West Village

[Spartan]

I respectfully disagree. I agree on one hand that facadism is NOT historic preservation. On the other hand, I badly wish more of these projects actually created place. I want to see more actual effort to use design to create place. The night and day difference is reflected in the 2nd Street side of Level, as opposed to the 3rd Street side. NE 2nd Street is a really great street. 3rd honestly isn't, despite the Brownstones and Maywood Park sculpture.

So while facadism isn't HP, it is design. In this case, I greatly appreciate that they have put some of the site's existing elements into reuse to create a contextual design strategy that WILL translate into placemaking. It's so typical of the OKC Talk echo chamber to turn against one of the high-quality projects we have.

Maywood Apartments Phase II is really sad - why don't people attack that project instead, which did tear down its existing site elements that were supposed to be renovated and incorporated into the larger building's facade.

[Pete]

Maywood Apartments Phase II is really sad - why don't people attack that project instead, which did tear down its existing site elements that were supposed to be renovated and incorporated into the larger building's facade.

It got attacked plenty.

And they will basically be reassembling as well and at least they will be reconstructing entire buildings in their original location.

[Spartan]

We shall see. I don't have a lot of confidence after that episode. That is someone whose feet you hold to the fire, whereas these developers should be applauded and supported; at least to the extent that OKC Talk can impact city policy and consumer trends in OKC. In general I think (hope) the public rewards developers who create good places for consumers.

[Urbanized]

The board has hardly been unsupportive or even in any way very critical of this project. Pete asked a question. It was answered.

[Spartan]

I just don't think facadism, especially in this example, should be categorically condemned. Here it does a lot more for placemaking than it hurts for HP.

I have always been fairly opposed to the Dept of Interior HP standards. I just had a coffee shop debate with some really interesting people who oppose me on "gentrification" in Ohio, to the point that they called the historic standards "white." As if a building code can have a skin color. I think the old school historic preservation establishment has done a lot of harm with its strict standards, and its willingness to see buildings demolished if they can't comply with the high standards for HP.

It comes down to a debate as to whether standards really save historic resources, which has been the guiding light of the HP movement.

[Just the facts]

With regard to facades, if it enhances the pedestrian experience I am all for it.

[baralheia]

I just don't think facadism, especially in this example, should be categorically condemned. Here it does a lot more for placemaking than it hurts for HP.

I have always been fairly opposed to the Dept of Interior HP standards. I just had a coffee shop debate with some really interesting people who oppose me on "gentrification" in Ohio, to the point that they called the historic standards "white." As if a building code can have a skin color. I think the old school historic preservation establishment has done a lot of harm with its strict standards, and its willingness to see buildings demolished if they can't comply with the high standards for HP.

It comes down to a debate as to whether standards really save historic resources, which has been the guiding light of the HP movement.

Facadism can look pretty cool if it's incorporated properly into the new structure... or it can look pretty atrocious if not done well. As long as it doesn't look like any of the nightmares shown in this article, I'm generally OK with it...

[Urbanized]

Just to be clear, demolishing a building and then building a replica out of new or even somewhat recycled materials is not facadism. It is something else entirely. Maybe there is a term for it, but replica architecture would suffice for a name if not. At least facadism makes use of the historic structure's preserved facade. To some extent the MAPS-funded reconstruction of the Civic Center could be considered facadism, and I doubt few would disagree that what was done there was great.

[Spartan]

Just to be clear, demolishing a building and then building a replica out of new or even somewhat recycled materials is not facadism. It is something else entirely. Maybe there is a term for it, but replica architecture would suffice for a name if not. At least facadism makes use of the historic structure's preserved facade. To some extent the MAPS-funded reconstruction of the Civic Center could be considered facadism, and I doubt few would disagree that what was done there was great.

I think we can all drink to this.

[Dubya61]

..., and I doubt few would disagree that what was done there was great.

I've already been drinking to it plenty, apparently. Help me out here and get rid of some of the negatives: Do a lot of people like it or hate it?

[Urbanized]

I think it was pretty universally lauded. Great acoustics, good performance space. It's a modern building build within a historic facade, one that would have been tragic to lose. The historic integrity of the interior was so compromised over years of renovation that there wasn't really anything left to restore. In a lot of ways it was like the recent Hotel Marion renovation, as were the heroic measures they went to in order to keep the walls of the old building. In cases like that, there is nothing wrong with the approach from an HP standpoint, and in fact lots of preservationists would say that it is a superior approach versus trying to recreate the historic interior, which would result in an inauthentic "false history."

But again, this is a very different thing from demolishing a building and then recreating a replica, whether the materials used are original or just approximation.

[Pete]

Another rendering of the parking garage... This will be the view from Classen.

[shawnw]

I was just noticing the drawings at the top only have the 1st floor. Can you post the 2nd/3rd floors? When I'm sitting at the light there and looking at the building I'm having trouble visualizing more than 50 rooms, but I know it's supposed to be 100+.

[Pete]

OKCTalk - Final plans for the Residences at 21c set to go to design review

Note that the revised plans for Building A now show office rather than retail on the Classen corner:

[catch22]

It looks great. But I really don't like closing Fred Jones Blvd to make the building contiguous.

We have way too many superblocks, and with the coming years the jail may be open to development, giving us a chance to extend the grid further. This building will block north south connectivity to what may eventually be a new developable area where the jail complex is.

Aside from the superblock, long buildings are just a pain to walk by. They feel like they will never end. You need intersections to provide breaks in buildings, and to keep your mind active while walking.

[Pete]

I think closing that little bit of Fred Jones is the only way not to have some little, inefficient building on the NE corner.

Also, I don't doubt that blocking the view to the county jail to the immediate north is part of this, and you can't blame them for that.

I watched the last presentation they made on the project and was very impressed with the amount of time and thought that went into the planning and design. They have been working on this plan for some time and it's morphed as they've stepped through the process.

[catch22]

Little inefficient building? The size of that small corner lot without the Row could fit the Uhaul building on it.

[Pete]

But with no parking.

The idea is for the residences and retail there to be directly attached to the parking.


They had originally proposed that corner as a stand-alone with some parking and it was a mess.

[catch22]

I see. I still think it is a planning oversight that we will regret in the next 10-20 years when the jail comes down, and classen continues to mature to the north and merge with Midtown and SoSa

[gopokes88]

Love the Film row logo on the side of one of the buildings looks awesome overall.

[Rover]

It seems to me that while ground floor retail is great in these buildings, we are in danger of having small pockets of retail distributed over a large area downtown where there can be no real synergy for the retailers. Maybe the numbers work out that you only need a market within a few block radius, but it won't draw the kind of retailers to entice people to come to the area unless they already live there. I just wish the core (hear us First National) could get there act together and put together an efficient and attractive ground level urban shopping district.

[gopokes88]

in a word, no. I love this project overall, and in a great way, but a historic building is either worth preserving or its not. The facadism craze, or worse, the recent tendency to demolish and recreate is fakery. It's not authentic. Even worse is the 499 approach; demolishing a place and featuring its sign on your new building. These "nods" to history are unintentionally more insulting than they are respectful. Why is a building worth memorializing/imitating if it's not worth preserving?

In the case of the 21C/Hall Capital projects, the higher and better use is pretty clear. If you're not going to incorporate the actual historic buildings, make the new ones great and move on down the road.

Function over form. The new building will function better but tries to recreate some of the previous form. It's a lot cheaper to build new with modern standards and pay homage to the old form than it is to remodel an old building with modern standards. That's generally speaking of course.

That's why. Whether you like function over form, or form over function is an entirely separate debate.

[Urbanized]

You're NOT paying homage to the old building by doing that, no matter how many times you tell yourself that you are. Just build a great new building that stands on its own merits. Incorporate design elements from the old one in the new one? Sure. Make a replica? Don't bother. It will always be a cheap imitation. Just. Make. The. New. Building. Great.

You don't have to lecture me on form v function or old v new; I have been around many, many development projects - both new build and HP - for the past 30 years. I understand the values and challenges of each type of construction. Thoroughly.

[Teo9969]

It seems to me that while ground floor retail is great in these buildings, we are in danger of having small pockets of retail distributed over a large area downtown where there can be no real synergy for the retailers. Maybe the numbers work out that you only need a market within a few block radius, but it won't draw the kind of retailers to entice people to come to the area unless they already live there. I just wish the core (hear us First National) could get there act together and put together an efficient and attractive ground level urban shopping district.

Fix the abomination that is traffic on Broadway and Automobile Alley will be that "district"

And honestly, it needs to be Broadway because the CBD is an unfixable (at least, not for less than multiple hundreds of millions) hell hole of street-interaction. Deep Deuce is already clearly a residential neighborhood, Bricktown is an entertainment district and everything else downtown is simply too undeveloped and sparse to ever become anything like that.

As everything in this city has always been: Go north young-man!

[Pete]

From warreng88 as demolition continues at this site.

I should have bought stock in Midwest Wrecking; they seem to be the busiest group in town.