic places into real assets?


Please.... I've live all over and it's just as bad ir worse. I've lived in NYC and Boston... I remember this being a joke "New York tears it down and builds new... Boston puts a plaque on it and calls it 'historical'

Yes, those places have probably lost more historical buildings than we have ever had, but there is a reason for that. Obviously, their inventory of buildings is both larger and older, but they also have a lot more limited real estate than we do and often have to sacrifice old structures to create real estate for new projects. And they can tear down 30 buildings without eliminating a whole era of architecture from their inventory. In some cases, we could tear down 3 and it would be hard to tell OKC built in anything in some periods.

On the flip side, those cities are usually more successful with the properties they do preserve and that has a lot to do with critical mass. Their markets are large enough that even a small percentage of consumers who put a premium on preservation can support a lot of their efforts to offset additional costs.

And you will also find a lot more respect for the market from outside developers when they bring their concepts to those cities. Many chains who place businesses in Oklahoma City force their model on the city. In places like NYC or Boston you often see them force the city into their models. Beyond simple pride, the companies know that they will be able to get a return even after accommodating historic or other aesthetic sensibilities and will actually gain good will in doing so. Unfortunately, in OKC they often simply see a chance to go as cheap as possible and know that they will gain little if any good will from the community, especially in the way of tangible premium for their products or services, by investing more in aesthetics or historical renovation.

I would to see something build over the canal like that. Give yourself some truly covered area for some protected Outdoor plaza development. It has the potential to be so awesome. I've often wondered about putting a glass ceiling over upper bricktown.

I think it would be very cool to redevelop the Uhaul building back to it's Biscuit days.

I would to see something build over the canal like that. Give yourself some truly covered area for some protected Outdoor plaza development. It has the potential to be so awesome. I've often wondered about putting a glass ceiling over upper bricktown.

I think it would be very cool to redevelop the Uhaul building back to it's Biscuit days.

Not a bad idea at all. In fact, to compensate for the less than Orlando/Anaheim type weather that Tokyo gets, Disneyland built a huge roof over Main Street at Tokyo Disneyland.

http://www.jtcent.com/disneyland/world/images/wbrlftout.jpg

That would be a pretty cool idea for Bricktown.

I don't trust the practice of taking land for the "public good", usually way under paid of market value.

Actually, I've been involved in a few condemnation cases (we do a few of those where I work). To be honest, I've never seen a land owner get paid less than market value for property. In fact, in just about every case, we've collected enough money that the condemning entity has been responsible for our attorneys fees (if the landowner ends up with 10% more than the original Commissioner's Award, attorneys fees are paid).

Assuming the landowner's lawyer knows what he or she is doing, it's a decently fair process.

And in Oklahoma, the property has to be taken for a public use, not for a public purpose. In other words, what went down in Kelo v. Rhode Island (city condemned a neighborhood to sell to a private firm which would build condos in order to increase the tax base was given the green light because the project was for a public purpose) can't happen here as the Oklahoma Constitution provides a greater degree of protection than does the U.S. Constitution.

I would to see something build over the canal like that. Give yourself some truly covered area for some protected Outdoor plaza development. It has the potential to be so awesome. I've often wondered about putting a glass ceiling over upper bricktown.

I think it would be very cool to redevelop the Uhaul building back to it's Biscuit days.

That would be the last thing that would cure that districts ills.

Yeah, indoor malls are out, remember?

It would be more of a clear glass awning... that green iron between the panes would fit with the brick theme, too, I think.

Sounds kind of like what they did to Penn Square 20 years ago.