There will be a major outcry. Get out your chap stick & lip balm, there will be an Apocalypse. Armageddon, a total catastrophe with blood in the streets; it will rival the Civil War, carnage everywhere, a Project 180 blood bath. They will need help from neighboring planets to curve the violence.

Oh, what a terrible thought...

Dogs and cats, living together; mass hysteria!

Someone with exact info can help us out here - but I had a professor tell me that back during the boom of the early '80's, One North Hudson had a bad rap about ceiling heights in the building - not sure if it was a joke from him but he stated the ceiling heights were 7' 6"..... If that's the case, not sure how desirable it would be to keep the building ?

I am thinking that we had an 8 foot drop ceiling and there was easily room above that for ductwork, plumbing, etc. I would estimate that there was probably 2 ft above the drop ceiling.

I'm not saying that.

But it does seem to be a possibility.
How unfortunate
If something great is proposed then there is really nothing anyone can do am I right? I mean the city will love the new developement and support everything...

Any demolition downtown has to go through the same process as Stage Center and there will be ample public notice.

My question is historic stock worth saving if it is being replaced by a better and higher use? There is a huge difference between demolitions to make way for green space or parking and demolitions to make way for the second tallest building in the state. Of course there is some historic stock that should be saved at all cost. For instance, I would oppose destruction of First National even if it was going to be replaced by a 1200 ft tower. I don't believe all historic stock falls into that category though. How do we decide though what is worth saving and at what cost?

Thus far, Preftakes has $16 million invested in just acquisition costs.

He's also paying about $1 million a year in property taxes and has been doing so for about 7 years, with very little income. So throw another $7 million on the pile and you are at $23 million just for the property and holding costs.

That's an unprecedented sum for downtown property, especially since other than perhaps One North Hudson, the buildings themselves are more of a liability (cost to renovate or even demolish) than a benefit.

If I had a choice, I'd save the Motor Hotel over Hotel Black…just sayin...

Somebody needs to organize a building hug for this entire block of buildings (except 420 W. Main). Their time with us is nearly at an end.

I don't like it, but barring economic collapse, it's going to happen.

This would be too bad because Hotel Black and AutoHotel are really good urbanism, and what will replace it probably won't be. This is yet another reason why the demolition permit should just be inherent in the issuance of a new building permit. That way we can see what were are going to get before we lose what we already have. That is the only we know if we are getting a good deal or not because this Monty Hall deal where we only get what is behind door Number 3 doesn't always work out so well for us.

Understanding the Monty Hall Problem | BetterExplained (http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/)

One thing to keep in mind about One North Hudson: it's a very small building in terms of square footage.

Only about 50,000 SF which is the equivalent of about two floors in Devon Tower. The upper floors (2-10) are only 4,368 SF each, which is pretty tiny.

Given the huge investment already made in this block, the strong demand for office and parking space and it's proximity to all that's great in downtown, you could see why this building might not make economic sense.

Absolutely not advocating for demolition, just trying to think like a developer.

We all know they want to. If they could find a way to demolish everything within ten blocks but still have as many people around to admire their new tower, that's what they would do. They're developers and corporate titans.

What would be even cooler is if somehow we could convince or coerce them to preserve historic buildings.

pre·serve
prəˈzərv/

his·tor·ic
hiˈstôrik

build·ing
bildiNG

1. To not tear it down.
2. To make them nice and new again.
3. To combine revitalization and authenticity.

I agree with some of what JTF is saying here. Why do we have a separate demolition permit process and a separate construction permit process for the CBD? Like he mentions, I'd think for the greater downtown area that any demolition of buildings greater than 5000 square feet should include at least a review of what's intended before demolition is approved. I believe there is precedent for this as I believe new towers in Vancouver have to be included before demolition could take place. Ditto in other major cities.

I know OKC isn't at that level YET but still, if we want to BE a tier II and higher city we should really start acting like it. We should benchmark process that other cities are doing and adopt those that make sense. In this case, I believe we shouldn't demolish anything at least in the commercial downtown area (CBD and surrounding districts) without some idea of what's to come. Think about it, did the city just demolish everything in the Core2Shore space without at least a conceptual plan for Central Park?

To take this further, I think the DDRC should not approve any demolitions unless the new use is a certain multiple higher than the current. For example, perhaps 200% is the multiple - a one floor structure of insignificant historical value should not be demolished unless it is replaced by at least a two floor structure of certain density. So on. That way, we don't get into these arguments from developers about demolitions of small office/commercial buildings for parking garages/lots and claim it is better use without at least some level of control and approve of it.

We've talked about marrying the demolition and building permits in the past but I don't recall anyone providing examples of other cities doing this effectively.

The bottom line is that once something is demolished, you can't by law force someone to construct something.

In fact, I'm sure most would see this as a detriment to development. Situations change over time (financing, market conditions, etc.).


I like what OCURA is doing here, though. They used the competition between the groups to press for a quicker build timeline.

Then, incentives can be tied to the agreed-upon milestones.

You still can't force them to build, but delays could cause them to miss incentives and all the OCURA contracts only transfer the full property once all other elements of the development agreement are final.

by the way, this 'better use' ordinance idea I have would have been well suited for the Sandridge implosion debacle. Just think, they would have had to justify removing those buildings without building at or greater than then existing use.

Parkside Building is a fine example of a great implementation of this better use/demolition idea, as is Devon Tower (of course) and OGE Tower/Clayco, Steelyard, the Met. We had at least conceptual renderings of the new development prior to demolition being approved. .. We're already doing the greater use organically in many cases, but to have this practice documented as a development expectation along with some sort of review prior to approving demolition is the key I'm suggesting. As downtown matures and the city continues to grow, we need effective regulation to shape downtown as the efficient, densely urbanized section of the city even if outside of the core is quite suburban.

sorry for the second post - it wont let me go back but I'd like to respond to Pete.

As I mentioned, I think Vancouver requires developers to present proposals before demolition could take place. I think other very large cities (Chicago, NY) also have this for their cores. In fact, I am certain of it because I know of examples where a building was proposed and approved by the city of Vancouver (development known as the Crystal Tower). It was a beautiful skyscraper that was to infill into a small slot between two buildings the city wants to keep. I believe it involved demolition of an existing parking or low rise building; which the city approved. Later, the developer had to revise that proposal and had to go to the city for approval of the new design.

I think the better use idea wouldn't necessarily hold a gun to a developer per say, but it would at least set an expectation and some sort of process where someone couldn't just come in, demolish, and then squat on valuable land to flip it. I think it is something the city should consider - not to hinder development but to guide/shape how downtown develops and work side-by-side with developers instead of sitting back and letting developers call the shots. .. that's my thought.

To be fair, I don't think you can expect OKC to be the first American city to implement this sort of thing (assuming there are no others).

We can't even get the abandoned property law passed.

So, there has to be some degree of reality when talking about change otherwise you are just whistling in the dark.

No disrespect to this idea or the people that advocate for it; I tend to agree but am also a pragmatist.

What Preftakes has done to those buildings, deferred maintenance, presents code violations that the city could act on. The problem is that planning decisions are made by energy companies, and not city staff, so if we wanted to improve this system each energy company should sponsor its own city planning director.

I'm not a fan of most abandoned property action strategies anyway, which usually make the problem worse.

by the way, this 'better use' ordinance idea I have would have been well suited for the Sandridge implosion debacle. Just think, they would have had to justify removing those buildings without building at or greater than then existing use.

Parkside Building is a fine example of a great implementation of this better use/demolition idea, as is Devon Tower (of course) and OGE Tower/Clayco, Steelyard, the Met. We had at least conceptual renderings of the new development prior to demolition being approved. .. We're already doing the greater use organically in many cases, but to have this practice documented as a development expectation along with some sort of review prior to approving demolition is the key I'm suggesting. As downtown matures and the city continues to grow, we need effective regulation to shape downtown as the efficient, densely urbanized section of the city even if outside of the core is quite suburban.Maybe a greater and higher use for the Statue of Liberty would be to tear it down and build a space elevator there. ;)

I think the better use idea wouldn't necessarily hold a gun to a developer per say, but it would at least set an expectation and some sort of process where someone couldn't just come in, demolish, and then squat on valuable land to flip it. I think it is something the city should consider - not to hinder development but to guide/shape how downtown develops and work side-by-side with developers instead of sitting back and letting developers call the shots. .. that's my thought.

I agree completely. An ordinance like this likely wouldn't prevent this tower - like it or not a 40 story tower is "better use" than what is there now. It would ensure though that if the existing stock is going to be demolished that the tower will in fact be built.

... As I mentioned, I think Vancouver requires developers to present proposals before demolition could take place. I think other very large cities (Chicago, NY) also have this for their cores. In fact, I am certain of it because I know of examples where a building was proposed and approved by the city of Vancouver (development known as the Crystal Tower). It was a beautiful skyscraper that was to infill into a small slot between two buildings the city wants to keep. I believe it involved demolition of an existing parking or low rise building; which the city approved. Later, the developer had to revise that proposal and had to go to the city for approval of the new design. ...

Though one thing Vancouver's planning model has been struggling with (at least when I saw video of a developers conference there a couple years ago) is their process being criticized for too hands on and ambiguous. Which has commonly lead to large delays in projects, large costs associated with the cycle to get the developers plan adjusted to city goals in areas there are not even guidelines and projects being abandon even when there is pent up demand for what they were trying and funded to build.

I agree that Vancouver is on a very different scale but perhaps some of their concepts could work here and help promote OKC's growing urban environment. That was my point not so much that OKC should go all the way or anything, but take what works and see if we could apply it. I'm sure other very large cities (in this country) MUST also have some sort of agreement/process before demolition as well.

The bottom line is that once something is demolished, you can't by law force someone to construct something.

In fact, I'm sure most would see this as a detriment to development. Situations change over time (financing, market conditions, etc.).


They wouldn't be forced to build anything. Once they obtained their building permit they could just tear down whatever structure is on the property. What it would prevent is the situation where they do tear something down and then don't build anything, or build something worse. Before they tore a building down they would have to have plans for the new building complete, financing in place for the new construction, a building permit, and everything else that goes along with new construction. Once the building permit is issued then they could tear down whatever is there no questions asked. Now, if what they want to replace the old building with is something worse then the permit would be rejected and the developer would be out a lot of money, but so what, that is their problem. They either come up with a better building or keep what is there now. Isn't that what we want?

I was a fly on the wall recently in a discussion between developers (the well-intentioned community-minded type who actually care about this kind of thing). They were discussing the very topic of demolitions being tied to finished product, and someone floated the idea of requiring some type of performance bond when issuing demolition permits. I thought that was interesting. Bonds are not uncommon to ensure that a demolition is completed properly, but not sure if any exist to guarantee completion of replacement structures.

They wouldn't be forced to build anything. Once they obtained their building permit they could just tear down whatever structure is on the property. What it would prevent is the situation where they do tear something down and then don't build anything, or build something worse. Before they tore a building down they would have to have plans for the new building complete, financing in place for the new construction, a building permit, and everything else that goes along with new construction. Once the building permit is issued then they could tear down whatever is there no questions asked. Now, if what they want to replace the old building with is something worse then the permit would be rejected and the developer would be out a lot of money, but so what, that is their problem. They either come up with a better building or keep what is there now. Isn't that what we want?

this is my understanding of the Vancouver model. Once approved they couldn't just tear down and replace with something less (or sit on it indefinitely) without consideration and approval from the city. If they couldn't follow through with the original concept; the city could approve a revised design or chose to reclaim the land and put it back to market -and likely- penalize the developer.

Put it this way, if OKC had Vancouver's model then Hogan would not have gotten away with Lower Bricktown. He presented a concept which was approved and was quite dense in form compared to what was there. This demo and rebuild was approved. Hogan would have had to go back to OCURA to change the designs to the current build and the URA could have rejected it (not saying they would have, but at least there would have been civic oversight for changes).

The result of the Vancouver ordinance would be no more UNINFORMED 'bait and switch' or at least consequences to those developers (especially those receiving incentives) who do.

this is my understanding of the Vancouver model. Once approved they couldn't just tear down and replace with something less (or sit on it indefinitely) without consideration and approval from the city. If they couldn't follow through with the original concept; the city could approve a revised design or chose to reclaim the land and put it back to market -and likely- penalize the developer.

Put it this way, if OKC had Vancouver's model then Hogan would not have gotten away with Lower Bricktown. He presented a concept which was approved and was quite dense in form compared to what was there. This demo and rebuild was approved. Hogan would have had to go back to OCURA to change the designs to the current build and the URA could have rejected it (not saying they would have, but at least there would have been civic oversight for changes).

The result of the Vancouver ordinance would be no more UNINFORMED 'bait and switch' or at least consequences to those developers (especially those receiving incentives) who do.

This.

The original plans for Lower Bricktown was quite impressive. Comparing what was actually built to the original proposal, it was perhaps one of the biggest down-scales I've ever seen. Holding developers to their proposals and requiring them to go to the URA for approval before building a scaled-down version may help prevent or at least discourage that from happening again.

This.

The original plans for Lower Bricktown was quite impressive. Comparing what was actually built to the original proposal, it was perhaps one of the biggest down-scales I've ever seen. Holding developers to their proposals and requiring them to go to the URA for approval before building a scaled-down version may help prevent or at least discourage that from happening again.Yeah, it's amazing how much lower Bricktown was scaled down. I wonder how many people are even aware of the original plans.

Just FYI, but that deal with Hogan was under the old OCURA regime and before the City developed these organized design review committees. The deal was signed a long time ago and they can't go back and change it now.

However, the newest version of OCURA worked very closely with Hogan when he wanted to build KD's, really the first new project since all the changes at City Hall. In that case, they made significant revisions bases on the feedback from the committee and incurred quite a bit of additional expense.


I believe it's a mistake to constantly bring up Lower Bricktown as an example of how badly the City functions in terms of urban design. Much has changed since then and it's pretty much built-out anyway.

However, the newest version of OCURA worked very closely with Hogan when he wanted to build KD's, really the first new project since all the changes at City Hall. In that case, they made significant revisions bases on the feedback from the committee and incurred quite a bit of additional expense

I believe it's a mistake to constantly bring up Lower Bricktown as an example of how badly the City functions in terms of urban design. Much has changed since then and it's pretty much built-out anyway.

I agree the city has come a long way since Lower Bricktown was approved. Comparing KD's to Toby Keith's there is a huge difference. However there is still more parking fronting the canal than development and Steve has hinted about more development to come so it isn't entirely irrelevant yet.

Lower Bricktown isn't necessarily an example of how badly the city functions today as much as it is how badly things can go if there aren't measures in place to ensure they don't. Hopefully whatever policies are in place today will prevent a repeat from ever occurring.

What was the original proposal that was approved for Lower Bricktown? lf someone has at least a summary I would like to see it. I cannot remember what was approved only that there was a legal challenge from the developer that was not selected.

There old renderings floating around. Was to be much more dense.

And Hogan cited The Grove in LA as an example and of course what he built is light years from that.

You can see the original rendering behind Hogan here:

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

There really isn't much differences between that rendering and what lower bricktown became?

There is a huge difference, it's just hard to tell from that rendering.

the rendering is much more dense and has canal fronted buildings with pedestrian consideration and a degree of place-making with the arch, fountain, canal liners, lighting, so on.

the resulting Lower Bricktown is more than 50% of the canal is fronted by surface parking (not even garages) and there area almost NO canal fronted buildings (ie, the front is facing the parking lot not the canal); not to mention much less landscaping and NO place-making other than the street facing (Reno) fountain.

The lesson here: don't trust guys named Randy. Randys are good guys to get drunk with, and that's it.

The lesson here: don't trust guys named Randy. Randys are good guys to get drunk with, and that's it.

Bad link

The same group that was doing the core samples is in front of the old Dorns on main. It is just east of the city building at 420 w main.

The same group that was doing the core samples is in front of the old Dorns on main. It is just east of the city building at 420 w main.

Sounds like they are taking samples on the majority of the block. That's at least 3 sides now we've heard of.

the rendering is much more dense and has canal fronted buildings with pedestrian consideration and a degree of place-making with the arch, fountain, canal liners, lighting, so on.

the resulting Lower Bricktown is more than 50% of the canal is fronted by surface parking (not even garages) and there area almost NO canal fronted buildings (ie, the front is facing the parking lot not the canal); not to mention much less landscaping and NO place-making other than the street facing (Reno) fountain.

Agree with this.

The original plan had density, placemaking, cohesion, and canal interaction, four crucial elements that are all but missing in the finished product. There really is no understating how much potential was squandered (though there is still a chance for it to be fixed). The important thing going forward is to make sure it never happens again and from what Pete has said about todays OCURA, such a debacle is much less likely.

Agree with this.

The original plan had density, placemaking, cohesion, and canal interaction, four crucial elements that are all but missing in the finished product. There really is no understating how much potential was squandered (though there is still a chance for it to be fixed). The important thing going forward is to make sure it never happens again and from what Pete has said about todays OCURA, such a debacle is much less likely.

Other than the City building (Harbor Longmire), Coney Island and the NW corner lot it will all come down. I heard this a long time ago. Big things planned. Exciting times ahead.
I sure miss the Lunch Box though.

I realize chances are slim here, and that you can't just throw around money and ideas in a planning phase, but how great would it be if this block turned into something like Sandridges (Minus the park) One North Hudson could be remodeled into a more modern building like the Braniff. That could happen with the Motor Hotel as well. Lets say they decide to keep the One North Hudson, and decided to knock down the Motor Hotel to build a parking garage, that would be a lot of space. They could build a garage 2/3rds the size of Devons. I guess I would just love to see the developers look at all options before building a tall tower...and a parking garage...

This is a great opportunity for something great, I hope they don't mess it up...

SandRidge, in my opinion, is more of a previous example in pushing the envelope, which this project just takes a little further..

A strong city, where both the market and leadership are strong as well, does not barter historic buildings. Period.

Except that SandRidge tore down buildings in favor of windswept, largely-unused plazas, whereas a tear down in this block would result in arguably higher and better use and full site utilization. That makes the discussion more complicated and nuanced.

And the statement about strong cities not tearing down in favor of new architecture doesn't hold water. It happens every day, in places like New York. And it had happened this way for generations. I know I've posted this before, but the Waldorf Astoria was torn down to build the Empire State Building, for instance:

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

I agree with Urbanized. Strong cities don't tear down historic structures for green space or surface parking like OKC has a history of doing, but doing so for better and higher use happens all the time. The one change I would make to the process in OKC is to tie the demolition to the building permit, if only to avoid a situation where a deal falls apart after demolition leaving an empty lot.

The one change I would make to the process in OKC is to tie the demolition to the building permit, if only to avoid a situation where a deal falls apart after demolition leaving an empty lot.

Yes. That change alone would remove so much doubt for everyone - preservationsit, urbanist, developers, the City, and the public in general and raise the bar for new developements. I would even go so far as to say "No demolitions without a building permit". Just imagine if that regulation had been in place since 1950.

I understand the argument for higher and better use, but this lot isn't in Manhattan. Tearing down an iconic hotel to build an innovative, worlds tallest, skyscraper on a dense island is one thing. Tearing down serviceable historic building stock when there are enough surface parking lots and poorly utilized green spaces to develop first is another.

I don't disagree with that. I'm only saying that it is more nuanced than SandRidge was; something Spartan didn't leave room for in his post. He painted them both with exactly the same brush.

If the Downtown Design Review Committee agreed to demolishing all the SandRidge properties -- including the historic India Temple and the building on the NE corner of Robinson and RSK in exchange for open plaza -- on what basis would they disallow a demo of One North Hudson if a big office tower is proposed?

In the SandRidge case, the committee got lots of heat from the local business community in favor of the SandRidge plans (including letters from Larry Nichols and Clay Bennett).

The way things are in OKC right now and given the power of influence of those likely to rally in favor of whatever demolitions are proposed for this block, you can pretty much bet they will get what they want.

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

I don't disagree with that. I'm only saying that it is more nuanced than SandRidge was; something Spartan didn't leave room for in his post. He painted them both with exactly the same brush.

Agreed that a building > yet another unused plaza.

India Temple was lifeless and nondescript. Who knew? And thank God Sandridge created a functional public landscape that is actively used by the general public.

I know we're supposed to be grateful and groveling for the level of employment the energy companies provide this city, but could their executives stick to running oil companies, and leave city planning to people who know what they're doing?

India Temple was lifeless and nondescript. Who knew? And thank God Sandridge created a functional public landscape that is actively used by the general public.

I know we're supposed to be grateful and groveling for the level of employment the energy companies provide this city, but could their executives stick to running oil companies, and leave city planning to people who know what they're doing?

Larry Nichols is Chairman of the OKC Urban Renewal Authority, the Alliance for Economic Development (which brokers all the incentives for developers and businesses) and is heavily involved in a bunch of other decision-making bodies.

It's also widely known that Devon has been behind Nick Preftakes from the outset; Devon attorneys have represented him in previous matters concerning these properties.

India Temple was lifeless and nondescript. Who knew? And thank God Sandridge created a functional public landscape that is actively used by the general public.

I know we're supposed to be grateful and groveling for the level of employment the energy companies provide this city, but could their executives stick to running oil companies, and leave city planning to people who know what they're doing?

+1 I thought the same thing when I read that.

But don't you know, Larry Nichols has done so much for OKC. We should worship the ground he walks on.

Except that SandRidge tore down buildings in favor of windswept, largely-unused plazas, whereas a tear down in this block would result in arguably higher and better use and full site utilization. That makes the discussion more complicated and nuanced.

And the statement about strong cities not tearing down in favor of new architecture doesn't hold water. It happens every day, in places like New York. And it had happened this way for generations. I know I've posted this before, but the Waldorf Astoria was torn down to build the Empire State Building, for instance:

http://frenchhatchingcat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-waldorf-astoria-hotel-fifth-avenue_975b44f15c.jpgYou prefer that over the Empire State Building?

You prefer that over the Empire State Building?

Oh hell yes.

You prefer that over the Empire State Building?

No, what he's saying is that sometimes there's a valid reason for tearing down a cool historic building.

One North Hudson is cool, and I think the Motor Hotel very special (at least the facade). If someone could convert the Motor Hotel into office space or residential that would be ideal. But if they're going to replace those two buildings with something fantastic, we have to look at that too.

Imagine something like this in our skyline and tell me that it wouldn't be a good trade.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/NBC_Tower_070723.jpg

Except that SandRidge tore down buildings in favor of windswept, largely-unused plazas, whereas a tear down in this block would result in arguably higher and better use and full site utilization. That makes the discussion more complicated and nuanced.

And the statement about strong cities not tearing down in favor of new architecture doesn't hold water. It happens every day, in places like New York. And it had happened this way for generations. I know I've posted this before, but the Waldorf Astoria was torn down to build the Empire State Building, for instance:

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

You're usually spot on, except this time. That's an apples and oranges debate because those cities grant demo permits in conjunction with a building permit. They have assurances whether formal or informal regarding the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building.

We are not tearing down the Preftakes block for the Empire State Building or even Devon Tower. Pickard Chilton or not, the tower doesn't need the entire block, and what we are really talking about is the garage complex. Which is funny because there's already an Art Deco garage right there.

Waldorf Astoria is a nice story, but those cities didn't tear down their most urban block for parking garages, and those that did made mistakes just like OKC. OKC preservationists need to get off their ass and stop rationalizing these losses.

I agree with hoyasooner. If something like that is proposed, bring in the bulldozers. I want to add though that it should be approved BEFORE demolition.

Oh hell yes.Wow. I love the ESB. It is perhaps my favorite building of all time.

The other building is beautiful, but I'm not sure there is any building in OKC I wouldn't trade for ESB.

I hope nobody really thinks that each building needs to be demolished so that the ESB can be mimicked on the Preftakes block.

No one has said that Spartan. You know that.

K. Just making sure!