Widgets Magazine
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 172

Thread: 400 N. Walnut

  1. Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I think that's what the situation was. There are better, less-disruptive ways to good ADA compliance.

  2. #52

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Another photo:


  3. #53

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Another photo:

    As a recovering soil scientist I love that cross-section view! Nice organic horizon developed there.

  4. #54

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Yes, steps were not original but you aren't even supposed to paint a building within the DDRC boundaries without prior approval.

    And unless plans change, those columns are most definitely going away:

    You mean if plans don't change and if DDRC approves it...granted they have recently gotten rid of regulatory HP.

  5. #55

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Here are a bunch of new renderings in advance of this project's date with the DDRC next week.

    You can see they plan to use some pretty funky materials. The City staff have pointed out there are several elements that are not in compliance with established standards and I'm sure there will be lots of discussion about various aspects by the committee.










  6. #56

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    That's way different than what I was thinking it would be.

  7. #57

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    It's certainly different and represents a pretty big investment.

    At least they aren't trying to cheap-out.

  8. #58

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    It doesn't even look like the same building. I like the fact that it comes out to the street, and really, considering the apartment complexes nearby, it's not going to take a whole lot to be in compliance with the architecture of the area. Cheap and boring is the watchword for them (apologies to those who like LEVEL and Mosaic. I think they're pretty vanilla, and Maywood Apartments are just sad).

  9. #59

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I still think it is going to be great. I notice there is only 9 planned residences here. And 9 single car garages.

    I would like the rear of the garages to line the sidewalk and have some type of decoration/nice finish facing outward - thus leaving the parking lot hidden from the street. I would much rather walk along an interesting wall than a parking lot.

  10. #60

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I was told they may add another building to the east end of the property at a later date.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I don't object but it seems like they're trying too hard to make it trendy...

  12. #62

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I"m sure the ADA requirements are the reason for the change to the front.

    It doesn't really add much space for I'm sure it was forced upon them.

  13. #63

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    I"m sure the ADA requirements are the reason for the change to the front.

    It doesn't really add much space for I'm sure it was forced upon them.
    If they just retained the Georgian columns, brick, and lentils on a single side this could work... but they should NOT just sweep away a fully-intact Georgian facade. Those are rare in the days of urban school closings and demo everywhere across the Midwest.

  14. #64

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Steve's article about the demolition.

    Oklahoma City firm takes down front of historic Deep Deuce building without proper permit | News OK

    The steps to the 94-year-old building at 400 N Walnut Ave. in Deep Deuce were torn out recently despite the contractor not having a required permit for the work. The city is preparing to cite the contractor and is recommending the Downtown Design Review Committee reject a plan to replace the building’s historic facade.

  15. Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Oops.

  16. #66

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    That is a shame. Maybe OKC can put the process on hold for about 6-12 months as an example.

  17. #67

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I'm pretty sure those steps and planter thing were not original to the building.

  18. #68

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    This is ridiculous that we have gotten to this point in our downtown. Good last-ditch administrative action here, but not so across the street when the historic gas station accidentally vanished..

    OKC has a HP crisis, and there is no way to realistically tone that down (as much as we all love toned-down things).

  19. #69

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Seriously…how hard would it be to just move the front addition North about 20 feet so that the current entrance isn't hindered?

  20. #70

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    This is ridiculous that we have gotten to this point in our downtown. Good last-ditch administrative action here, but not so across the street when the historic gas station accidentally vanished..

    OKC has a HP crisis, and there is no way to realistically tone that down (as much as we all love toned-down things).
    Sorry to have to ask, but I've seen "HP" abbreviated several times and as I'm a noob about development (but have become a junkie since finding this site!), I have to ask what it means. I'm guessing Historic Preservation based on context, but not sure.

  21. #71

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    ^

    Correct.

  22. #72

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Yeah, sorry about the jargon. Can be used interchangeably with #histpres

  23. Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Hope this doesn't get approved.

  24. #74

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    I'm pretty sure those steps and planter thing were not original to the building.
    Does that matter?

  25. #75

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by ljbab728 View Post
    Does that matter?
    Yes because that would mean there is little chance they'll get in any real trouble over this.

    They could be made to build them back otherwise,

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Bricktown IHop Building: 400 E. California
    By OklahomaNick in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-14-2014, 10:30 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-17-2012, 04:36 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 10:29 PM
  4. Enogex to move 400 jobs to dt OKC!
    By dmoor82 in forum Businesses & Employers
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 02:02 PM
  5. Possiblity of 400 new jobs in Norman?
    By stlokc in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 12:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO