View Full Version : Fire damages the landmark something-or-other building.

01-01-2011, 07:16 PM
The building at NW 30 and Classen, which I hear they were going to tear down, anyway.

Larry OKC
01-02-2011, 04:48 AM
Steve's blog ( ) has some pics and a link to the story in the Oklahoman

01-02-2011, 08:29 AM
That's a shame. I was hoping they were going to renovate those buildings. Looks like there will be another strip mall slated for construction there.

Larry OKC
01-04-2011, 01:22 AM
Owner plans to raze Oklahoma City building damaged by fire (Oklahoman, 1/4/11)

A burned-out two-story commercial building at NW 30th and Classen will be torn down in a few weeks and declared a complete loss, owner Sue Tran said.

complete story here:

01-04-2011, 06:27 AM
Wonder if that was an insurance collection fire? Seems convenient for that to happen at a time when people seem to be remodeling or rebuilding all sorts of structures in that few blocks for the "district".

01-04-2011, 08:36 AM
some folks sure be suspicious when fire be involved.

Larry OKC
01-04-2011, 11:30 PM
often with good reason or the fire department wouldn't go to the trouble of determining the cause

01-05-2011, 07:21 AM
Just glad the violin shop next door was unharmed. They have some nice fiddles in there. I recall the last time I was there, I tried out a fiddle from the 18th century they had on hand.

01-05-2011, 07:31 AM
often with good reason or the fire department wouldn't go to the trouble of determining the cause

But are they in this instance? Article linked earlier noted:

[/URL]... the cause of the fire is still unknown and could remain unknown.
“The integrity of the structure was corrupted and to get in there and dig out the origin of the fire would be dangerous for a fire investigator,” Clay said....

Read more: [URL] (

Larry OKC
01-07-2011, 01:39 AM
Good point. Wonder what effect that might have on an insurance claim (if no official cause can be determined)?

01-09-2011, 09:36 PM
Larry OKC nice dig at the OCFD. We have highly trained arson investigators and I am confident if it was too dangerous to enter. The insurance company would certainly have the building taken apart to find a cause. They don't just right checks without doing a little work first.

In a side note, The Company officer who led the initial interior fire attack retired at 0700 that morning after the fire. He had over 25 years on the dept. When they had climbed the stairs to the top of the landing they stopped and he made an assessment. He told me he thought to himself, too much fire, we don't need to be in here. As they pulled out and got to the bottom step the roof started collapsing and they all walked away. Sure hate to see a guy with his knowledge and expirience retire.

Larry OKC
01-09-2011, 11:32 PM
Mike, think you misread my post, wasn't a dig at all (my post was responding to the "suspicious" one right above it). Basically saying it is because people are suspicious (esp the insurance co), that is why official causes are determined. By the way, if a building is vacant, does insurance pay? Seems I have read about homes under construction or renovation that were vacant/unoccupied when fires happened and no insurance money. May not apply to commercial properties. Don't know.

01-10-2011, 07:07 AM
Larry, FWIW, one can hold fire insurance on a vacant building. It's generally obtained at a greater cost than for an occupied structure, but it exists.
I've no knowledge as to whether the structures here were insured at an appropriate level, or at all.