I would think a lot of cars were bigger back than

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

I parked there 4-5 years and at one point had 6 reserved spots in the garage. There is plenty of height room. The issue is the ramps. They are not very wide and are very tight turns. A Tahoe is pushing it. Long bed trucks, crew cabs, are nearly impossible. Midsize cars are fine as well as small suvs. BUT.....you have to have confidence in your driving. You are going up or down at weird angles while turning into a very tight space. Once you are on the floors, there are a lot of support poles that makes it difficult to make turns and pull into spots without having to do 3 point turns. Structurally, the building appears like sold concrete and sturdy....configuration would be the problem. When I had my reserved spaces there on first floor, I had two spaces next to each other to park my truck (Shortbed supercrew F250) because there wasn't enough room to turn and get the truck into one spot It also would have stuck out too far making it impossible for other cars to get into their spots. My truck is 3/4 ton 4x4 with 4 inch lift and I never worried about height in there...just length. May not have fit on upper floors as I couldn't get up the ramp but the tahoes did without scraping

I parked there 4-5 years and at one point had 6 reserved spots in the garage. There is plenty of height room. The issue is the ramps. They are not very wide and are very tight turns. A Tahoe is pushing it. Long bed trucks, crew cabs, are nearly impossible. Midsize cars are fine as well as small suvs. BUT.....you have to have confidence in your driving. You are going up or down at weird angles while turning into a very tight space. Once you are on the floors, there are a lot of support poles that makes it difficult to make turns and pull into spots without having to do 3 point turns. Structurally, the building appears like sold concrete and sturdy....configuration would be the problem. When I had my reserved spaces there on first floor, I had two spaces next to each other to park my truck (Shortbed supercrew F250) because there wasn't enough room to turn and get the truck into one spot It also would have stuck out too far making it impossible for other cars to get into their spots. My truck is 3/4 ton 4x4 with 4 inch lift and I never worried about height in there...just length. May not have fit on upper floors as I couldn't get up the ramp but the tahoes did without scraping

I'm sure you're correct but I think the average length of most vehicles today is less than what it used to be. I'm remembering the boats from the 50's and 60's. It just was never meant for everyone, especially pickups or SUV's.

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.I also meant to say 'then' instead of 'than'. Sorry about that.

I'm sure you're correct but I think the average length of most vehicles today is less than what it used to be. I'm remembering the boats from the 50's and 60's. It just was never meant for everyone, especially pickups or SUV's.

I agree. The building was built in 1929 (according to assessors site) and I am sure all of those cars fit fine. I can't imagine trying to get a 1960s or 1970 caddy deville in there

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

The major problem is that we are all playing a game of speculation on what conditions might possibly maybe exist that might misrepresent demolition as an attractive option.

I've seen this play out far too many times to not call it out. Initially Pete got us rolling down this pathway by warming us up to the idea of letting go of the Carpenters Square storefronts IN EXCHANGE FOR A 50 STORY TOWER!!! Okay, whatever. Last remnants of OKC's historic Main Street, which by the way we could have totally reconnected with a minor tweak to the Devon site plan. If you're into that whole big picture thinking thing, I'm not convinced that in 20 years we wouldn't consider reconnecting our Main Street by taking down parts of the Devon garage or something that may be possible in the future that we couldn't even imagine today. I just think this notion of bringing back Main Street, especially as we've tried everything else to enliven our CBD core, is a very compelling "big picture" kinda idea.

Now that we've been warmed up to a few small storefronts, now we're talking about the whole block except the Black Hotel and 420 building, basically. Who needs a junky historic parking garage anyway? Except that it's a cool building, a significant building, and a good building. I just can't help but be amazed that the block will likely see other buildings razed for.... a parking garage. And now we are debating that surely a new parking garage would be a great one, bc they would want to "do it right!" Right.

Now take a step back and realize that all of this development is dependent on good oil prices. I see no reason for all of this development to not happen, but I also see a lot of strategic reasons to not first tear down what we have, then plan to build anew on the same site. That doesn't go well for OKC.

I'm really excited as much as anyone else, I just want to make sure that we are asking the right questions and push for the right minor site plan tweaks. I'm not critical at all of new towers for OKC, I just think getting the planning right IS critical. Honestly, there are profitable development opportunities that exist on this block and nowhere else in all of OKC, and most other cities actually. We've gotten a lot of good development, but most of it is just good, not necessarily a world class combination of design and context:

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

Like!

The major problem is that we are all playing a game of speculation on what conditions might possibly maybe exist that might misrepresent demolition as an attractive option.

I've seen this play out far too many times to not call it out. Initially Pete got us rolling down this pathway by warming us up to the idea of letting go of the Carpenters Square storefronts IN EXCHANGE FOR A 50 STORY TOWER!!! Okay, whatever. Last remnants of OKC's historic Main Street, which by the way we could have totally reconnected with a minor tweak to the Devon site plan. If you're into that whole big picture thinking thing, I'm not convinced that in 20 years we wouldn't consider reconnecting our Main Street by taking down parts of the Devon garage or something that may be possible in the future that we couldn't even imagine today. I just think this notion of bringing back Main Street, especially as we've tried everything else to enliven our CBD core, is a very compelling "big picture" kinda idea.

Now that we've been warmed up to a few small storefronts, now we're talking about the whole block except the Black Hotel and 420 building, basically. Who needs a junky historic parking garage anyway? Except that it's a cool building, a significant building, and a good building. I just can't help but be amazed that the block will likely see other buildings razed for.... a parking garage. And now we are debating that surely a new parking garage would be a great one, bc they would want to "do it right!" Right.

Now take a step back and realize that all of this development is dependent on good oil prices. I see no reason for all of this development to not happen, but I also see a lot of strategic reasons to not first tear down what we have, then plan to build anew on the same site. That doesn't go well for OKC.

I'm really excited as much as anyone else, I just want to make sure that we are asking the right questions and push for the right minor site plan tweaks. I'm not critical at all of new towers for OKC, I just think getting the planning right IS critical. Honestly, there are profitable development opportunities that exist on this block and nowhere else in all of OKC, and most other cities actually. We've gotten a lot of good development, but most of it is just good, not necessarily a world class combination of design and context:

The whole point is to let people know what is going on so if someone wants to get involved one way or another, they can.

Otherwise, we can go back to reading about demolition permits and other major movements after all the decisions have already been made.

I don't think it is fair to throw Pete under the bus as a proponent of demo without context.

Pete is advocating for the devil in this case. He is presenting the argument that pro-saving advocates will be facing when it's time to have this argument on stage.

Pete is absolutely right; they will be arguing the functionality. They cannot argue the structural integrity. They will say the corners are too tight, the parking spaces are built for a different era, the capacity is not large enough; etc. They will be requesting to demolish based on how well it does its job. Not how well, or not well, it fits inside the urban fabric, is historically relevant, is viable for future non-parking uses...etc.

I don't want to see this demolished for yet another parking structure, or even another tower for that matter. We have too much empty space downtown to put those things on. There are too many vacant lots, and underdeveloped lots. Towers do not take up a large footprint. it's the parking garages that take up all that room. It will be a tough fight. You are going up against the powers that be. Nichols and company. They get what they want, not to take a conspiracy angle -- there is no conspiracy. But, they (the powers that be) do get what they want. And there's plenty of proof supporting that.

So, pulling Pete out from under the bus...he brings up some valid points that we need to use to assemble an argument before it's too late to make one. At least we can try.

I was just pointing out that given the parking crunch, there must be reasons the Auto Hotel is still mainly vacant. Not too hard to connect the dots.

But it could easily be renovated for another use if parking isn't feasible.

However, I don't think that is the current plan.

I was just pointing out that given the parking crunch, there must be reasons the Auto Hotel is still mainly vacant. Not too hard to connect the dots.

But it could easily be renovated for another use if parking isn't feasible.

However, I don't think that is the current plan.

We were parking there up till about 2 months ago and there were a lot of days that we had to go to 4, 5 or 6 to find a space so it appears to be little over 1/2 full at minimum. May have been cars higher looking for the easier spots to get into but we never had to go that high as our little KIA company cars could get in anywhere.

We were parking there up till about 2 months ago and there were a lot of days that we had to go to 4, 5 or 6 to find a space so it appears to be little over 1/2 full at minimum. May have been cars higher looking for the easier spots to get into but we never had to go that high as our little KIA company cars could get in anywhere.

Yet Devon, who clearly has an ownership interest in this property and will be making decisions about it's future, is taking more spaces at the City Center East and Main Street garages.

It's also the only downtown garage that isn't pretty much 100% full.

Yet Devon, who clearly has an ownership interest in this property and will be making decisions about it's future, is taking more spaces at the City Center East and Main Street garages.

It's also the only downtown garage that isn't pretty much 100% full.

I agree. Devon would potentially be renting spaces for employees that possibly wouldn't be able to use them. Goes back to the original problem that you have to be a very confident driver to navigate up and down the ramps everyday. It is very tight and at weird angles. My female staff members refused to park in there (not that females are any better or worse drivers) because they were not comfortable driving the ramps. The only reason I parked there so long was that I had reserved spots on the second floor and several reserved spots on first floor.

^

You know Devon or Bank of Oklahoma or any other large company that leases space on this block is not going to ask their employees to park under those circumstances.

And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.

I'm also hearing they are seriously considering replacing the entire south half of the block with new construction. This is a change from previous promises to preserve the bus station.

...
And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.
...

It seems like for several structures like this I heard 100 years was the expected lifetime, however that is with some (almost surely expensive) mid-life maintenance the parking decks may not have even had.

I don't think it is fair to throw Pete under the bus as a proponent of demo without context.

Pete is advocating for the devil in this case. He is presenting the argument that pro-saving advocates will be facing when it's time to have this argument on stage.

Pete is absolutely right; they will be arguing the functionality. They cannot argue the structural integrity. They will say the corners are too tight, the parking spaces are built for a different era, the capacity is not large enough; etc. They will be requesting to demolish based on how well it does its job. Not how well, or not well, it fits inside the urban fabric, is historically relevant, is viable for future non-parking uses...etc.

I don't want to see this demolished for yet another parking structure, or even another tower for that matter. We have too much empty space downtown to put those things on. There are too many vacant lots, and underdeveloped lots. Towers do not take up a large footprint. it's the parking garages that take up all that room. It will be a tough fight. You are going up against the powers that be. Nichols and company. They get what they want, not to take a conspiracy angle -- there is no conspiracy. But, they (the powers that be) do get what they want. And there's plenty of proof supporting that.

So, pulling Pete out from under the bus...he brings up some valid points that we need to use to assemble an argument before it's too late to make one. At least we can try.

Absolutely. I'm only quoting Pete's posts to make my points so that people have a snippet of context and to reply "against the plans" and not against Pete. I do think his word carries a ton of influence though, and I don't see the benefit in going a little bit beyond in speculating potential demolition reasons, unless there is a real threat that we aren't talking about the storefronts and are in fact talking about the more significant buildings coming down. For land speculation, essentially.

^

You know Devon or Bank of Oklahoma or any other large company that leases space on this block is not going to ask their employees to park under those circumstances.

And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.

I'm also hearing they are seriously considering replacing the entire south half of the block with new construction. This is a change from previous promises to preserve the bus station.

Well knowing who is involved, and that this has been ten years of shoddy land assembly in the works (and deferred maintenance to proactively create blight here), they're just going to tear down as much as we let them, and only preserve as much as we make them. Period.

We'll get to find out very quickly where our civic priorities lie when it comes to center city development.

Mark this on your calendar folks, I'm agreeing with Spartan here!

We've been in this "doze it all" mode before, and 50 years later, we're really regretting losing some MAJOR gems like the Biltmore....just because it was closed for a while (much less than the Skirvin was closed for and in far better condition) and it was dozed for a park. Granted, we got a great park out of it, but we COULD have also kept the Biltmore...especially considering we didn't end up getting the second "tube" because of the oil crash. Who knows what kind of happenings would affect some "supposed" plan for this lot. There's far too much speculation going on for me to hop on board since the place is such a classic structure. It definitely fits into the category of "they don't make them like this anymore". Now whether you view that as a good or bad thing, I can't make that decision for you. But one thing I can say is that just because it's newer, doesn't mean they'll make the ramps any better. That POS garage next to the ballpark is a prime example of how NOT to build one, and it's even worse now that the hotels have claimed it (since you have to use the stairs from every floor since you don't have a room key). Even some of the airport garage ramp turns are bad enough that they blocked spaces off. So I would VERY MUCH NOT assume that the new garage will be of any quality. And most of them these days don't consider how you WALK out of the place either, just how you drive in/out of it. That dang ballpark stairwell opens into the alley (with no ability to get back in) with no clearance. You could open it right into a car or whatever...horrible. At least it's not while anymore though...and it's been re-purposed from it's original intent so again, who knows what will happen.

And this block has been a pile of speculation for 10 years now. That's 10 years of no real information. That's 10 years of assumptions by Preftakes (and all of us) that there's a reason to build there. 10 years of assuming that you have to take out everything else to make it work too. Anyone ever consider the possibility of attaching a new garage to this one and redesigning the flow so the ramps are no longer a concern (ie will rogers did it) I'm speculating here too, but that's the name of the game here.

Something built in the 20's needs oversight on it before it's torn down, plain and simple. I don't care who owns the thing, if you say your only option is to tear it down and build something new, it means you haven't done your homework. You show me some well thought out studies that show (from an objective view and not with a steered purpose) that the place is obsolete and can't function with change and whatnot, then maybe you'll convince me. But we're not getting that and Preftakes isn't making a great PR move by not providing information. If he had a development purpose ready, that block would already have something built...just saying.

I did a complete walk around 360 and the Preftakes Block is a beautiful area. I don't think it should be torn down, any of it. A tower could be built on top of some of the building and they could serve as the base, not structurally of course. This is so dumb that we have so much surface parking and undeveloped land in the core yet we insist on saying ''oh, all the valuable land has these old, crappy buildings on it".

Exactly. This is one of the most in-tact blocks we have left.

I did a complete walk around 360 and the Preftakes Block is a beautiful area. I don't think it should be torn down, any of it. A tower could be built on top of some of the building and they could serve as the base, not structurally of course. This is so dumb that we have so much surface parking and undeveloped land in the core yet we insist on saying ''oh, all the valuable land has these old, crappy buildings on it".

Nailed it

I agree, when I walked around it I noticed that if everything was torn down except the three mid rise buildings, there would still be plenty of room to develop something with an actual decent size. If nothing is torn down, all I can say is that they should keep the facades and redo the insides to compliment the new development

This looks fun :)9395

Well, something going on. This is usually a precursor for building, selling, etc.

This looks fun :)9395

Wow, that sure looks like they are taking a core sample.

As in, the type of thing you only do if you're considering new construction.

Wow, that sure looks like they are taking a core sample.

As in, the type of thing you only do if you're considering new construction.

I was expecting something like this on the Northeast corner of this block.

Let's think about this...

Where are all the Clayco construction people going to park?

Remember, when Devon was built they used the entire block now taken by the elementary school for construction parking, and they still overflowed that. Clayco's project will be every bit as big, plus the convention center and Central Park will both soon be under construction.

Also, there will be a large construction project at Main & Hudson (BOK Tower) and where are those people going to park?

The yet-to-open Main Street Garage is likely already full, as is everything else downtown.


Given the scope of Clayco's project and knowing that Preftakes has already been working with Rainey Williams to house construction offices at One North Hudson, you can see a possibility where Preftakes puts in a big parking garage on his block; leaving One North Hudson alone for the time being; then takes a hard look at what they want to do with it when all the surrounding construction is complete 3-4 years down the line.

I bet they park where the convention center would be. The Clayco proposal is supposed to start in the spring, I don't think Preftakes has time to build a new garage before those workers will need it. The North OG&E block is supposed to be completed by 2016, I think. Maybe the workers for the South block will park in the North block parking garage after it is completed.

There will be an immense amount of construction going on in that area in the next few years. I would be surprised if the Preftakes block didn't include some large amount of structured parking, but I think it will be incorporated in a larger design. I think he will know exactly what he's going to build on the whole block as soon as the first shovel of earth is turned. I think the plans for the entire block are already complete.

Since workers work in shifts and largely arrive and depart at the same time (i.e. 1st shift starts at 6 and leaves at 2, 2nd shift starts at 2 and leaves at 10), if they can't secure enough close parking for the construction workers, they will likely shuttle them in on buses to a remote lot somewhere.

Could they not find parking a mile or so away and just bus construction workers over? Maybe that's a dumb idea...

Again, my happiness with whatever happens on this block will be directly related to the size and quality of the proposed development.

The old bus station is kinda cool, and it would be neat to see it converted into some kind of diner. The old two story buildings on the NE side of the block are mostly missing their old facades, but they could be rehabilitated and turned into cool little offices or retail. I love the old Auto Hotel and think it should be saved. The Hotel Black is a great piece of OKC history and should be renovated as well.

But the better the design, the more demolition people will be willing to accept. Something like the original design for the OG&E tower, that everyone disliked, isn't worth losing our old Main Street buildings. A proposal equivalent to the Clayco buildings, and I'd be okay with losing the bus station and the two story buildings on Main. Put in an art deco supertall and I will get a bit misty-eyed when they tear down One North Hudson, but I'll probably be smiling as well.

Of course I'd rather they use an empty lot, but really the only 2 buildings I'd absolutely hate to see go are #1 - one north hudson, and #1 - Main Place (100% won't be going anywhere)

Anything else that gets tore down will be ok with me as long as it is taller & better use. Since basically anything would be for better use, then that only leaves the taller. I know that is not a requirement by most of you, but whatever.

I can tell you that a few months ago Preftakes & Co. were actively seeking restaurant tenants for the bus station.

Then, they went to the operators and asked if they would consider opening at the same location but in new construction.

What happened between these two events was the Clayco proposal.

We already know that Clayco will be housing it's people in One North Hudson and that's likely for Hines (Main & Hudson) as well.

Not saying I'm right about this but it all fits pretty logically, especially since Clayco's proposal showed new construction on this block. And then today they are taking core samples right next to the station.


Also keep in mind that One North Hudson has been largely vacant (and now completely so) for some time. Where are all those people going to park, especially if they raze the Auto Hotel as part of the Main & Hudson project?

Parking garages can go up pretty quickly when timing is critical.

I just don't see them demo'ing the Bus Station, designing and getting a garage approved, and fully constructed in 5 months when the SC block begins construction....

If the long term plan is to build new where the bus station is, I can see them demo the station and use it for short term parking while the SC is built. Or they may just start new construction and not use it for parking at all.

There are acres and acres of existing surface parking to the west and especially to the south of the OG&E/Clayco site(s). There is no need to clear property for construction parking.

I can tell you that a few months ago Preftakes & Co. were actively seeking restaurant tenants for the bus station.

Then, they went to the operators and asked if they would consider opening at the same location but in new construction.

What happened between these two events was the Clayco proposal.

We already know that Clayco will be housing it's people in One North Hudson and that's likely for Hines (Main & Hudson) as well.

Not saying I'm right about this but it all fits pretty logically, especially since Clayco's proposal showed new construction on this block. And then today they are taking core samples right next to the station.


Also keep in mind that One North Hudson has been largely vacant (and now completely so) for some time. Where are all those people going to park, especially if they raze the Auto Hotel as part of the Main & Hudson project?

Parking garages can go up pretty quickly when timing is critical.

So the latest bad excuse to demo this block is temporary parking for construction workers...

Whoever is working on this block is pretty clearly desperate to get these icky old buildings razed. The never ending stream of bad excuses coming out of the rumor mill is getting to be laughable. They are looking at this block in a vacuum (disregarding it's history and current conditions though) and just trying to see if any if these trial balloons work.

Here's all we have had: ten years of code neglect and deferred maintenance. Here's all we will have: more "development" that isn't interested in what OKC needs and that we shouldn't feel good about.

This block is becoming a huge problem and I know Preftakes has a lot to manage, but I'm beginning to question how this is going to turn out. We have unbridled optimism for any changes at this point, but I'm afraid this one is going to be a huge negative. The quality of downtown development is the public reflection of the MAPS program - the City has a ton at stake here and needs to ensure positive outcomes for these most visible sites. This one has merely been a testament to activity-killing post MAPS land speculation.

So the latest bad excuse to demo this block is temporary parking for construction workers...

Whoever is working on this block is pretty clearly desperate to get these icky old buildings razed. The never ending stream of bad excuses coming out of the rumor mill is getting to be laughable. They are looking at this block in a vacuum (disregarding it's history and current conditions though) and just trying to see if any if these trial balloons work.

Here's all we have had: ten years of code neglect and deferred maintenance. Here's all we will have: more "development" that isn't interested in what OKC needs and that we shouldn't feel good about.

This block is becoming a huge problem and I know Preftakes has a lot to manage, but I'm beginning to question how this is going to turn out. We have unbridled optimism for any changes at this point, but I'm afraid this one is going to be a huge negative. The quality of downtown development is the public reflection of the MAPS program - the City has a ton at stake here and needs to ensure positive outcomes for these most visible sites. This one has merely been a testament to activity-killing post MAPS land speculation.

like.

Where has anything official been discussed on clearing out this block? No one knows what the plans are. Everything has just been conjecture from folks on this thread to this point.

I agree. Lets wait until something is proposed before hitting the panic button.

So the latest bad excuse to demo this block is temporary parking for construction workers...

Whoever is working on this block is pretty clearly desperate to get these icky old buildings razed. The never ending stream of bad excuses coming out of the rumor mill is getting to be laughable. They are looking at this block in a vacuum (disregarding it's history and current conditions though) and just trying to see if any if these trial balloons work.

Here's all we have had: ten years of code neglect and deferred maintenance. Here's all we will have: more "development" that isn't interested in what OKC needs and that we shouldn't feel good about.

This block is becoming a huge problem and I know Preftakes has a lot to manage, but I'm beginning to question how this is going to turn out. We have unbridled optimism for any changes at this point, but I'm afraid this one is going to be a huge negative. The quality of downtown development is the public reflection of the MAPS program - the City has a ton at stake here and needs to ensure positive outcomes for these most visible sites. This one has merely been a testament to activity-killing post MAPS land speculation.

In regards to the bolded part, above I offer only this: Packard Chilton don't make no junk.

In regards to the bolded part, above I offer only this: Packard Chilton don't make no junk.

Plus One. This will be a stunning contrast of old and new, Just like the Colcord and Devon Tower, except I'd hope for at least the Hotel Black stays along with the City building.

Where has anything official been discussed on clearing out this block? No one knows what the plans are. Everything has just been conjecture from folks on this thread to this point.

There hasn't been. There has only been baseless speculation and people going completely off of the rails thanks to said speculation.

There hasn't been. There has only been baseless speculation and people going completely off of the rails thanks to said speculation.

My thoughts exactly. :)

I'd be in favor of the City building going if the proposal from Pickard Chilton is a better/taller use.

I'd be very happy if the city would build a new civic tower where the existing police station is - creating a true civic center district while opening Main Street to commercial use. Does anybody know if there is a plan for the existing police hq or the land it's on? I'd think having a new City Tower (which could be funded from the sale of the existing one, btw) between the new Police Hq and the New CH would be fantastic and give the city space to grow/modernize.

Some people were never even on the rails to begin with.

The city building is a beautiful piece of old architecture. Unless we're getting something that absolutely positively needs the entire block (and I don't think that's ever been even rumored), they can work around the city building. Now I'd like to see it restored at some point, perhaps sold to a private developer for the sole purpose of restoration if the city won't do it. Convert it to housing or something, but absolutely not torn down. I don't want to see a sale to a private developer happen before the rest of the Preftakes block is completed. Don't want to tempt anybody.

I suppose I've never seen the City building in its original form. But I thought this building has issues that were illustrated in the flooding that took place?

How can OKC get by with so little office space? Here in Seattle, we have a building for City Hall (new btw), a new c/h, a new police hq, and the 57-storey Key Tower (http://www.emporis.com/building/seattlemunicipaltower-seattle-wa-usa) or whatever it's called now - in addition to the King County buildings - as part of our 'civic center' campus. I'm not saying OKC needs that much space but goodness you all must need more than the 'what?' 150,000 sq feet that the current city 'tower' provides. Seattle isn't bigger than OKC from a city prospective; I'd suspect OKC would need at least 500,000 sq feet.

I suppose I've never seen the City building in its original form. But I thought this building has issues that were illustrated in the flooding that took place?

How can OKC get by with so little office space? Here in Seattle, we have a building for City Hall (new btw), a new c/h, a new police hq, and the 57-storey Key Tower (http://www.emporis.com/building/seattlemunicipaltower-seattle-wa-usa) or whatever it's called now - in addition to the King County buildings - as part of our 'civic center' campus. I'm not saying OKC needs that much space but goodness you all must need more than the 'what?' 150,000 sq feet that the current city 'tower' provides. Seattle isn't bigger than OKC from a city prospective; I'd suspect OKC would need at least 500,000 sq feet.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/HarbourLongmire-Main%20Place/harbourlongmire.jpg

Last strip of Main St.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/HarbourLongmire-Main%20Place/Harbour-LongmireFurnitureCompany420WMainc1928.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/HarbourLongmire-Main%20Place/harbourlongmire2.jpg

nice, thx

Plus One. This will be a stunning contrast of old and new, Just like the Colcord and Devon Tower, except I'd hope for at least the Hotel Black stays along with the City building.

I hope you're right, as this site is such a unique opportunity to create that stunning contrast. There is a lot to work on and build on, without tearing down the significantly in-tact pieces.

As for anyone calling these concerns baseless, the next trope to say is that no preservationists came forward to take responsibility for the buildings. We all know that Pete is offering the most reputable insight that is available on these deals, and it does seem that now is the time to raise concerns about the block's historic fabric.

10 years ago when this land assembly first started, it would have seemed absurd to demo any of these buildings. Not only has Preftakes' deferred maintenance and the city's code neglect created his best argument, but at the same time the city has become a place where demolition is running rampant again.

It is not baseless. But the idea that is in fine to demo some or all of the building for a better use is also not baseless

"Baseless" referred to the suggestion that significant (or actually, any) buildings will be demolished to provide surface parking for OG+E/Clayco construction workers. I'll add "ridiculous" and "inflammatory" for good measure.

Hopefully so.

"Baseless" referred to the suggestion that significant (or actually, any) buildings will be demolished to provide surface parking for OG+E/Clayco construction workers. I'll add "ridiculous" and "inflammatory" for good measure.

If you are referring to what I wrote, please say so I can at least address your insults directly.

I will also point out that absolutely no one -- including me -- has said or suggested buildings could be demolished for surface parking.

[QUOTE=UnFrSaKn;839741]

That's insanely beautiful. Thank you for posting that.

Seems that the whole latest bent on this thread is predicated on a photo of a drill rig in the parking lot of
the bus station. The words "core samples" were used. Thus, it is assumed that "something" new will be built on the site. I seriously doubt core samples were being taken this close to the river. Rock is really deep and core samples are only taken from rock. More likely split-spoon drive samples or auger samples, which could be for either geotechnical or environmental purposes equally based on the type of rig. Based on the past use of the site as a bus station, it's far more likely to be an environmental investigation. Not saying there won't be new construction on the site, but the thread has taken a giant flyer based on bad interpretation of a photo. Stay calm and wait for facts.

If you are referring to what I wrote, please say so I can at least address your insults directly.

I will also point out that absolutely no one -- including me -- has said or suggested buildings could be demolished for surface parking.

Post number 1425 gives that as a possibility for temporary parking.

It is not baseless. But the idea that is in fine to demo some or all of the building for a better use is also not baseless

I already view this lot as a higher use because it actually has nice buildings on it. How about a grass or surface parking lot? Why can't we look at making that a better and higher use?

If you are referring to what I wrote, please say so I can at least address your insults directly.

I will also point out that absolutely no one -- including me -- has said or suggested buildings could be demolished for surface parking.
It was not directed at you. And you're wrong about the second part, as ljbab728 pointed out. And then of course it was accepted as gospel and met with righteous indignation. It's a familiar pattern, but that's not a reflection on you, nor was I calling you out.

It was not directed at you. And you're wrong about the second part, as ljbab728 pointed out. And then of course it was accepted as gospel and met with righteous indignation. It's a familiar pattern, but that's not a reflection on you, nor was I calling you out.

Thanks. Sorry for the over-reaction.

But the idea that the bus station -- and possibly other buildings on this block -- may be torn down (for parking or another use) is nowhere near baseless.

I know for a fact that the owners have spoken to others about the possibility of new construction on the bus station site. This is in addition to the pretty clear intention to remove at least three buildings from the Main Street to make way for a new tower.

The good news is that any demo has to go through the appropriate channels; the bad news is those channels have an almost 100% track record of approving these types of demolitions.