Convention Center Garage

[UnFrSaKn]

Everyone is on the same page as far as this development goes. Yet I’m a preservationist compelled to bring this to everyone’s attention. Whether something is hidden away or there in plain sight, it doesn’t really make much difference with how the city goes about things. This is very well known as you have said.

However your views sound straight out of 50s-70s urban renewal “better and higher use” mentality. Fill in the blanks replacing “Omni Hotel” with “Galleria”, “Century Center”, “Myriad Convention Center” (same story with that one). Next thing you know there’s no Main Street anymore along with whole other square blocks. Did you skip over the part where I agree that the development should happen here, just that I have an issue that Pete pointed out? There was a missed opportunity to do everything they required for the Omni and make it work with what was here hidden away. The problem is always with folks who design things in an studio somewhere (probably not local) with the “clean slate” way of doing things. In this case nobody knew, assuming them as well, yet we know it doesn’t make any difference anyway. Was demolishing Founders Bank for just another fast food joint better and higher use? Wouldn’t you be the same guy with the same attitude pushing for the warehouse district to be demolished for “better and higher use”? Seriously, imagine you’re there looking at deteriorating, abandoned structures and there’s an oil boom going on and a majority trend to “demolish it and they will come” roadmap. Would you say, “Hold on just a minute.”?

Nobody knew about it until I randomly stumbled upon it and now nothing can be done. Nobody can “make people take historic preservation seriously” either. I resent the notion that bringing it to people’s attention makes someone “sound crazy”. You can’t deny, again like Pete has said, the way things happpen in OKC never changes. Bringing a chainsaw to do brain surgery. Read through the Stage Center thread again for a reminder. Im not here to cause controversy, just again pointing out how the same things repeat themselves.

[Laramie]

Great post; appreciate the fine points; preservation may be something that gives developers indigestion--a hard core case of constipation is worth a 2nd look.

[shawnw]

I don't know what the number of "historically significant buildings" is in OKC, but let's say it's 12 just for the sake of this conversation. So does that mean all other buildings except those 12 are fair game for destruction no matter the circumstance? That's the issue here. I don't think anyone is saying that, but that's how it comes across. It's a case by case thing, and we shouldn't have an "automatic" reaction regarding destroying a building (ANY building, not just old ones). And I'm not saying every old building must be saved at all costs. Just that we take an honest, thorough look at why we're destroying it, if there's a reasonable alternative, etc. Due diligence. That's it. A few years ago I was in Seattle and saw a sign posted on a tree. A TREE. The sign said the tree was scheduled to be cut down by the end of the month and gave a public hearing date for those wanting to object to the cutting down of the tree. This may seem ridiculous, but I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a moment to think about these things (whether tree or building, but I realize we're along way from either here in OKC) and discussing them in a public forum.

[UnFrSaKn]

I’m constantly immersed in old photos that I reference or uncover pretty much all day so you may call me biased. The deeper down the rabbit hole(s) you go, the conviction for preservation is stronger. The attitude Shawn experienced in that city has literally never existed in OKC as far as I can tell. The Historical Society has been around since the beginning however. The idea that this is just an empty prairie where demolishing the old for the new has never been challenged and it’s deeply ingrained.

[dankrutka]

No offense, but what is so special about these buildings? Why is the past so important? Im not a big fan of tearing buildings down. Im not a fan of keeping them based only on their age either. Just a question for whomever. Maybe it will open my eyes to something new (or old).

Walk through a neighborhood of all new urban construction and one with a mix of old and new buildings and tell me which is preferable. There's a real aesthetic difference to urban areas with old buildings, even the insignificant ones. Old buildings add a grit, substance, and history that is hard to put into words. For example, think of the West Village without the Jones Assembly or 21C buildings. That whole area would lose any character. Those old buildings define that area. And there was certainly nothing special about the Jones Assembly building before renovations. Now, it's one of the best places in OKC.

[kevin lee]

Very good points and excellent reply. This is a very sticky topic depending on your taste. For every person that likes grit and substance; I can show you one that doesn't. I love the museum 21 project. I love the Omni project even more. A lot of people might like the buildings in Philly. Me, I like the buildings in Dubai. All in all, I like good construction. Just because its old doesn't make it good. We all have our preference and I respect either side.

[SagerMichael]

When is Blvd Place supposed to be completed?

[Pete]

When is Blvd Place supposed to be completed?

The plan is for OG&E to move out of that property this spring and into a new facility they have under construction.

Then, the current buildings would be demolished and construction would start on Boulevard Place and the parking garage.

[hoya]

Everyone is on the same page as far as this development goes. Yet I’m a preservationist compelled to bring this to everyone’s attention. Whether something is hidden away or there in plain sight, it doesn’t really make much difference with how the city goes about things. This is very well known as you have said.

However your views sound straight out of 50s-70s urban renewal “better and higher use” mentality. Fill in the blanks replacing “Omni Hotel” with “Galleria”, “Century Center”, “Myriad Convention Center” (same story with that one). Next thing you know there’s no Main Street anymore along with whole other square blocks. Did you skip over the part where I agree that the development should happen here, just that I have an issue that Pete pointed out? There was a missed opportunity to do everything they required for the Omni and make it work with what was here hidden away. The problem is always with folks who design things in an studio somewhere (probably not local) with the “clean slate” way of doing things. In this case nobody knew, assuming them as well, yet we know it doesn’t make any difference anyway. Was demolishing Founders Bank for just another fast food joint better and higher use? Wouldn’t you be the same guy with the same attitude pushing for the warehouse district to be demolished for “better and higher use”? Seriously, imagine you’re there looking at deteriorating, abandoned structures and there’s an oil boom going on and a majority trend to “demolish it and they will come” roadmap. Would you say, “Hold on just a minute.”?

Nobody knew about it until I randomly stumbled upon it and now nothing can be done. Nobody can “make people take historic preservation seriously” either. I resent the notion that bringing it to people’s attention makes someone “sound crazy”. You can’t deny, again like Pete has said, the way things happpen in OKC never changes. Bringing a chainsaw to do brain surgery. Read through the Stage Center thread again for a reminder. Im not here to cause controversy, just again pointing out how the same things repeat themselves.

If you'll look at any of my previous posts on historic preservation, you'll see that I'm almost 100% on the side of preserving our existing urban buildings.

I was for preserving Stage Center.
I posted suggestions on how they could realign the BOk building to preserve the Hotel Black.
I pointed out that Sandridge was lying about the India Temple building having been unoccupied for decades when they wanted to tear it down (it had people in it as recently as 2007).


I've cheered every (rare) victory and lamented every torn down gem. I'm a devoted brickhugger through and through. But this is nuts. It's clearly nuts.

You've got some old photos that indicate that there are some buildings behind that facade that may be worth preserving. However we don't know anything about the condition of those buildings today. Likely they were gutted by OG&E 40 years ago when they put up that ugly gold covering. This reduces their historic value significantly. But we really don't know. Plus they're literally building the convention center and the hotel right now. You wouldn't win this preservation argument in any city in the country. To take it as proof that OKC hates its history is ridiculous.

Now I'm not going to argue that this is a great city for historic preservation. We tear stuff down far too frequently, and there aren't enough protections for buildings that deserve protection. But this isn't an example of callously tearing down our history. Nobody even knew it was here.

[Plutonic Panda]

We know it’s there now. The building still exists. It hasn’t been torn yet! I’d gladly accept a year or even two delay in this project to see the building be incorporated into the new project. It’s very easy to retain facades and is don’t all the time. Toronto has 80+ story skyscrapers built into century old buildings.

[stile99]

We know it’s there now. The building still exists. It hasn’t been torn yet! I’d gladly accept a year or even two delay in this project to see the building be incorporated into the new project. It’s very easy to retain facades and is don’t all the time. Toronto has 80+ story skyscrapers built into century old buildings.

Once again I ask, what is the proposal to do this with a garage/apartments? How much money are you willing to spend to fix whatever OG&E did to them, if nothing other than sheer neglect? You say it hasn't been torn yet, but do we know that? I believe it's been said several times we have no idea what OG&E did. You say we know it's there now...but we don't.

[dankrutka]

I've cheered every (rare) victory and lamented every torn down gem. I'm a devoted brickhugger through and through. But this is nuts. It's clearly nuts.

You've got some old photos that indicate that there are some buildings behind that facade that may be worth preserving. However we don't know anything about the condition of those buildings today. Likely they were gutted by OG&E 40 years ago when they put up that ugly gold covering. This reduces their historic value significantly. But we really don't know. Plus they're literally building the convention center and the hotel right now. You wouldn't win this preservation argument in any city in the country. To take it as proof that OKC hates its history is ridiculous.

Now I'm not going to argue that this is a great city for historic preservation. We tear stuff down far too frequently, and there aren't enough protections for buildings that deserve protection. But this isn't an example of callously tearing down our history. Nobody even knew it was here.

Isn't the fact that there's been no investigation of the state of these buildings proof that there's not even a faint interest in historic preservation by most decision makers? That's not to say whether these buildings are worth saving. It seems no one even checked. And the reason it's fair to label OKC as a city that doesn't care about it's history is because of it's long track record of tearing down historic buildings. It's astouding what OKC tore down with the Pei Plan. You'd think priorities would change. But, as you point out, they didn't and incredible buildings like the Indian Temple came down anyway. OKC desreves that label and keeps proving it.

[Plutonic Panda]

We know it’s there now. The building still exists. It hasn’t been torn yet! I’d gladly accept a year or even two delay in this project to see the building be incorporated into the new project. It’s very easy to retain facades and is don’t all the time. Toronto has 80+ story skyscrapers built into century old buildings.

FYI, this is what you get when a city takes its preservation seriously. Toronto.



Look a little closer:



If they can do it with one of their tallest buildings, it shouldn't be the same old OKC way of "how much money do YOU want to provide for it." Have some f@cking pride in your city and demand better from developers. Damn. Every other city seems to do it.

[Laramie]

Cities like Toronto, Dallas, Kansas City (to name a few)... have moved more toward preservation--they get it.

Don't want to cry over spilled milk; however think about some of the gems we've demolished--old 600 room downtown Biltmore, Black Hotel, Criterion Theater, Baum Building & Stage Center among the most notable, if they were apart of our downtown setting today; jJust imagine the Biltmore much like the Skirvin mixed in as our convention center conference hotel; we could have added a modern wing to it.


Modeled after the Doge’s Palace in Venice, Italy (bottom picture), the Baum Building sat at the corner of Robinson and Grand (Sheridan) in downtown Oklahoma City. This was the work of Layton and Smith, the same firm that designed the Oklahoma State Capital building, and was completed in 1910. This structure was demolished in 1973 as part of the urban renewal movement--Brent Wilkins (Blog five)--Monday, October 27, 2014., Oklahoman

600-room Biltmore Hotel & the historic architecture of the Baum Building.

Don't mean to preach to the choir--would be great if our city could devote a portion of future MAPS funds for preservation; much like we did with Taft Stadium.

[stile99]

I miss the Stage Center as much as the next guy, in fact probably more. I loved the Tinker Toy building when people were crapping on it like crazy and have some fond memories there. That said, wasn't it pretty much destroyed BEFORE it was knocked down? I'm not entirely sure holding it up as something that "could have and should have" been saved is the best choice if it couldn't have. The whole "work of art replaced by boring office building and then even that didn't happen" narrative is cool and all, but it doesn't repair the damage left by flooding.

[Plutonic Panda]

It takes money to repair the flooding. It could have been repaired. World class cities get world class structures which are often historic buildings that preserve character. You have to spend more money on those like developers in world class cities do. That’s one of the things that make cities great.

[kevin lee]

The only problem is that the Stage Center wasn't world class to begin with.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes it was.

[jonny d]

I had no clue the Stage Center even existed until it was torn down.

[Plutonic Panda]

It was an internationally renowned piece of architecture.

[Laramie]

The only problem is that the Stage Center wasn't world class to begin with.

Kevin, I don't claim to know all the details about the Stage Center; however there were articles and raves about Stage Center when it was originally touted & planned as The Mummers Theater. The early black & white placeholders pics looked similar to what was built.

Seems as though it took decades to get this project off the ground. Many people didn't appreciate its beauty; it was like they didn't know what to make of it.

[dankrutka]

That said, wasn't it pretty much destroyed BEFORE it was knocked down? I'm not entirely sure holding it up as something that "could have and should have" been saved is the best choice if it couldn't have. The whole "work of art replaced by boring office building and then even that didn't happen" narrative is cool and all, but it doesn't repair the damage left by flooding.

No, it was not destroyed and, yes, it could have been restored. Have you all seen some of the buildings that have been restored? Just look at those houses on 9th street as an example and they were just simple buildings.

[dankrutka]

I had no clue the Stage Center even existed until it was torn down.

This tells more about you than Stage Center. I don't mean that as an insult, but you clearly must have known very little about OKC to not know about Stage Center. One of the biggest annual events (maybe the biggest?) in the city surrounded it every year.

[catcherinthewry]

Take it to the Stage Center thread. We've already had this debate.

[Laramie]

Take it to the Stage Center thread. We've already had this debate.

Why Stage Center thread; that thread is dead.

This thread has gotten somewhat off track (derailed) because the preservation issue returned as a result of what was revealed behind the gold facade of the building owned by OG&E where the garage will be built.

Dan, lives in a city (Dallas) that I know is very passionate about preservation; so until something new arises about the convention center garage why not talk about preservation on this site without having to toggle back and forth without having to make a thread subject content only.

We could devote a separate thread about preservation or a future MAPS to preserve OKC's venues; however the issue will return as we uncover old gems being replaced by new projects.

If the subject of preservation arises on any thread; let's kick this so-called dead horse around until somebody who has influence gets on board.