I'd prefer the tower. Take towers while you can get 'em. Housing units like those above can be built by anybody.

Truth, we've had quite a bit of housing built over the last decade to one significant tower. Also housing was said to be planned for the Hudson and Sheridan corner building anyway. If more people are going to live downtown, we also need more large places for them to work everyday and we are very short on both class A space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why?

I just prefer low-rise/mid-rise density.

I just prefer low-rise/mid-rise density.

All three densities are important when done properly.

I'd take the tower. More jobs which equates to more housing and density in the long run.

I just prefer low-rise/mid-rise density.

As we've discussed on this board, tower construction is important for psyche and perception. OKC needs another tower or two. I am all for low-rise infill, but reality is one 45 story tower would have a greater effect on public perception than blanketing all of Midtown in four-story buildings.

As we've discussed on this board, tower construction is important for psyche and perception. OKC needs another tower or two. I am all for low-rise infill, but reality is one 45 story tower would have a greater effect on public perception than blanketing all of Midtown in four-story buildings.

^^Like^^

As we've discussed on this board, tower construction is important for psyche and perception. OKC needs another tower or two. I am all for low-rise infill, but reality is one 45 story tower would have a greater effect on public perception than blanketing all of Midtown in four-story buildings.

Ugh. Once again you swing to the other extreme.

If there was a choice between all of Midtown being almost completely densified or a 45 floor building, I'd take the Midtown density.

Even showing that picture is enough to give PluPan an aneurism...maaaan. I just got out of the hospital to hoping no-one would've suspected my short absence was due me seeing this short building ;)

If there was a choice between all of Midtown being almost completely densified or a 45 floor building, I'd take the Midtown density.

Fortunately, we are well on our way to having both.

Really -- and I know most people realize this -- one has nothing to do with the other.

Ugh. Once again you swing to the other extreme.

If there was a choice between all of Midtown being almost completely densified or a 45 floor building, I'd take the Midtown density.

If given a choice of one or the other, I probably would choose a densified Midtown as well. The comment was to illustrate the point that a tower would have a greater effect on the OKC's perception and psyche than a completely densified Midtown. We now have a potential tower, so wishing a four-story building was going on that exact site instead doesn't make sense.

If given a choice of one or the other, I probably would choose a densified Midtown as well. The comment was to illustrate the point that a tower would have a greater effect on the OKC's perception and psyche than a completely densified Midtown. We now have a potential tower, so wishing a four-story building was going on that exact site instead doesn't make sense.

That must be a personal thing because I don't need building height to effect my psyche :).

Very interesting find... This was done by Bockus Payne in 2010.

Looks like Preftakes at one time considered housing for Main & Hudson while wanting to maintain the storefronts:


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/8328d1403632020-preftakes-block-preftakeshousing.jpg

Wow!! That looks awesome. A tower component would be even cooler.

This gives me some hope.

^

Yep!

It shows it's on their mind. Would be very cool to see a nice glass tower atop that base.

I'm sure there would be all types of challenges, like having to pour a very deep concrete base; remember they went down like 4 levels just with concrete for Devon.

The good news is they could access from the alley and lot behind for all their work.

It seems like an announcement is coming soon on the rumored Main & Hudson tower and considering the massive amount of negative fallout that is sure to follow the Stage Center demolition, I have a hard time believing that someone would want to come out with plans that include razing this small bit that remains of historic Main Street.

The timing of it all gives me hope they might plan to keep them. Otherwise, that's going to be a horrific PR hill to climb given the timing.

They'll get whatever they want, it's just that they have the opportunity to do truly world class. I hope they seize that.

Sometimes the protesters don't hate you. They just expect better knowing the opportunity you have.

It seems like an announcement is coming soon on the rumored Main & Hudson tower and considering the massive amount of negative fallout that is sure to follow the Stage Center demolition, I have a hard time believing that someone would want to come out with plans that include razing this small bit that remains of historic Main Street.

The timing of it all gives me hope they might plan to keep them. Otherwise, that's going to be a horrific PR hill to climb given the timing.

You are over estimating the general publics care for stage center and even move so for any of the buildings on this block

You are over estimating the general publics care for stage center and even move so for any of the buildings on this block

Wrong. The general public doesn't even yet know that the cool "chutes and ladders and boxes" bldg is threatened.

They'll get whatever they want, it's just that they have the opportunity to do truly world class. I hope they seize that.

Sometimes the protesters don't hate you. They just expect better knowing the opportunity you have.

And world class doesn't have to mean keeping any of the buildings

And world class doesn't have to mean keeping any of the buildings

Well unless they're planning to build the new WTC...they should harness the power of contextual opportunities. Every design professional they go to is telling them that right now, regardless of the gross SF.

It's a majority, unless you think people will say "wow that's a cool parking garage and small tower!"

Wrong. The general public doesn't even yet know that the cool "chutes and ladders and boxes" bldg is threatened.

Except I am not wrong. I am not talking about people on okctalk or. Those interested in downtown development. The community at large (clearly some people will) will not shed a tear when stage comes down and they also could not care less if these buildings come down. The #1 response I got from the stage center demo announcement was. Good riddance

Except I am not wrong. I am not talking about people on okctalk or. Those interested in downtown development. The community at large (clearly some people will) will not shed a tear when stage comes down and they also could not care less if these buildings come down. The #1 response I got from the stage center demo announcement was. Good riddance

So you want the historic Main Street fabric white-washed or not?

So you want the historic Main Street fabric white-washed or not?

I think it would be great if they could incorporate the existing structure. But thinking the public at large cares either way is naive

^^^^^^

Agreed

I think it would be great if they could incorporate the existing structure. But thinking the public at large cares either way is naive

Remember SandRidge?

The Sandridge demolition controversies were invisible to the public at large. The percentage of the metro population who knew there was a controversy at all probably numbered below 10%, the percentage of those who knew the location of the buildings in question was smaller still, and the percentage who cared smaller yet. Boulder is right.

The Sandridge demolition controversies were invisible to the public at large. The percentage of the metro population who knew there was a controversy at all probably numbered below 10%, the percentage of those who knew the location of the buildings in question was smaller still, and the percentage who cared smaller yet. Boulder is right.

You mean that less than 10% of the metro population knows where SandRidge tower/commons is? Based off of this "pool" what percentage knows who Kevin Durant is?

You mean that less than 10% of the metro population knows where SandRidge tower/commons is? Based off of this "pool" what percentage knows who Kevin Durant is?

95% lol

^^^^^^^^^
Yep, that's about right.

Remember SandRidge?Now that you bring the matter up, yes I do remember. And I remember even more intensely the condition of the Wright Building, the old original India Temple, as far back as 1948. As a high school student, I worked part-time at Oklahoma Photo, up the street at 315 N Broadway, and insured my cameras through Hubert Gotthold, whose office was on the second floor of the Wright Building on the corner. Every time I went there, I was fearful of the antiquated elevator but even more so of the stairway. The building reeked of decay and lack of maintenance even then.

In all fairness, the same could be said of the upper floors of most of the buildings along Main Street. Office buildings such as Medical Arts were well kept up, but the second-story areas of the retail areas were mostly totally run-down. Rodents were rife. Many were simply cheap rooming houses, tenement-like in atmosphere. None were well maintained.

I'm as bitter as anyone here about what we did in the name of Urban Renewal, especially so since I remember downtown in all its vanished splendor. But I can't deny that the owners of those properties brought it on themselves by deferring maintenance as long as they did, creating the blight that became the excuse for bringing in the wrecking balls...

Had SandRidge been allowed by its internal politics to complete its original plan, we might not be using this as The Horrible Example. Would anyone prefer the seedy beer joints that used to line Reno and California from Santa Fe west to Walker, to what we have in that region today? Preservation for its own sake is every bit as fanatical as is destruction. And Urbanism-gone-wild that leads to the concrete canyons of Manhattan isn't necessarily all that great either...

You mean that less than 10% of the metro population knows where SandRidge tower/commons is? Based off of this "pool" what percentage knows who Kevin Durant is?

Nick its us 1%ers that know what is going on in this city. The 99%ers just wonder around aimlessly.

You mean that less than 10% of the metro population knows where SandRidge tower/commons is? Based off of this "pool" what percentage knows who Kevin Durant is?

That figure is probably accurate. My wife worked downtown and didn't know which building was the Sandridge building. The only reason she knows where it is now is because she has fundraising meetings there with people who work there. I would bet I could ask most people and the only building they would recognize would be Devon or one of the buildings with their name on it like BOK, AT&T or OG&E.

Urbanized is most likely right. Before I started to read and post on this site I didn't have any knowledge whatsoever about Downtown, Bricktown, Midtown, pretty much anything that was going on in the city in terms of development. The average person isn't going to know, not because they are stupid or don't care, but because they are unlikely to have been exposed to the knowledge.

Remember, though, that decisions to demolish buildings are not put to a popular vote.

In this case, they are made by the Downtown Design Review Committee and the members are extremely tuned into downtown and urbanism. And in fact, the only input they receive is from people who feel passionately about these subjects.

That committee also has been involved with the SandRidge demolitions and now Stage Center and each time there was strong sentiment against letting those happen, even though they ultimately did pass. Remember the "there is blood on our hands" quote from Anthony McDermid after the SandRidge decisions?

So, there is a very strong element of "here we go again" when it comes to the people making the decisions. And all this certainly matters to the groups that rally around and against such proposals.


Apart from MAPS -- which was put a general vote -- almost all the big decisions downtown and in the core are made by stakeholders and activists, so all this talk about a big percentage of citizens not knowing or caring is a bit of a red herring. Most the things that happen in the central city are very much driven by a relatively small group of passionate people and thus no one should feel any situation is hopeless or that they themselves are helpless.

We need more people to care and get involved and it doesn't much matter that 99% of the general citizenry doesn't know about some of these issues. If anything, that makes it easier to make a difference.

Remember too, Betsy Brunsteter had to recuse herself on the vote to demolish the Stage Center because she works for ADG. I've even wondered if Williams picked them to do the renderings for that very reason, since there's no indication they will be involved in the final project.

I wasn't defending the public apathy or despairing in any way. I was only agreeing with BoulderSooner's statement as follows:


...But thinking the public at large cares either way [about the retention/demolition of the facades of the buildings fronting Main] is naive

I agree that the disengagement of the public at large actually makes it easier at times for an individual to make a difference. Of course, as soon as you get involved with any regularity you run the risk of being branded an "insider" or "one of the good ol' boys" or whatever by the people who like to sit on the sidelines and throw stones. It's a catch 22.

^

Right but if you really want to contribute and make a difference you also have to accept that some are going to take shots at you.

That will never change.

It has been around at least since Teddy Roosevelt's time:


It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

^

Love that quote. So very true.


And yet I realize it still stings when you feel you are being attacked.

I don't think we need to support failure, and I don't mean to scoff at the great Progressive president, but I'm speaking with an eye toward staunch specificity of high standards. You have to beat that horse to death. The bar won't raise itself until the community is seen as demanding it whether they are or aren't.

I know a lot of folks on this board have a cool online persona of being the contrarian. Great, be a fly in some other ointment. It is vital that anyone looking at the Preftakes block understands that the community IS watching regardless of how jaded it may have gotten over the years.

It has been around at least since Teddy Roosevelt's time:

Priceless quote

I don't think we need to support failure, and I don't mean to scoff at the great Progressive president, but I'm speaking with an eye toward staunch specificity of high standards. You have to beat that horse to death. The bar won't raise itself until the community is seen as demanding it whether they are or aren't.

I know a lot of folks on this board have a cool online persona of being the contrarian. Great, be a fly in some other ointment. It is vital that anyone looking at the Preftakes block understands that the community IS watching regardless of how jaded it may have gotten over the years.

Pretty sure I have a better feel for this community. Being that I live and work here

My take on this is that the facade could be saved, but I don't think its worth fighting for or jeopardizing the construction of a 40-story tower over. If the Stage Center isn't worth saving in this town, these buildings that are rather unremarkable sure aren't. The more I think about this, the more I like the buildings that are currently there but there are only so many shots at skyscrapers.

I love those facades and if the location were to be developed to the scale of the housing shown in that rendering would be thrilled to see them retained as shown. But if this is a 30-40 story tower it qualifies as higher and better use, and I for one would support removal of those buildings provided the tower was thoughtfully developed at the sidewalk level too.

Pretty sure I have a better feel for this community. Being that I live and work here

Hard to say because I am waiting for you to say something topical...about the block owned by Nick Preftakes, you know.

I love those facades and if the location were to be developed to the scale of the housing shown in that rendering would be thrilled to see them retained as shown. But if this is a 30-40 story tower it qualifies as higher and better use, and I for one would support removal of those buildings provided the tower was thoughtfully developed at the sidewalk level too.

Surprised to hear you say this.

But, probably not realistic for them to keep the storefronts with a project of the scale we are discussing.

Hard to say because I am waiting for you to say something topical...about the block owned by Nick Preftakes, you know.Nick? Someone else said that was your name. Do you own the Preftakes Block? ;P

So we should now base decisions to retire historic architecture on "what most people want?"

So we should now base decisions to retire historic architecture on "what most people want?"

Who said that?

Surprised to hear you say this.

But, probably not realistic for them to keep the storefronts with a project of the scale we are discussing.
Shouldn't be surprising. I love historic preservation, but I'm very consistent in supporting removals when there is a clear cut case for higher and better use. This is determined by a number of factors; building history, architectural significance, rarity of building type, etc., vs. the scale/use/quality of the replacement.

Aloft replacing the Finley building was a clear-cut case of higher and better use. If instead Aloft had proposed to tear down and replace Calvary Baptist Church across the street, it would have been extremely problematic. Aloft replacing a building like the once-abandoned Skirvin? Unthinkable.

In this case, if the housing depicted were proposed WITHOUT preserving the historic facades, it probably wouldn't be worth losing the old buildings over. The buildings could be instead renovated and repurposed as retail, restaurant and the like and have just as much or (likely) more positive impact on the neighborhood - including the link to Oklahoma City's historic Main Street - than the low-slung housing would by itself. The housing COMBINED with facade preservation though, would be a win-win.

But if instead you are talking about a high-quality high rise adding economic vitality to the city and neighborhood, the historic structures - as nice as they are - don't really qualify as important enough to stand in the way. What I would think is important at that point would be an insistence on quality development at the intersection of high rise and sidewalk.

There is far more nuance to thoughtful historic preservation than haters want to believe. Of course, there are some who are so rigid that they basically stand for zero removal, but that is really a rare and marginal view. Far more common is the opposite extreme stance - seen on this board at times - that even a parking lot or grass plot is better than an inactive old building.

Some people are simply incapable of seeing past a presently-darkened building and glimpsing the potential for renovation. They automatically assume empty means failed, cursed, whatever, and equate demolition with progress. They also often think that anyone who champions preservation is somehow AGAINST progress, and that is when you see the ugliness come out.

Fortunately we are currently seeing a surge of examples of places that have been shuttered for years - even decades - coming to life, adding economic value while preserving the community's uniqueness. This is helping the casual observer understand the potential these buildings have after all. It is a slow process of community education. UNfortunately, this is coming too late for many great old buildings, lost forever.

But again, regarding Main Street, I think the principle of higher and better use rules the day.

Like^

Shouldn't be surprising. I love historic preservation, but I'm very consistent in supporting removals when there is a clear cut case for higher and better use. This is determined by a number of factors; building history, architectural significance, rarity of building type, etc., vs. the scale/use/quality of the replacement.

Aloft replacing the Finley building was a clear-cut case of higher and better use. If instead Aloft had proposed to tear down and replace Calvary Baptist Church across the street, it would have been extremely problematic. Aloft replacing a building like the once-abandoned Skirvin? Unthinkable.

In this case, if the housing depicted were proposed WITHOUT preserving the historic facades, it probably wouldn't be worth losing the old buildings over. The buildings could be instead renovated and repurposed as retail, restaurant and the like and have just as much or (likely) more positive impact on the neighborhood - including the link to Oklahoma City's historic Main Street - than the low-slung housing would by itself. The housing COMBINED with facade preservation though, would be a win-win.

But if instead you are talking about a high-quality high rise adding economic vitality to the city and neighborhood, the historic structures - as nice as they are - don't really qualify as important enough to stand in the way. What I would think is important at that point would be an insistence on quality development at the intersection of high rise and sidewalk.

There is far more nuance to thoughtful historic preservation than haters want to believe. Of course, there are some who are so rigid that they basically stand for zero removal, but that is really a rare and marginal view. Far more common is the opposite extreme stance - seen on this board at times - that even a parking lot or grass plot is better than an inactive old building.

Some people are simply incapable of seeing past a presently-darkened building and glimpsing the potential for renovation. They automatically assume empty means failed, cursed, whatever, and equate demolition with progress. They also often think that anyone who champions preservation is somehow AGAINST progress, and that is when you see the ugliness come out.

Fortunately we are currently seeing a surge of examples of places that have been shuttered for years - even decades - coming to life, adding economic value while preserving the community's uniqueness. This is helping the casual observer understand the potential these buildings have after all. It is a slow process of community education. UNfortunately, this is coming too late for many great old buildings, lost forever.

But again, regarding Main Street, I think the principle of higher and better use rules the day.

You're losing serious preservation points bc you're basically arguing FOR it's removal before that is actually a prospect. How do you know that the storefronts wouldn't make a very cool base structure or facade for the new tower?

I didn't realize that downtown OKC was running out of vacant lots yet.

I didn't realize that downtown OKC was running out of vacant lots yet.

There are only so many shots at towers and you have to work with the lots that are in play. It's not like SimCity where you can put your tower wherever you want it. I agree with Urbanized that better and higher use would justify the destruction of those nice yet unremarkable buildings.

I don't see it an an arguement for the removal of the structures. I see it as a rational thought process as to how you develop a stance on new development when it comes to demolishing an older structure. Depending on what is being raised and what is going in its place determines where he stands on it. I agree completely with that.

I was surprised just because these historic Main St. storefronts aren't worth it because of a tower, but the Stage Center is/was? Urbanized, is it because you thought the Stage Center had much more architectural significance?

I was surprised just because these historic Main St. storefronts aren't worth it because of a tower, but the Stage Center is/was? Urbanized, is it because you thought the Stage Center had much more architectural significance?

A lot, if not most people can agree that the Stage Center is NOT worth destroying for the measly 14-story mid-rise that is being built. If it was a 40-story tower people would have a different opinion on it. Even then, there would likely be more controversy surrounding destroying Stage Center than these buildings on the Preftakes block.

It's not like SimCity where you can put your tower wherever you want it.

For $16 million, you can pretty much have any vacant lot in Oklahoma City you wanted and get change back.

A lot, if not most people can agree that the Stage Center is NOT worth destroying for the measly 14-story mid-rise that is being built.

i don't know about that. It seems a lot or people here would prefer nothing to Stage Center. There is a real logistical reason why Stage Center couldn't be saved, but I see more people justifying their approval of its demolition with their disdain for it than for the impracticality of saving it. I think a lot has changed recently, but the prevailing local sentiment towards Oklahoma City's architectural history and character is mainly indifference. This board's amount of people who do seem to care about it is really a misrepresentation of the community at large and, even so, the contempt for preservation efforts is readily apparent.

You're losing serious preservation points bc you're basically arguing FOR it's removal before that is actually a prospect. How do you know that the storefronts wouldn't make a very cool base structure or facade for the new tower?

I didn't realize that downtown OKC was running out of vacant lots yet.

I'm not arguing for removal. I would argue for preservation... ...unless a fantastic building with great sidewalk integration takes their place. If that happens, facade retention would be great but shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Again, it is a matter of nuance.

I was surprised just because these historic Main St. storefronts aren't worth it because of a tower, but the Stage Center is/was? Urbanized, is it because you thought the Stage Center had much more architectural significance?

I hate to bring SC into this discussion but understand the relevance to the discussion. There is no comparison between SC and these buildings as far as architectural or historical significance. And it is not ME who thinks that SC has international architectural significance; it is well-established and indisputable, though many try to dispute it. It is literally the only building in OKC to garner that level of national and international attention and acclaim. Unlike the people who are doing a little dance about the destruction of that building because they personally don't like it, I understand that my personal opinion of the building really doesn't matter when it comes to determining its architectural significance. You might be surprised by the way, if you ask me which building I personally like better, I would tell you the old Carpenter Square building in its old storefront glory; it's not even close.

By the way, if you have LITERALLY NOTHING ELSE WORTHWHILE TO DO, go back and read the SC threads (I would advise against it, though), where most would be surprised to see that I made posts supporting removal of SC in a clear-cut case of higher and better use. I'm very consistent in this regard, and that is actually (IMO) the correct approach to HP. The problem is, as most agree, we really don't have that with the proposed building (as we currently understand it). You'll also see that I wrote SC off as a loss long, long ago. Just because I was posting that it was a shame that it was coming down doesn't mean that I was advocating trying to save it through protest. That train left the station years ago.