# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Reopen NW 7th Street between Hudson & Harvey

## dwellsokc

Emotion probably ruled over logic for the closing of NW 7th between Hudson & Harvey...  Isn't it time to repatriate this segment of roadway?*​*

----------


## Just the facts

It should have never been designed to be permanently closed in the first place.  The building is the same distance from the other three roads as it is 7th.  Sadly, the federal government is involved so it isn't going to happen.  The street was probably vacated by the City anyhow.  At the time I supported keeping federal employees downtown (eventhough most of them wanted to move to the burbs).  If I knew then what I know about urban development now and knew this is what they had in mind I would have supported their move to Memorial Road.  Their plan and design would have been a much better fit out there.

----------


## dwellsokc

...what interest does the Federal Government have in keeping this segment of road closed?

----------


## Urbanized

The worst part is that they demolished buildings in that block to create surface parking and a never-used "park."

----------


## Skyline

The word "park" in Okc is a verb and not a noun. lol

----------


## Urbanized

> ...what interest does the Federal Government have in keeping this segment of road closed?


It was designed as a distance buffer so that nobody could pull up to the front of the new building with a bomb. The secondary and tertiary facades that are at near-zero setback are heavily fortified, but the front of the building was designed to be more open and welcoming to visitors to the building, which necessitated standing vehicles much further out for security purposes.

It was a sign of the times; and actually pretty understandable considering the circumstances that required a new federal building. It was even more understandable when you consider that many of the people who moved into that building had been in the Murrah Building during the bombing, and that it is a stone's-throw away from the site of that tragedy.

Nevertheless it pains me that they razed a couple of nice buildings (at least one of them residential) to make it work.

----------


## Just the facts

> ...what interest does the Federal Government have in keeping this segment of road closed?


Safety (in their mind).

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Safety (in their mind).


and in reality

----------


## Just the facts

> and in reality


It is the same distance from 3 other streets.  How is it safer?

----------


## Urbanized

I explained it in my post. The front has a lot of glass and is more open, ergo more susceptible to an attack. The other three sides are mostly very thick, heavily-reinforced concrete with slits of laminated and otherwise strengthened glass. The ground level around those three sides is designed to carry shock waves up and away from the building, and there are massive bollards in the sidewalk to keep a vehicle from approaching closely.

Since the front is more open and inviting to people walking up to the building, it's vulnerable. So they wanted to take away the opportunity for a vehicle to get close and basically cleared out everything for a block in that direction.

All of that was covered at length in the media during the design and construction process. The people who work in the building were understandably nervous about going back to effectively the same place and having a zero-setback, welcoming building. Some refused to return at all, and the GSA made accommodations for them.

Considering the circumstances, this one was more excusable than most examples of anti-urbanism in the core.

----------


## Dulahey

Ubranized is exactly right.  I actually studied a bit of blast resistant structures in college (I'm a Civil Engineer, we build targets) and there's a lot more than simple distance from the pavement.

Also, they did the same thing to all federal courthouses all around the country.  I was at the one in Brooklyn a few months ago and it's way worse than the situation here.  It's still surrounded by barrier walls and on at least 3 sides that I saw.  Cuts off access to a nice park as well.

----------


## Just the facts

What would stop someone from driving a truck and parking it there right now?  The road is blocked by a little strip of wood with ample room to drive around it.  If you look on Google Earth streetview there are even 2 vans parked right in front of the building at the little barrier.

----------


## Urbanized

It's not wood, it's metal, if I'm not mistaken. Also secured at both ends. It would probably require a pretty good collision to go through it. But your point is well-taken; it doesn't look so secure that a determined individual couldn't ram through it or around it.

But I think the idea was to prohibit someone from rolling up in front of the building undetected with a truck bomb and walking away. With the Murrah Building you could literally park at a meter out front and leave your vehicle unattended, and nobody would notice.

You have to remember how that attack was pulled off and that we often react only to the types of threats we have seen rather than imagining other ways it might be done. That bombing was not a suicide bombing. Dude parked undetected and then skulked away like a coward. He wouldn't have been able to do that with this configuration. It would cause quite a commotion, give people a little more time to react, and probably require a personal death wish.

Anyway, I'd just as soon stop talking about this particular subject. Makes me sad, and probably just inadvertently landed us on some terrorism watch list.

----------


## Just the facts

I don't think anyone is advocating on-street parking right in front and I wouldn't even mind if the road made an arc keeping a set distance between the street and the building.  They could even put a hight bar across to keep anything over 8 feet tall from using the street - but the street should be re-opened to normal traffic.

----------


## Urbanized

I'm certainly not opposed to it. But I'll bet the GSA is.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm certainly not opposed to it. But I'll bet the GSA is.


Now we are back to post #2.  Problem identified, solution identified, government won't do it.  Next issue please.

----------


## Urbanized

Lol

----------


## dwellsokc

> ...they wanted to take away the opportunity for a vehicle to get close and basically cleared out everything for a block in that direction.


The automated gates are flimsy traffic control devices that couldn't stop a bicycle.  Even with the glass facade, the north elevation is probably 10-times more blast-resistant than normal buildings... the building structure was designed to prevent a catastrophic domino failure like Murrah.  Any rational person can see that the flimsy traffic gates could not deter a vehicle... so they must have been put there to satisfy irrational people.  That's why I suggested it was a design based on emotion rather than logic and reason.

There seems to be no rational reason for this segment of roadway to be closed...  (I'm not suggesting that the Government is rational, so that indeed might be the end of the discussion!)

----------


## BoulderSooner

> The automated gates are flimsy traffic control devices that couldn't stop a bicycle.  Even with the glass facade, the north elevation is probably 10-times more blast-resistant than normal buildings... the building structure was designed to prevent a catastrophic domino failure like Murrah.  Any rational person can see that the flimsy traffic gates could not deter a vehicle... so they must have been put there to satisfy irrational people.  That's why I suggested it was a design based on emotion rather than logic and reason.
> 
> There seems to be no rational reason for this segment of roadway to be closed...  (I'm not suggesting that the Government is rational, so that indeed might be the end of the discussion!)


the difference is that if the gates are breached that security would know it right away ..and be able to respond ..

could they stop a suicide bomber ... no .. but those can't really be stopped any where

----------


## dwellsokc

> the difference is that if the gates are breached that security would know it right away ..and be able to respond ..


The site is engulfed in 24-hour security: video + boots on the ground... If the road were opened, and a threat were to appear, they would be able to respond just as effectively.

Why aren't the streets surrounding the Federal Courthouse closed?  Why don't we have anti-aircraft guns placed on the rooftops?  Because that would be irrational.

----------


## Rover

I find it hard to believe the callousness exhibited here when considering "urbanization" over people's safety.  Some people have either short memories or hardened hearts?

There was supposed to be another building on the north anyway.  Fed budgets didn't allow and the FBI already moved out to Memorial, deeming it unnecessary.

----------


## dwellsokc

> I find it hard to believe the callousness exhibited here when considering "urbanization" over people's safety...


This Federal Building is arguably THE safest office building in Oklahoma...  Where in these posts has urbanization trumped safety?

----------


## bluedogok

I worked on this project, the road in front was originally supposed to be open to traffic. In fact there was supposed to be varying textures in the road to create different sounds as you passed over them. The glazing in the courtyard is supposed to be laminated, blast resistant glazing with reinforced curtainwall framing. I know that because that whole curtainwall system is probably what I detailed the most in the project.

This building is probably the prime example of a government building designed to the USAF Force Protection Guidelines which was the standard in effect at the time of design. There are a lot of things designed into the building to mitigate any kind of "event" occurring, either inside or outside of the building.

----------


## Spartan

> I worked on this project, the road in front was originally supposed to be open to traffic. In fact there was supposed to be varying textures in the road to create different sounds as you passed over them. The glazing in the courtyard is supposed to be laminated, blast resistant glazing with reinforced curtainwall framing. I know that because that whole curtainwall system is probably what I detailed the most in the project.
> 
> This building is probably the prime example of a government building designed to the USAF Force Protection Guidelines which was the standard in effect at the time of design. There are a lot of things designed into the building to mitigate any kind of "event" occurring, either inside or outside of the building.


I've waited until now to post here, but I've watched this thread with high interest. I have a lot of respect for the posters in this thread, and to me, this is what OKC Talk is all about.. Rover knows his stuff, Dennis Wells has an idea, Chad Huntington disagrees, bluedog happened to work on the project in mention, and Kerry and boulder certainly know their stuff, too. 

That said, I think that reopening 7th is a no-brainer. But I doubt it will ever happen. This reminds me of the exact same argument that I got from security guards when I tried taking photos of the site once...I must be a terrorist for taking urban photos, because of what happened here. I couldn't help but think it ironic that those security guards are most likely NOT from OKC, whereas I am (and remember that day well). But they were going to call me the terrorist for trying to take photos of an urban jewel (that happens to be blast-proof) in my city.

Certain powers that be are always going to use tragedies like this to anchor their senseless, emotionally-based policies that do more harm than good. That's the M.O. of the TSA. That's the M.O. of 7th Street, also.

----------


## Rover

I think that IF this is a security issue we should err on the side of caution.  Unfortunately I have been several places in the world on the day of or next day after bombings.....London twice, Madrid, and Tel Aviv as well as OKC, and the results are devastating.  We take some things for granted, but let's not be naive.  

If this isn't security related then by all means, open it to be more urban.  But if there is ANY doubt, protect the people first.

----------


## Lauri101

> I think that IF this is a security issue we should err on the side of caution.  Unfortunately I have been several places in the world on the day of or next day after bombings.....London twice, Madrid, and Tel Aviv as well as OKC, and the results are devastating.  We take some things for granted, but let's not be naive.  
> 
> If this isn't security related then by all means, open it to be more urban.  But if there is ANY doubt, protect the people first.


This - from daughter of a survivor...

----------


## Snowman

> It's not wood, it's metal, if I'm not mistaken. Also secured at both ends. It would probably require a pretty good collision to go through it. But your point is well-taken; it doesn't look so secure that a determined individual couldn't ram through it or around it.
> 
> But I think the idea was to prohibit someone from rolling up in front of the building undetected with a truck bomb and walking away. With the Murrah Building you could literally park at a meter out front and leave your vehicle unattended, and nobody would notice.
> 
> You have to remember how that attack was pulled off and that we often react only to the types of threats we have seen rather than imagining other ways it might be done. That bombing was not a suicide bombing. Dude parked undetected and then skulked away like a coward. He wouldn't have been able to do that with this configuration. It would cause quite a commotion, give people a little more time to react, and probably require a personal death wish.
> 
> Anyway, I'd just as soon stop talking about this particular subject. Makes me sad, and probably just inadvertently landed us on some terrorism watch list.


Secure? I could see how it could be a more secure loading/unloading zone. However, lets assume the gate could stop a truck. There is plenty of room to drive around it on the sidewalk & grass from the east, probably from the west as well.

----------


## Rover

I think sometimes you have to trust the experts, even with you don't see the reasons yourself.  While it is popular to distrust anything the government does, and it is increasingly popular to demean their workers, they sometimes have to make tough decisions about things they know way more about than most civilians.  PERHAPS this is one, but maybe it was just done in anticipation of an adjoining building that may never be built.

----------


## Just the facts

> I think that IF this is a security issue we should err on the side of caution.  Unfortunately I have been several places in the world on the day of or next day after bombings.....London twice, Madrid, and Tel Aviv as well as OKC, and the results are devastating.  We take some things for granted, but let's not be naive.  
> 
> If this isn't security related then by all means, open it to be more urban.  But if there is ANY doubt, protect the people first.


...and today you can get on buses and trains in London and Madrid, there are sidewalk cafes in Tel Aviv, people still work in tall buildings in NYC, and there are 87,000 airplane flights a day in the US..

----------


## Rover

I can tell you don't travel much internationally.  You think the only thing that matters in life is a cool street experience.  This is a typical American naivety.

----------


## Just the facts

You didn't read post #23 did you?  Opening the street is not a safety issue - it is a fear mongering issue.  So far the score is Fear Mongering 1 - Rational Thought 0.

----------


## Spartan

> I can tell you don't travel much internationally.  You think the only thing that matters in life is a cool street experience.  This is a typical American naivety.


I don't think we're dealing with a typical American naivety here. That seems like the kind of heavy-handed remark that would cause an uproar if it came from me.

----------


## Just the facts

The typical American naivety is be afraid at all cost and don't question the experts.

----------


## Rover

> You didn't read post #23 did you?  Opening the street is not a safety issue - it is a fear mongering issue.  So far the score is Fear Mongering 1 - Rational Thought 0.


Fear mongering? Really?  I thought you were smarter than that.  You will use any cheap device to try to position your opinion.  This may or may not create a safety issue, but to claim fear mongering in this case in OKC should be beneath anyone with a heart.

----------


## Rover

> The typical American naivety is be afraid at all cost and don't question the experts.


No, it is better to get simplistic and idealistic opinions from people without experience, perspective, knowledge or wisdom.  Lol.

----------


## Just the facts

> Fear mongering? Really?  I thought you were smarter than that.  You will use any cheap device to try to position your opinion.  This may or may not create a safety issue, but to claim fear mongering in this case in OKC should be beneath anyone with a heart.


What do you call it then?  The building is safe - in fact, it is beyond safe.  The road was always intended to be open.  Explain to us again why you think it should remain closed?

----------


## NoOkie

> The automated gates are flimsy traffic control devices that couldn't stop a bicycle.  Even with the glass facade, the north elevation is probably 10-times more blast-resistant than normal buildings... the building structure was designed to prevent a catastrophic domino failure like Murrah.  Any rational person can see that the flimsy traffic gates could not deter a vehicle... so they must have been put there to satisfy irrational people.  That's why I suggested it was a design based on emotion rather than logic and reason.
> 
> There seems to be no rational reason for this segment of roadway to be closed...  (I'm not suggesting that the Government is rational, so that indeed might be the end of the discussion!)


I don't know if they have it at the Federal building, but I've seen some videos of below ground arresting systems that can deploy in factions of a second.  These systems are basically kevlar/steel nets that sit in small trenches across the road way and can deploy manually or automatically at high speeds.  The marketing video from one of the companies I saw on Youtube showed this thing stopping a large, loaded transfer truck(Larger than the truck used by McVeigh) at something around 40 MPH.

Anyway, the point is, don't assume that you're seeing all the security measures in place.  The post 9/11 world is full of companies coming up with interesting ideas for physical security that tries to avoid the bunker/prison appearance.

----------


## Urbanized

> Secure? I could see how it could be a more secure loading/unloading zone. However, lets assume the gate could stop a truck. There is plenty of room to drive around it on the sidewalk & grass from the east, probably from the west as well.


I'm not saying it is absolutely secure; just saying it deters to some extent and that a vehicle going around the barriers would attract tons of attention and allow for some reaction from security and building management. Again, this was done in a pre-9/11 America that - as bad as things were - still had a hard time conceiving of suicide bombings within our borders. Today of course, not so much.

Finally - and I'd really like to make this my last post on the matter - from a person who was nearly knocked over by the blast from five blocks away, who worked in the Journal-Record Building until months before the bombing and knew people who were seriously hurt, who delivered supplies for the Red Cross to ground zero the day of and for weeks after and saw the devastation from way too close, and from someone who got to know a number of survivors well during my time with Automobile Alley: let's leave this one alone. There are many, many people in OKC who are still piecing their lives together nearly 20 years later. This is not the Alamo. The people affected by this are still among us. Some of the survivors of that attack work in the very building we are discussing. If opening that street greatly upsets one of them - and it surely would - it is one too many.

There are plenty of other poorly planned and executed pieces of land and development (or lack thereof) in the urban core to be concerned with. Let's stop worrying about this one and let it be.

----------


## Just the facts

I don't think this type of system is in place on 7th Street.  The road and building were designed for the road to be open to traffic.  That probably explains why they only have a small gate there now.  No point in creating an elaborate gate/protection system for something that was supposed to be open.

----------


## Rover

> What do you call it then?  The building is safe - in fact, it is beyond safe.  The road was always intended to be open.  Explain to us again why you think it should remain closed?


When caution is labeled fear mongering it is just hyperbole or an overrated sense of value of ones own opinion.  Anybody who was in OKC during that horrific time, or elsewhere at similar events, that can accuse the design of this building or environs as based on fear mongering is totally oblivious, incredibly naive, or worse.

That said, if current design standards for security and safety don't require this closure, and the north block is no longer needed, then it certainly is appropriate to reopen it.

----------


## Spartan

Rover, stop calling urban design naive.

Kerry, stop calling Rover a fear mongerer. 

This discussion should be a lot better than it is, given the people who are participating at this juncture of this thread.

----------


## Rover

Never called urban design naive....far from it. I only call ignoring current security realities and the practical effect it may have on any particular design naive.   I wholly and actively support smart urban design, but caution that we are doing it for PEOPLE, not for buildings or streets.  Most of the comments of the posters here reflect that, but some get carried away and overly dogmatic...in my humble opinion.

----------


## Just the facts

> That said, if current design standards for security and safety don't require this closure, and the north block is no longer needed, then it certainly is appropriate to reopen it.


So Rover is now on-board.

----------


## Rover

> So Rover is now on-board.


LOL.  A predictable response from Just About Some of The Facts.  If you have read previous postings you would have seen that I am in agreement that it is okay and proper to open the street IF it can be proven there are no current or potential safety consequences and IF there are no plans to complete the campus as originally designed.  I am NOT on board if there is one iota of loss of security for the workers inside.  I am NOT on board that it is okay to do nothing to further protect those workers, especially the ones there that have been through hell.  I am on board with making the urban environment ultimately livable, and that INCLUDES safety and security.  Hopefully, you are on board with that JTF, though I am not sure.

----------


## Just the facts

It doesn't even matter.  My prediction is that it will reopen in 2087.

----------


## Spartan

> response from Just About Some of The Facts.


This is why we can just call him Kerry LOL =)

----------


## soonerguru

I met someone at a conference out of state recently who was detained and questioned for four hours for taking photos of the building! If you met the guy, you would find it laughable that he would pose any kind of threat. He laughs about it now but it was a fairly harrowing experience for a visitor to OKC just taking pics of buildings. I would say the security there is very thorough.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I suspect they also have very little to do as well.

----------


## Just the facts

> I suspect they also have very little to do as well.


It would have to be one of the most boring jobs in the world.

----------


## Rover

> I suspect they also have very little to do as well.


Let us pray to God you are right that they aren't called into action and that their existence is an appropriate deterrent.  I know the implication is that they have little to do (as in a lot of motion and commotion) so they aren't needed.  But that is a fatally incorrect assumption.  We have seen the utter evil that happens when security is inadequate.

----------


## Spartan

> I met someone at a conference out of state recently who was detained and questioned for four hours for taking photos of the building! If you met the guy, you would find it laughable that he would pose any kind of threat. He laughs about it now but it was a fairly harrowing experience for a visitor to OKC just taking pics of buildings. I would say the security there is very thorough.


I have gone through this experience myself. I was lucky I guess and didn't get detained for four hours, but some security guards asked me to follow them into the building where they went through my camera's memory and wrote notes for a long time, asking me a lot of bizarre questions and writing notes about all of my photos...they even asked for contact info for one of my professors at OU at the time to corroborate that I was an arch student there.

And again, allow me to restate the obvious that these are guards who almost certainly were not here (not from OKC) at the time of the bombing as I was. So I couldn't help but feel insulted that they would suggest that I was a terrorist, and kept reminding me (about every other minute or so) of the event that happened with the previous federal building. It was a horrible experience, and normally I would go to extreme ends to make sure something happens (like firing, reprimand, etc) to employees who treat me that way, but I know it will probably just get me an FBI file.

After they deleted my photos on my camera for me, they made some threats. I am almost tempted to want to just sneak a bunch of photos and put them all up on the web just for them. My opinion is that would probably pose just as much risk as opening 7th Street would, that being virtually none whatsoever.

So what can you do? Dennis probably also has something in his FBI file for starting this thread.

----------


## BoulderSooner

it is not against the law to take pics of the federal building

----------


## Rover

And those that conspired to blow up the federal building didn't look like tourists either.  Guess I've been too many places in the world to accept the idea we are automatically safe just because we are Okies and Americans and that everyone has a good heart with proper intentions.  Terrorism could never happen in OKC anyway right?

----------


## soonerguru

> And those that conspired to blow up the federal building didn't look like tourists either.  Guess I've been too many places in the world to accept the idea we are automatically safe just because we are Okies and Americans and that everyone has a good heart with proper intentions.  Terrorism could never happen in OKC anyway right?


These are all good points but we're never going to be 100% safe from people who want to harm us, despite our best efforts. I think the odds of being struck by lightning are greater than being a victim of a terrorist attack, though.

----------


## Spartan

> And those that conspired to blow up the federal building didn't look like tourists either.  Guess I've been too many places in the world to accept the idea we are automatically safe just because we are Okies and Americans and that everyone has a good heart with proper intentions.  Terrorism could never happen in OKC anyway right?


Who exactly do you think that you are paraphrasing? We are saying that the building is probably as safe as it could be because it was designed above and beyond the highest USAF Force Protection Guidelines. The street was originally accommodated in the construction plans, and removing it was a construction-phase afterthought.

----------


## Spartan

> it is not against the law to take pics of the federal building


Are you saying that the feds know and follow the law?

----------


## Just the facts

> Are you saying that the feds know and follow the law?


If they did we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.

Maybe the agencies in this building should just say, "you know, our safety and protection systems are not conducive to an urban environment where threats can materialize from any number sources and locations so we are going to relocate to a remote area 25 mile NW of Oklahoma City."  That should make everyone happy.

----------


## Spartan

I do believe that if something is truly so un-conducive to urban environs, it probably should not be there. But what I don't understand is how the north face of this building is special and needs an extra block buffer unlike the other three sides, and how any of this is any different from the Department of State (totally walled in) or countless other D.C. buildings, not to mention European capitols.

And by "don't understand" I mean to say that I probably disagree with it unless someone can provide some revolutionary reasoning that has yet to be mentioned in this thread.

And I really hope this thread doesn't again degenerate into emotional political bickering over security. Obviously anyone who says we shouldn't be designing with a mind toward to security is irresponsible. That is one of the reasons that this facility had to be so advanced and costly.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

My suspicion is that that particular feature is not based on a pragmatic requirement.

----------


## Urbanized

Spartan, I agree with you in hindsight that it probably doesn't belong there at all. However, there was a GSA directive at the time (not sure if the same thing exists today) that put pressure on them to locate federal agencies in the central core of cities as much as possible. Many also felt at the time that it was important to rebuild close to the Murrah site to make a statement of sorts. However, the new (at the time) security requirements made for something more akin to a campus. That of course should be discouraged downtown. This building would have been a much better fit had it even just been more on even the fringe of downtown (perhaps somewhere in the upper reaches of Midtown) instead of so near the middle.

At the same time, it is difficult to describe the environment in which these types of decisions were being made then. Many of the people involved in those decisions had some pretty raw emotions that are difficult to truly appreciate today from a distance.

Regarding the differences between the 7th street (primary) facade and the secondary and tertiary facades, my understanding is that the engineering is *vastly* different. That is, while the front (7th) is designed to be somewhat more secure hardened than average/older buildings, it is still primarily glass and not nearly as secure as the ones that front the other streets. Those sides are built (literally) like a fortress - hardened, designed to deflect blasts, etc. I don't know if that is "revolutionary" enough for you, but it is how this building was described from day one. Personally, I'm willing to take the government's and the engineers' word on this one.

Like I said, there are many other important urbanization battles worth fighting in OKC before bothering with this one.

----------


## Just the facts

According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it.  Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.

----------


## Spartan

> Like I said, there are many other important urbanization battles worth fighting in OKC before bothering with this one.


I agree with you there, Chad. This one isn't worth splintering allies over.

That said, we may want to revisit this issue more and more as Mid-town becomes a holistic neighborhood. I think the Better Block Project will give us some more perspective here in a few months.

What if we could just have a pedestrian mall linking the two ends of 7th, and the park space to the north can become more of an actively-programmed open space that feeds off of the vitality of the surrounding blocks. I mean, this area was truly dead two years ago. Now there's Ludivine, Elemental Coffee, Cadence Yoga--that's just one block, with housing going in several of the immediate surrounding blocks. 

And Mid-town does need a park.

----------


## Urbanized

> According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it.  Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.


Hmm. I have a hard time believing that, with just a naked-eye assessment. The structural engineer's website also seems to indicate differences between the primary facade and those at near-zero setback.

----------


## Just the facts

I have no reason to doubt this:




> I worked on this project, the road in front was originally supposed to be open to traffic. In fact there was supposed to be varying textures in the road to create different sounds as you passed over them. The glazing in the courtyard is supposed to be laminated, blast resistant glazing with reinforced curtainwall framing. I know that because that whole curtainwall system is probably what I detailed the most in the project.
> 
> This building is probably the prime example of a government building designed to the USAF Force Protection Guidelines which was the standard in effect at the time of design. There are a lot of things designed into the building to mitigate any kind of "event" occurring, either inside or outside of the building.

----------


## Just the facts

> And Mid-town does need a park.


Are people going to be taking pictures in this park?  And do we really want kids playing next to a such a target?  Which beggs the question, is this building even safe for the neighborhood?  This place is protected 9 ways from Sunday, but the buildings around it aren't.

----------


## BoulderSooner

Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Let us pray to God you are right that they aren't called into action and that their existence is an appropriate deterrent.  I know the implication is that they have little to do (as in a lot of motion and commotion) so they aren't needed.  But that is a fatally incorrect assumption.  We have seen the utter evil that happens when security is inadequate.


I don't disagree.  Particularly after the fact and in our specific case.  Obviously, survivors/the public have a right to adequate protection.  

But think about it.  If there had been moderate security in front of the old building and no parking meters, presumably a parked truck would have sparked some reasonable reaction.

My problem with many of the measures now in place, is that they seem over-reactionary.  And again, I am not referring to the reasons behind this specific building design but in government buildings generally speaking.

It seems that we can never adequately react as a society/government.  We must always over react.  The story about the visitor disturbs me.  So does the many over-reactions to William taking pictures of the Sandridge complex.  I personally think that the terrorists have been quite successful in notching away at some basic Civil Liberties and certainly instilling some irrational paranoia at some very basic levels.

Picture taking from sidewalks requiring 4-hour closed-door interrogations seems to me a complete infringement on basic rights.

----------


## Just the facts

This is from the GSA website:

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/101562




> Oklahoma City Federal Building
> The Oklahoma City Federal Building, in Oklahoma City, Okla., is a national symbol of strength and resilience. Born of tragedy, the 181,000-square-foot office building replaces the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a nine-story structure that was destroyed by a truck bomb in 1995, killing 168 people.
> 
> GSA developed new security guidelines for federal buildings, many of which are introduced within the Oklahoma City Federal Building campus. *While ensuring safety, GSA also required the public architecture of the new federal building to be open, accessible and inviting, in keeping with the democratic principles of our nation.*
> 
> Tenants with any facility related questions, concerns or requests, should contact GSA's Oklahoma/New Mexico Service Center, using the contact information provided on the upper right.


I wonder if they know the street is closed.

----------


## Just the facts

> Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines


Here are the Air Force Protection Guidelines.  The Murrah Building is on the cover.

http://www.terrorism.com/documents/L...on%20Guide.pdf

----------


## bluedogok

> Hmm. I have a hard time believing that, with just a naked-eye assessment. The structural engineer's website also seems to indicate differences between the primary facade and those at near-zero setback.


WAI was not the structural engineer on the project, Benham was. WAI did the vulnerability assessment which takes into account all systems in place to mitigate a blast event and was a consultant in those features, there were many things used from their assessment since this really was a "first of its kind" project for the GSA. Most DoD buildings did not have that level of security built in because most are on their own land with plenty of buffer around the more important facilities. 

The setbacks play into the force protection, there is no way that we could have done that much glass on the walls that front NW 6th St, Harvey or Hudson Streets. The glazing is rated for blast protection from a certain distance. All force protection guidelines use a combination of construction assemblies and distance, it is why the walls at the street are thicker than those up higher, blast force would typically be greater at ground level. That doesn't mean that the walls higher up are susceptible to damage, far from it, they are still pretty thick solid walls on those three sides and the blast resistant glazing is in place on the windows that are in place. There are also blast mitigation features inside the building as well, in case of a walk-in suicide bomber type of attack.




> Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines


The USAF Force Protection Guidelines at the time was our teams directive from the GSA during the design phase of the building. The GSA had no force protection guidelines in effect at that time and the USAF guidelines were the closest thing to them. They have since developed their own standard that is very similar to the USAF standard but adapted for the locales that the GSA would be located in. Most GSA buildings are not built under those guidelines, only the buildings they feel need to be are built under that directive. None of the GSA buildings that I have worked on since (including the replacement offices for the IRS office in Austin) have had force protection in the directive. The reason why the OKC Federal Building has them are obvious because of what did occur there. I also think it was a bit of a test bed for the GSA in terms of how much force protection should be built and what that does to the budget.

----------


## Spartan

> WAI was not the structural engineer on the project, Benham was. WAI did the vulnerability assessment which takes into account all systems in place to mitigate a blast event and was a consultant in those features, there were many things used from their assessment since this really was a "first of its kind" project for the GSA. Most DoD buildings did not have that level of security built in because most are on their own land with plenty of buffer around the more important facilities. 
> 
> The setbacks play into the force protection, there is no way that we could have done that much glass on the walls that front NW 6th St, Harvey or Hudson Streets. The glazing is rated for blast protection from a certain distance. All force protection guidelines use a combination of construction assemblies and distance, it is why the walls at the street are thicker than those up higher, blast force would typically be greater at ground level. That doesn't mean that the walls higher up are susceptible to damage, far from it, they are still pretty thick solid walls on those three sides and the blast resistant glazing is in place on the windows that are in place. There are also blast mitigation features inside the building as well, in case of a walk-in suicide bomber type of attack.
> 
> 
> The USAF Force Protection Guidelines at the time was our teams directive from the GSA during the design phase of the building. The GSA had no force protection guidelines in effect at that time and the USAF guidelines were the closest thing to them. They have since developed their own standard that is very similar to the USAF standard but adapted for the locales that the GSA would be located in. Most GSA buildings are not built under those guidelines, only the buildings they feel need to be are built under that directive. None of the GSA buildings that I have worked on since (including the replacement offices for the IRS office in Austin) have had force protection in the directive. The reason why the OKC Federal Building has them are obvious because of what did occur there. I also think it was a bit of a test bed for the GSA in terms of how much force protection should be built and what that does to the budget.


This is what this conversation should be based on. Not abstract arguments of civil liberties v. terrorism, and other irrelevant emotional issues.

----------


## Rover

> According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it.  Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.


Pretty sure there was to be a complementary building on the north side and the facing fronts created an open space roughly the shape of a football.  The building did not materialize after the FBI relocated to Memorial Road and several departments objected to being near the bomb site. Plus, the lack of funds contributed.  But, the land had been acquired and the process started.  So, what we see now is not the original plans for the site.  In reality, had they completed the plan, you would get the building block out to the street as on the south, east and west.  Perhaps there are ultimate plans to complete the complex, but that is probably doubtful.  If it isn't going to happen, perhaps they will deed back the north property and the city can reopen the street. I doubt they have been asked to do so.

----------


## Rover

Accidental duplicate

----------


## Urbanized

Nick, the emotional issues are not irrelevant. Like I said, it's not the Alamo; an abstract something that happened 175 years ago. There are people working in that very building who survived an incredibly traumatic event, right across the street. As long as there is a generation of people directly tied to that day and those actions, it will be impossible to separate the emotion from it.

But I think what bluedogok said in his post confirms what I have been saying; the three walls that AREN'T fronting 7th are very special in their design, allowing them to be safer at near-zero setback than the front of that building ever could be in its current configuration.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just saying I think we're beating our heads against the wall in suggesting the street be reopened. It might seem like 1995 was a long time ago, but for many people it probably still feels very recent.

----------


## Spartan

> Nick, the emotional issues are not irrelevant. Like I said, it's not the Alamo; an abstract something that happened 175 years ago. There are people working in that very building who survived an incredibly traumatic event, right across the street. As long as there is a generation of people directly tied to that day and those actions, it will be impossible to separate the emotion from it.
> 
> But I think what bluedogok said in his post confirms what I have been saying; the three walls that AREN'T fronting 7th are very special in their design, allowing them to be safer at near-zero setback than the front of that building ever could be in its current configuration.
> 
> I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just saying I think we're beating our heads against the wall in suggesting the street be reopened. It might seem like 1995 was a long time ago, but for many people it probably still feels very recent.


This would seem like NYC passing an ordinance restricting skyscraper height at 10 stories again, despite FAA and USAF air traffic control systems that watch when planes get too close to skyscrapers.

Maybe there's a compromise that could be found on this "issue" ("quotations" because I can't imagine anyone wanting to take up this cause right now) by opening up the superblock to a public park.

----------


## Urbanized

Not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as your NYC ordinance would affect all of NYC rather than a single street outside of one building. You're overstating the impact that the 7th Street closure has on downtown OKC overall.

A better example would be the 185 foot windowless reinforced concrete base of WTC1 (Freedom Tower). It's a bummer from a city/pedestrian interaction standpoint and how necessary/effective it is could be easily debated, but it makes people, including the people who will be working in that building - some of whom will surely be survivors of 9/11 - "feel safer." In this case it is understandable, considering the symbolism of that building and the fact that the building it replaces has been subject to terrorist attacks and significant loss of life in the past. And again, it only affects one building. No other buildings in Manhattan are required to get 185 foot windowless reinforced concrete bases.

I am not in any way a fan of the street closure in question. I'm just suggesting that demanding it be opened is tilting at windmills.

----------


## Rover

> This would seem like NYC passing an ordinance restricting skyscraper height at 10 stories again, despite FAA and USAF air traffic control systems that watch when planes get too close to skyscrapers.
> 
> Maybe there's a compromise that could be found on this "issue" ("quotations" because I can't imagine anyone wanting to take up this cause right now) by opening up the superblock to a public park.


No, more like the FAA saying, what the heck, go ahead and fly close because that attack will never happen again.

----------

