Widgets Magazine
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 172

Thread: 400 N. Walnut

  1. #126

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I have to chime in. That design is a monstrosity. If only the owners and architects had walked one block south they would see how to re-purpose an historic building without destroying it. Did these architects go to school?

  2. #127

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    And there are respectful ways of expressing that, as many have demonstrated.
    I'm sorry Pete, but this business owner (whoever they are, they've kept their identity secret) and this developer have shown zero respect for the community or the history of this building. They started demolition without a permit and hoped to just sneak it through. I hope they do read this site. I hope they sit there at the computer and say "gee, people really hate this design. If I proceed with this, I'm going to be very unpopular."

    Not every business owner deserves respect.

  3. #128

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Guys, I don't think Pete's request was "optional". You're allowed to have your opinion, but whether or not it's allowed to be voiced on this forum likely depends on how you phrase things. Maybe I'm wrong, but since his post I bet you can add "monstrosity", "transmogrified", "Did these architects go to school" to the list.

    Those things may be 110% true and still be the wrong thing to post on this forum. I'm not a moderator or anybody special, and I know I've been pretty sharp-tongued myself at various points, but if Pete specifically calls us out on something, can we not make his life harder by defying him and making him have to make a difficult decision to censure us to protect the OKCTalk brand (via deleting posts or banning users)?

  4. #129

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    While I have shied away from that strong language myself, since I view the city as the problem here which really failed in its role to help the developers figure this out, I do not want to be part of a forum that censures criticisms. It's already enough that OKC is naturally a community incapable of handling criticism. Although few people stick up for my criticisms, I find it extremely valuable for other posters who are less frequently critical to have the ability to criticize when needed.

    I just say that because I saw the word censure, banning, and deleting posts... Which I am sure Pete is NOT even considering.

  5. #130

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I don't want to speak for Pete, but I doubt he's considering censure/banning/deleting posts in this instance.

    What I'm saying is there's a specific reason he referenced his previous post, yet immediately people are continuing on using the same caustic verbiage he just finished calling out.

    What I'm trying to prevent via "self-policing" is that we ever get to the point where censure is even an idea that enters Pete's mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism and nobody has ever advocated for less criticism. Pete's asking for the rhetoric to be toned down. It's normal in internet land to go over-board and use verbiage that is overly-strong to get a point across. And that's fine in normal internet land. It's neither necessary nor appreciated here, specifically if the verbiage is targeted at anyone in the OKC community (whether active or non-active on this site). Again…I've offended too, so I'm not pointing fingers at specific posters…just asking that we actually listen to what Pete said and not summarily disregard it because we can't be bothered to criticize in a more tactful manner.

    I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds as a participant…I really am just advocating that we all make Pete's job as easy as possible. I'm sure I'll over-play the rhetoric in the future myself, and I hope at that point someone calls me out and says "Valid criticism…now find a more tactful way to say it".

  6. Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    I don't want to speak for Pete, but I doubt he's considering censure/banning/deleting posts in this instance.

    What I'm saying is there's a specific reason he referenced his previous post, yet immediately people are continuing on using the same caustic verbiage he just finished calling out.

    What I'm trying to prevent via "self-policing" is that we ever get to the point where censure is even an idea that enters Pete's mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism and nobody has ever advocated for less criticism. Pete's asking for the rhetoric to be toned down. It's normal in internet land to go over-board and use verbiage that is overly-strong to get a point across. And that's fine in normal internet land. It's neither necessary nor appreciated here, specifically if the verbiage is targeted at anyone in the OKC community (whether active or non-active on this site). Again…I've offended too, so I'm not pointing fingers at specific posters…just asking that we actually listen to what Pete said and not summarily disregard it because we can't be bothered to criticize in a more tactful manner.

    I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds as a participant…I really am just advocating that we all make Pete's job as easy as possible. I'm sure I'll over-play the rhetoric in the future myself, and I hope at that point someone calls me out and says "Valid criticism…now find a more tactful way to say it".
    Agreed with all of the above.

    I was the first person that Pete quoted, and it was indeed juvenile & unneeded. Its easy to get caught up in the anonymity of the internet & use less than respectful language. Pete asked us to stop (without deleting the posts he quoted) & we should respect that.

    This is obviously a very unpopular renovation & its OK to voice our opinion against it, but a lot of us (me included) are weakening our points by coming off as immature.

    I for one am glad they are leaving the Georgian columns on the inside of the building, I think that will be a pretty cool effect with the modern design on the outside. I'm not a overall fan of the renovations, but at least they are attempting to please the review committee & possibly the public. Honestly, the only thing "remarkable" about the building was the columns & if their overall goal was to get people to notice this building I think they will accomplish that but being noticed isn't necessarily a good thing.

  7. #132

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    I don't want to speak for Pete, but I doubt he's considering censure/banning/deleting posts in this instance.

    What I'm saying is there's a specific reason he referenced his previous post, yet immediately people are continuing on using the same caustic verbiage he just finished calling out.

    What I'm trying to prevent via "self-policing" is that we ever get to the point where censure is even an idea that enters Pete's mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism and nobody has ever advocated for less criticism. Pete's asking for the rhetoric to be toned down. It's normal in internet land to go over-board and use verbiage that is overly-strong to get a point across. And that's fine in normal internet land. It's neither necessary nor appreciated here, specifically if the verbiage is targeted at anyone in the OKC community (whether active or non-active on this site). Again…I've offended too, so I'm not pointing fingers at specific posters…just asking that we actually listen to what Pete said and not summarily disregard it because we can't be bothered to criticize in a more tactful manner.

    I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds as a participant…I really am just advocating that we all make Pete's job as easy as possible. I'm sure I'll over-play the rhetoric in the future myself, and I hope at that point someone calls me out and says "Valid criticism…now find a more tactful way to say it".
    I agree wholeheartedly that we should make this easier, not harder, for Pete. That said, call a spade what it is. This is the Internet after all, and we all know how hard it is to speak up in more meaningful situations. I for one could never be a commissioner for the BUDC or DDRC without being up-front about my commitment to standards, not politics.

  8. #133

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    As per Steve, this whole thing is a puzzlement.

    http://www.oklahoman.com/article/541...uce%20property

  9. #134

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    So Karchmer is involved in this?

  10. #135

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    This project goes before the Board of Adjustment Thursday 5/21.

    They have not made any changes to their proposal since the last DDRC meeting but remember, the City planning department recommended approval of that plan.

    I think there is a very good chance it will be approved by the BOA and I know the ownership group is ready to start work if that does happen.

  11. #136

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    The owners requested a continuance before the Board of Adjustment until 8/6.

  12. #137

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    This project goes before the Board of Adjustment Thursday 5/21.

    They have not made any changes to their proposal since the last DDRC meeting but remember, the City planning department recommended approval of that plan.

    I think there is a very good chance it will be approved by the BOA and I know the ownership group is ready to start work if that does happen.
    They're probably ready to start work even if it isn't approved...

  13. #138

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    This project is still kicking.

    They have delayed their appeal to the Board of Adjustment until January. Do not believe they will be making any major changes to what is proposed.

  14. #139

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    As per Steve there has been a major change in this project.

    http://www.oklahoman.com/redevelopme...rticle/5467086

    A controversial redevelopment of a historic building in Deep Deuce is being halted and the former school board building at 400 N Walnut Ave. is under a sale contract to three downtown developers.

    Developers Andy Burnett, Zach Martin and Mark Beffort signed a sale contract on Friday with the owners, who have continued to decline comment or reveal their identities.

  15. #140

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut


  16. #141

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by ljbab728 View Post
    As per Steve there has been a major change in this project.

    http://www.oklahoman.com/redevelopme...rticle/5467086
    Oh, great! Thanks for destroying the historic character of the building and then abandoning the project midway. How many times have we seen this happen in our city?

  17. #142

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by soonerguru View Post
    Oh, great! Thanks for destroying the historic character of the building and then abandoning the project midway. How many times have we seen this happen in our city?
    Please note this from the article.

    Martin said questions and challenges remain to be addressed before the sale is closed, but the partners are intent on not destroying or eliminating the building's original facade.
    There was little that was changed in the character of the building besides removing some steps.

  18. #143

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    And the steps were not original to the building.

  19. #144

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    How long is this property going to be left with a giant dirt mound where the steps were? Looks terrible.

  20. #145

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    It will be a while.

    They had to stop work because they didn't have design review approval and now the property is under contract to sell.

    So, the property would first have to sell, then the new owners would have to have their design plans approved, and building permits issued.

    I'd guess at least 6 more months, probably longer.

  21. #146

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    And the steps were not original to the building.
    But they were there. Now their wreckage is there because yet another project didn't come to fruition.

  22. #147

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    They would ultimately be removed anyway and there are clearly plans to renovate a long-vacant structure.

    Let's not turn this into yet another Chicken Little screed.

  23. #148

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    They would ultimately be removed anyway and there are clearly plans to renovate a long-vacant structure.
    Where do these plans clearly stand?

  24. #149

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    Where do these plans clearly stand?
    You might wait until the property actually sells before demanding satisfaction.

  25. #150

    Default Re: 400 N. Walnut

    I think I have a pretty realistic idea of where this transaction really stands... they might want to clean up their mess in the meantime.

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