With historic structures, it really depends what you are replacing the structure with.

There is probably nothing in downtown OKC that should be demolished if the goal is to replace it with a 7/11 or a Dollar General. On the other hand, if you were going to put the Empire State Building here, it would be worth tearing down anything in the city in order to get it, with the sole exception of the bombing memorial. Devon Tower, the First National Building, the Skirvin, none of them are as valuable as the ESB.

Now clearly our preference would be to keep all our good stuff and get an Empire State Building. That would be best. But if someone came in and gave us a choice between the ESB and the Civic Center, it's not much of a choice. It's a clear higher and better use.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.

By the way, THIS was torn down to build the Empire State Building:


http://frenchhatchingcat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-waldorf-astoria-hotel-fifth-avenue_975b44f15c.jpg

Of course, the problem is that demolition and what comes next are completely separate things.

Even if someone promised to build something wonderful you can't force them to do it, you can only block them if they try to change it to something outside broad design guidelines.


Demolishing a building is like loaning money to a family member... You hope that it all turns out well in the end but you better go into it with low expectations.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.

By the way, THIS was torn down to build the Empire State Building:


http://frenchhatchingcat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-waldorf-astoria-hotel-fifth-avenue_975b44f15c.jpg

Wow that is truly amazing. If that were still standing today, I would say nothing would be worth tearing it down. Of course when the Empire State Building was built, there was nothing valuable or remarkable about that type of architecture.

Of course, the problem is that demolition and what comes next are completely separate things.

Even if someone promised to build something wonderful you can't force them to do it, you can only block them if they try to change it to something outside broad design guidelines.


Demolishing a building is like loaning money to a family member... You hope that it all turns out well in the end but you better go into it with low expectations.

And that should always be taken into account. You have to be careful.

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.

You will tear down your entire city playing the skyscraper sweepstakes. Sometimes ya win sometimes ya lose, but usually you lose. I know you're new here but OKC isn't new to this, that's how we got so many vacant lots. Yes, Devon got the best one - several other excellent vacant sites remain.

And that should always be taken into account. You have to be careful.

Exactly.

Frequently, nothing gets built at all, or at least for a very long time. Or gets drastically scaled down, value-engineered, etc.

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.

You're pretty clearly arguing for removal unless you state otherwise, which you haven't. You seem to be refuting the idea that storefront inclusion should be a priority. The public has to develop it's priorities in advance so that they collide with those of the development at the right time or else the development process WILL move on to the exclusion of public input.

Instead of Empire State Building, it would need to be named Sooner State Building. :)

Spartan, your post is in stark contradiction to the pulled quote of mine that you reference. If you can't (or don't choose to) comprehend the pretty clear statements I make, I can't help you.

And I have news for you: if a Pickard-Chilton/Hines tower ends up there (as is rumored) you won't find many if any local preservationists kicking up a fuss or insisting upon facade retention.

The stark contrast here is that you seem to have jumped on the assumption that we're going to get something worthy of knocking down Main Street.

I agree, tear down Devon Tower if someone wants to build the ESB or WTC. Otherwise let's keep what we have, and I was hoping that such a respected preservationist as yourself would make that statement more firm. So either you are a preservationist or a sometimes preservationist, and if it's the latter, keep in mind the perceptions you'd reinforce about preservation by putting up a fight to save an eclectic and less useful brutalist theater but not a strong, important, and potentially useful row of storefronts. Preservation needs to urbanize.

The reason this got started is that your posts are building off of comments made by bouldersooner

I'm not sure that I am a "respected preservationist," though thanks for the compliment. I don't even know that I would characterize myself as a preservationist; I would say instead that I have a strong preservation bias. I believe in preservation as an economic development tool, and at times I think it is culturally very important too. But this is about pragmatism. I am NOT jumping to the assumption that we are going to be getting something worthy. If not, absolutely the buildings should be preserved. I feel very strongly about that.

But I am willing to concede that IF something first-rate is proposed for the spot ...IF... that I can see circumstances where it would be OK for those buildings to bow out. I am willing to believe that there is a chance that the redevelopment of that corner might be of the quality of Devon Tower. If that is the case, I think forcing it to re-use the historic facades would be a mistake. Again, it is a big if. But you seem to be suggesting that facade retention should be non-negotiable, and I disagree.

I'm not sure that I am a "respected preservationist," though thanks for the compliment. I don't even know that I would characterize myself as a preservationist; I would say instead that I have a strong preservation bias. I believe in preservation as an economic development tool, and at times I think it is culturally very important too. But this is about pragmatism. I am NOT jumping to the assumption that we are going to be getting something worthy. If not, absolutely the buildings should be preserved. I feel very strongly about that.

But I am willing to concede that IF something first-rate is proposed for the spot ...IF... that I can see circumstances where it would be OK for those buildings to bow out. I am willing to believe that there is a chance that the redevelopment of that corner might be of the quality of Devon Tower. If that is the case, I think forcing it to re-use the historic facades would be a mistake. Again, it is a big if. But you seem to be suggesting that facade retention should be non-negotiable, and I disagree.

It is as negotiable as anything else that is a priority IMO. I'm not a House Republican, so I'm not discounting the power of negotiation, but it has to be fair, the public has to be involved, and above all I just don't believe in precluding public priorities.

Don't show your cards so soon bc as the Stage Center showed us, we will give up ground fastest as to the quality of a new development - the old switcharoo is the oldest trick in real estate development. We have to retain a bargaining position based on what we're giving up to the wrecking ball, and not an empty lot. "Show me," as they say in MO.

I don't disagree with those statements.

From Steve's special chat the other night -

Steve Lackmeyer:
I also am not alone in expecting to hear about a development for the Main and Hudson property very, very soon.

Sounds like we may get another surprise before the end of the year. Anyone know of a time line here ?

If there was a building to built would all the other buildings like Hotel Black and the City of OKC building on Main get torn down??? That's just losing more history and we've already lost a lot...

If there was a building to built would all the other buildings like Hotel Black and the City of OKC building on Main get torn down??? That's just losing more history and we've already lost a lot...

It's been stated numerous times that the Hotel Black building will almost certainly remain.

It's been stated numerous times that the Hotel Black building will almost certainly remain.

There has been new information come out lately from Pete, after the release of the stage center block plans were released, that says that EVERYTHING on the block will be removed save for the OKC building. Something Along the lines that the corner of Main & Hudson will be built up first, leaving all the important buildings in tact. But after the stage center block is built & the Main & Hudson tower is built that the remaining property on this block will be too valuable to not develop.

Yes, I'm starting to think that nothing on this block -- apart from the few buildings not owned by Prefatkes -- is safe.

I know for a fact they have actively considered pulling down the bus station in favor of new construction.

With the Clayco deal and everything booming around this property, it may simply have become too valuable to leave the smallish buildings.

I know One North Hudson will stay for at least a few years longer because it will become the construction offices for Clayco and the team working on the Main & Hudson building.

Yes, I'm starting to think that nothing on this block -- apart from the few buildings not owned by Prefatkes -- is safe.

I know for a fact they have actively considered pulling down the bus station in favor of new construction.

With the Clayco deal and everything booming around this property, it may simply have become too valuable to leave the smallish buildings.

I know One North Hudson will stay for at least a few years longer because it will become the construction offices for Clayco and the team working on the Main & Hudson building.

I would assume at least the city building would at least stay, right? Doesn't the city still own it?

I would assume at least the city building would at least stay, right? Doesn't the city still own it?

Yes, the City still owns it and the two small buildings to the immediate west are also not owned by Preftakes.

See the article at the top of the page.

I would be sad to see One North Hudson and the Motor Hotel go, just because I don't think it is necessary. One North Hudson is an 11 story building that could be renovated into a boutique hotel or residences. There is an area on top that could be a rooftop bar. The Motor Hotel already provides a parking garage and another could be added behind it.

This is from the Clayco proposal:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9261d1412690083-og-e-energy-center-stagenew6.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/stagenew6a.jpg

Pete, what kind of timeline are you hearing on this?

There's really no good reason to demo Hotel Black (at least the tower portion) or even the motor hotel. The NE and SW portion of this block can both easily fit towers. If the concern is parking, put a nice sized garage under a tower on the SW portion of the property where you have 1/3 of the entire block ripe for development. It would be nice to keep the bus station and all, but in the CBD, anything smaller than 5 stories is hard to justify (though not impossible) if it's going to make way for something 20 stories plus.

There's really no good reason to demo Hotel Black (at least the tower portion) or even the motor hotel. The NE and SW portion of this block can both easily fit towers. If the concern is parking, put a nice sized garage under a tower on the SW portion of the property where you have 1/3 of the entire block ripe for development. It would be nice to keep the bus station and all, but in the CBD, anything smaller than 5 stories is hard to justify (though not impossible) if it's going to make way for something 20 stories plus.

Or in the middle of the property, i.e. #16 and the north parts of #12 and #13.

Two things at work here: 1. With the Clayco proposal, this property is now much more valuable; and 2. there is not nearly enough parking in this area of downtown.

We already know that Devon is expanding all over the place. They are taking a big chunk of the parking in the expanded City Center East Garage and now the New Main Street Garage as well. This is before there is something built at Main & Hudson.

I believe the reason that Main & Hudson is being kept relatively small (as rumored and now depicted in the Clayco proposal) is that they don't have parking for anything larger. Whatever parking is integrated into Main & Hudson will be minimal due to the small footprint.

Also, with four towers (and possibly five if they add a hotel) the parking on the Clayco site is sure to be maxed out. And of course, you have the adjacent convention center which will need a ton of parking too.

So, I believe there may be a shift where they build at Main & Hudson to help alleviate some of Devon's growth needs (as well as having an anchor tenant in BOK) and use One North Hudson for construction offices for both that project and Clayco.

After those projects wrap in 3-4 years, then they could clear the entire south half of the block and build a big office tower with a ton of parking. That certainly seems to be what is depicted in the rendering, although clearly just a rough plan.

I'm very sure that Clayco, Devon and Preftakes are all working together here. Devon has always been behind Preftakes and they need space in the short term and I'm sure they want to ensure they have plenty in the future as well.

With all the disaster in Urban renewal in the 70"s, I've noticed that Urban Renewal has taken a new stance. The concept is now "let's renovate" instead of "lets destroy". I am VERY much a fan of this. I"m looking at "Urban Renewal" in a new way now thanks to many great projects. I would hate to see three other great old building get torn down. Sure they're no gem...I mean they aren't the ones that got torn down. I do however view them as a gem in another way. These are three other old buildings...ones that were not destroyed, it would be sad to see them go this easily...

with Clayco, does anybody think OKC is starting to tip the scale toward more UNDERGROUND parking and less monolithic huge above ground? I'm not saying we can't still have above ground, but can we have at least a few floors under ground with 1st floor retail fringing? I hope we don't have five or six more Main Street/Devon garages.

That said, I hope they can keep the Motor Garage (or at least some of the Façade).

I wouldn't think so. Remember, they pulled out the largest one (Galleria) for Devon. It was a mixed below/above, but did have, if I remember right, at least 2 levels below. You run into the same problem with a garage, as you do with any building here....water intrusion. If you've ever been in a concrete basement of a building, you can feel the humidity levels. It can be countered to some extent, but it ends up costing a lot more per space than if you went up in the air. Concrete alone is a major savor since you don't have to seal in the sides at all, then there's the below-grade ventilation you would need to suck out the fumes (and exhaust it somewhere). I don't think we're to the point with density that a spot can't be found to continue to go up yet. It all comes down to the price versus the benefit.

And I'm still having a hard time believing the city will move. That's a pretty good sized building and it would be quite expensive to buy it out to the point that the city could either build an equal space or lease out something. But here's the major sitch...the city owns it. Unless they own the next building, their cost to do business will increase. And if you want to give them enough to build a new structure, it ends up being a problem of paying enough to make it a viable move but yet still be able to turn a profit on whatever mystery thing Preftakes has in his pocket. I'm sure he's been over this in his head a million times and I'm sure there's something already in the works, I just wish we could dig in there and see what he's thinking.

Who knows, maybe FNC would be a nice fit for the city? We'd get a GOOD owner out of it, they'd gut it and rehab it to where it should be, and we'd also have a GOOD long-term tenant. Just a thought....

The City is not going to move from Main Place.

Prefatkes & Co. will just build around them.

The Clayco model shows that as well.

good points bomber. I'm still holding out for at least a few below ground levels though as we build future garages. But I agree I wouldn't want to add to the cost unless the design itself incorporates lower levels (like a major skyscraper would). :)

I just don't want us to get too carried away with parking garages in the prime core (which we now see has significantly expanded west/south of Devon) when we're also building transit and a major transit hub so folks wont have to drive to begin with. I think we really need a parking master plan and bounce that with the transit plans so we don't waste money or developable spots on above ground 15 story garages. ...

Pete - I guess I had it turned around the wrong way. Obviously the Main Place spot is blank on the model, which still gives Preftakes a HUGE plot to work with.

They have a beautiful, historic parking garage on site. But they need to tear down more historic building fabric to provide parking for a building that will go where the Auto Hotel stood.

This isn't revitalizing, this is remuddling. Not all drastic changes are for the better.

As for FNC, that is an economic development opportunity. Not that this city isn't really fond of gobbling up valuable economic development sites for public facilities (CC, etc)..

Even though this may never happen on this specific building, I've always like to see these in big cities, BIG advertisements. It makes the city more BIG. But when I did take this picture today I walked around the block, through the alleys and what not. I really do hope that these three buildings stay. I would hate to see the Bus station go but that's not going to be saved...anyway, if there is a proposal that suggests the whole block will be wiped out, I sure hope to God that it doesn't get past Urban Renewal and the City...I know this city has learned SOMETHING from it's past.
9358

^

I'm not sure how that got past design review.

When the Thunder put up banners downtown, they all have to be approved.

^

I'm not sure how that got past design review.

When the Thunder put up banners downtown, they all have to be approved.
oh haha I guess I should of specified. I photo shopped this, I was just saying I would love to see big advertising here in the city

Good photoshop job. I thought it was real too.

They have a beautiful, historic parking garage on site. But they need to tear down more historic building fabric to provide parking for a building that will go where the Auto Hotel stood.

This isn't revitalizing, this is remuddling. Not all drastic changes are for the better.

As for FNC, that is an economic development opportunity. Not that this city isn't really fond of gobbling up valuable economic development sites for public facilities (CC, etc)..


I can appreciate this. It's not often that you get a parking garage that was enclosed in such a manner that it looks like an office building. It's got some very nice elements on the cap that we'd lose. The building happens to be in the wrong place for the new development. It would be nice to keep it, but I'm not intimately familiar with the facility. Is it easy to navigate, can large trucks/suvs/vans fit in it? Just as a question, I wonder if it was built for a different type of vehicle than uses it today. Is it typically full or mostly empty? I'm not pushing one way or another, just asking questions. If a parking garage outlives its usefulness and is holding up development of 4 20 story buildings (assuming that's the design is chosen) with new modern (and hopefully GOOD) garages, I would let the old girl go.

That auto hotel has never been very heavily utilized and I suspect the configuration (columns, low ceilings, tight corners) does not easily allow for today's huge, modern vehicles.

I can appreciate this. It's not often that you get a parking garage that was enclosed in such a manner that it looks like an office building. It's got some very nice elements on the cap that we'd lose. The building happens to be in the wrong place for the new development. It would be nice to keep it, but I'm not intimately familiar with the facility. Is it easy to navigate, can large trucks/suvs/vans fit in it? Just as a question, I wonder if it was built for a different type of vehicle than uses it today. Is it typically full or mostly empty? I'm not pushing one way or another, just asking questions. If a parking garage outlives its usefulness and is holding up development of 4 20 story buildings (assuming that's the design is chosen) with new modern (and hopefully GOOD) garages, I would let the old girl go.

It's not on the same block as the 4 proposed OG&E buildings. It's immediately north of them. We haven't seen the proposed design for its replacement yet. The auto hotel is a great looking old building. I'd prefer if they could design around it.

That auto hotel has never been very heavily utilized and I suspect the configuration (columns, low ceilings, tight corners) does not easily allow for today's huge, modern vehicles.

Upper left is my car.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/autos/1207/gallery.2013-new-cars.fortune/images/spark_fiat_scion_smart.jpg

That auto hotel has never been very heavily utilized and I suspect the configuration (columns, low ceilings, tight corners) does not easily allow for today's huge, modern vehicles.

We parked in it for years. Before Preftakes bought it, it was assigned monthly parking and quite a few of us parked in it. They had the spots marked and they could fit more cars in it. Afterwards, it went to non assigned parking and people would park in such ways that they would take 2 spots. They also blocked the basement parking.

I drove a f250 supercrew and I couldn't park anywhere but the first floor. There was no way to get it on the other floors. It was tight and not for the meek or faint hearted getting a full size Tahoe up to the other floors but there were people that did it.

Upper left is my car.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/autos/1207/gallery.2013-new-cars.fortune/images/spark_fiat_scion_smart.jpg

I won't post a picture of my new car. My friends on here have probably seen enough of it on my social media accounts :)

Good photoshop job. I thought it was real too.

Ha I looked at it last night and thought it was real too. Pretty good job tricking us.

i won't post a picture of my new car. My friends on here have probably seen enough of it on my social media accounts :)

yes

yes

:cool:

Ha I looked at it last night and thought it was real too. Pretty good job tricking us.

It's not April yet!

I won't post a picture of my new car. My friends on here have probably seen enough of it on my social media accounts :)Sweden thanks you.

Well now I want to see the new car. I feel like the kid that is intentionally left out.

That auto hotel has never been very heavily utilized and I suspect the configuration (columns, low ceilings, tight corners) does not easily allow for today's huge, modern vehicles.

Why would you speculate on the structural condition without knowing for certain? This is dangerous. We're already on a demolition spree, in the dozens of buildings.

Why would you speculate on the structural condition without knowing for certain? This is dangerous.

Just meant it's probably hard to get big cars in and out of there, which was confirmed up-thread by someone who used to park there.

Well now I want to see the new car. I feel like the kid that is intentionally left out.
He bought a Koenigsegg ;)

Piffle.



BOOOOORING.

Why would you speculate on the structural condition without knowing for certain? This is dangerous. We're already on a demolition spree, in the dozens of buildings.

He didn't comment on condition, but rather configuration. Things can be sturdy and yet functionally obsolete for their intended use. He certainly wasn't advocating demolition, but stating a fact.

He didn't comment on condition, but rather configuration. Things can be sturdy and yet functionally obsolete for their intended use. He certainly wasn't advocating demolition, but stating a fact.

So we're supposed to make a common assumption that cars were smaller when the Auto Hotel was built?

I would think a lot of cars were bigger back than

Maybe just make it for mid-compact cars and motorcycles. No trucks or SUVs.

Maybe just make it for mid-compact cars and motorcycles. No trucks or SUVs.

So, about 2% of general U.S. population? ;)

So we're supposed to make a common assumption that cars were smaller when the Auto Hotel was built?

Nm