I saw some lights on and people working in the basement today.

Will be interesting to see if they still sell the spots for $20-30 each on game nights...

Doubtful. They need to provide controlled parking for their office tenants, and that will include after hours. This will remove this lot as a public parking option. Also, Richard is pretty anti-paid parking, though I think he will need to revisit his position as he gets more and more involved in downtown development.

Not to turn this into a parking discussion, but there are many people who value the ability to park close to the arena and will pay for the privilege, which is why those lots have been able to command that type of money. This lot would eliminate that option for some people, as the Santa Fe lots are now eliminated with the artificially-maintained "no more than $8" policy under the new ownership. These days prior to Thunder games and big events those lots are completely filled by mid-afternoon by people squatting on that location for the reduced rate and those who are willing to pay premium prices no longer have the option of a short walk.

By the way, I'm not knocking losing public parking spaces to enable the redevelopment of Rock Island Plow. Very important to the district and well worth the loss. Just pointing out that it removes some access options for people attending events at the arena.

From the article at the top of the page:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/4457d1379349453-rock-island-plow-building-plow9413a.jpg

I moved a bunch of posts here:

OKC (Chesapeake) Arena - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=OKC+Chesapeake+Arena)

Well played.

BTW, this project has the official name of The Plow, so I changed the thread title.

I drove by last night and noticed several of the window holes were uncovered on the east side and some sort of plexiglass like material over them. We were driving by too quick to get pictures. If someone doesn't post them later, I will swing by tonight, snap a few and send them to Pete.

Yes, would love to see any progress.

Thanks.

Taken today. Thanks as always Will!



http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/8201d1403036450-plow-plow061714b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/8200d1403036448-plow-plow061714a.jpg

Thanks Will and Pete for taking and posting those. Does anyone know what the purpose of that glass/plexiglass is? From the looks of it in the renderings, there are going to be brand new metal framed windows installed.

^

Probably to stop dust and debris from flying out to the street below.

There is probably asbestos in there as well.

^

Probably to stop dust and debris from flying out to the street below.

There is probably asbestos in there as well.

Gotcha. It didn't look permanent, nor did it look very stable, so I wasn't sure.

"refers to thread title" That's what she said.

It already looks better just with the temporary plexiglass.

It was pointed out to me when I showed my photo of The Plow to a developer you all would know, that the clear plexiglass is really there to help open up the building to natural light for the construction workers. Boarded up windows don't really help in that regard. Of course, it's a temporary thing.

Couple from warreng88:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow062114a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow062114b.jpg

Thanks Will and Pete for taking and posting those. Does anyone know what the purpose of that glass/plexiglass is? From the looks of it in the renderings, there are going to be brand new metal framed windows installed.

It seems like that would help with several things other than just light in during construction, it keeping wind/rain out, keeps tools/material from accidentally falling on someone below. It adds a bit more security on lower levels, that fence is not going to keep anyone out that wants in.

I see one new window leaning against the Plow today. It will be nice to see it with windows.

https://twitter.com/dtOKCbuilds/status/491604188493668355

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtKHZ4uCQAAfovH.jpg:large

Thanks Will.

Already looks much better just with most the boards off the windows.

These were taken today by catch22. Note the sample new window in the last two photos -- can't wait to see all of those up.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow073114a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow073114b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow073114c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow073114d.jpg

September 8 2014

https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157647364452136/

From catch22:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow110514a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/plow110514b.jpg

From https://twitter.com/joshdelozier:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6EZ66RCQAA3vBx.jpg

If the RIP Building was on the Preftakes block...

If the RIP Building was on the Preftakes block...

Thing is, if there was going to be a 200+ ft building and parking garages, some would be all for it.

Thing is, if there was going to be a 200+ ft building and parking garages, some would be all for it.

Not really. Does every thread have to have comments like this? Can hardly even read this site any more.

The truth is this building could have easily been demolished.

It had been vacant a very long time and it was certainly more "functionally obsolescent" than One North Hudson.


I agree this demolition theme is being spread in tons of threads but after all, there is a pending vote about demolishing a full block and it's a hot topic right now.


The bottom line is that whatever developers want to do with these buildings seems to be completely up to them (100% demolition approval record) and it's only by good fortune this one found a responsible buyer.

But it wasn't demolished so what does it have do with this building? Nothing.

It's an example of how old buildings in poor shape can be saved, while at this very moment there is a raging debate rooted in the assertion of functional obsolescence.

It certainly could be used by the committee to challenge the Hines assertion.

And I'd be happy to open a thread about this building to check on the status and see a post that says "See... This is an example of what you can do with a 'dilapidated' building". That's not what this was. This is opening a thread expecting development news about a certain project and seeing a post that says 'RIP to this building if it was on Preftakes block' followed by 'everyone would be happy if it was 200 ft surrounded by parking garage'.

Here's the picture I posted last night that was cutoff by pagination :) :

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6EZ66RCQAA3vBx.jpg

The truth is this building could have easily been demolished.

It had been vacant a very long time and it was certainly more "functionally obsolescent" than One North Hudson.


I agree this demolition theme is being spread in tons of threads but after all, there is a pending vote about demolishing a full block and it's a hot topic right now.


The bottom line is that whatever developers want to do with these buildings seems to be completely up to them (100% demolition approval record) and it's only by good fortune this one found a responsible buyer.

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?

I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?
I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

I can't respond for anyone here, but I would personally say that demolishing functional, historic buildings to build a parking lot is pretty irresponsible.

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?

I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

Responsible or irresponsible (if you are one of them you probably don't like to be called irresponsible, sorry), but there are undeniably varying levels of pride and community understanding exhibited by different property owners.

Our vaunted "corporate citizens" often do not match the level of citizen values exhibited by guys like Richard McKown, Steve Mason, et all whose work is a way of giving back to our community. Devon means well but doesn't realize what they are taking away from us while trying to give back; they do this because they don't engage, consult, and value planning.

I also can't respond for anyone else, as much as others would like my fairly strong views to be a broader strawman to attack. The planners who are trying to work in OKC exhibit (as they must) a more thoughtful approach, whatever that means (I think it means playing the game with Devon).

I just have a hard time calling someone irresponsible for doing what they want with the property THEY OWN. It sucks when the owners go back on their word, but in the end, it is there property. It is their buildings for them to do as they please. It in no way makes them irresponsible people though. That's what i don't get. Many people on here judge and label individuals by what they do with their own property.

The most recent demolitions are for a bigger and better use. They will bring much more life to the area that people have been begging for for years. The buildings going up will be better for the city in the long run.

I just have a hard time calling someone irresponsible for doing what they want with the property THEY OWN. It sucks when the owners go back on their word, but in the end, it is there property. It is their buildings for them to do as they please. It in no way makes them irresponsible people though. That's what i don't get. Many people on here judge and label individuals by what they do with their own property.

The most recent demolitions are for a bigger and better use. They will bring much more life to the area that people have been begging for for years. The buildings going up will be better for the city in the long run.

I am having history lesson flashbacks to another form of property that existed up until about 150 years ago.

Something being property doesn't make whatever you want right. I'm not sure if you're trying to make a political or philosophical point, or if we are talking about civic matters.

Euclid v. Ambler and Hadacheck v. Sebastian provide strong legal tradition (both long standing SCOTUS decisions) for the city providing higher-level stewardship of the private property which it is comprised. Just in case that's your issue.

I am having history lesson flashbacks to another form of property that existed up until about 150 years ago.

Something being property doesn't make whatever you want right.

what are you referring to? excuse my ignorance

Excuse mine, that's why I asked what kind of point you're making. :)

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?

I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

Bad choice of words.

Sometimes demolition for a higher and better use is appropriate.

Excuse mine, that's why I asked what kind of point you're making. :)

It's definitely not political. I guess I'm not really trying to make a point. I'm more just trying to understand all the hate recently with these projects.

We can get back on topic though.

I just have a hard time calling someone irresponsible for doing what they want with the property THEY OWN.

Does this apply to the person who owns the house next to yours?

Responsible or irresponsible (if you are one of them you probably don't like to be called irresponsible, sorry), but there are undeniably varying levels of pride and community understanding exhibited by different property owners.

Our vaunted "corporate citizens" often do not match the level of citizen values exhibited by guys like Richard McKown, Steve Mason, et all whose work is a way of giving back to our community. Devon means well but doesn't realize what they are taking away from us while trying to give back; they do this because they don't engage, consult, and value planning.

I also can't respond for anyone else, as much as others would like my fairly strong views to be a broader strawman to attack. The planners who are trying to work in OKC exhibit (as they must) a more thoughtful approach, whatever that means (I think it means playing the game with Devon).

Spartan, thank you for responding in a non-confrontational, non arrogant way. You have become a great spokesman to push the urban agenda who is able to do so without presenting a divisive or harsh tone.

I think that the fact that OKC is such a young city is both good and bad. Most OKCitians don't believe much here is old enough to be historic. On the other hand, we are so new and there is so little old, we need to preserve ALL we can.

I think the situation in Bricktown has been different. The idea of reclaiming Bricktown and its history started with a PLAN to preserve and protect the character and history, not of a single building at a time, but as a district. Then, the public committed millions and millions of dollars supporting that vision. Automobile Alley has been sold as a district with a need to preserve the character of it. Unfortunately, west Main street and that area doesn't seem to be organized and a group vision isn't apparent to the public. Therefore, a single owner of so much property can wrestle control away and replace the public agenda with their own.

Also, maybe it has been done and has been unsuccessful, but I wonder if there doesn't need to be more one-on-one lobbying and education done with developers and guys like Larry. By the time their self serving plans are done it is very hard to change the momentum. OKC is a small place and the core of movers and shakers is smaller. What can we do to influence them without being adversarial? How can we get them on the same page BEFORE all the self interests are served?

I couldnt care less with what my neighbor does to his property

I couldnt care less with what my neighbor does to his property

You would care if you are trying to sell your house and couldn't get the value you wanted because new neighbors moved in that kept beat up cars in his front yard, added an ugly carport and doesn't mow his lawn. But, maybe you live out in the country where this doesn't really matter.

Spartan, thank you for responding in a non-confrontational, non arrogant way. You have become a great spokesman to push the urban agenda who is able to do so without presenting a divisive or harsh tone.

I think that the fact that OKC is such a young city is both good and bad. Most OKCitians don't believe much here is old enough to be historic. On the other hand, we are so new and there is so little old, we need to preserve ALL we can.

I think the situation in Bricktown has been different. The idea of reclaiming Bricktown and its history started with a PLAN to preserve and protect the character and history, not of a single building at a time, but as a district. Then, the public committed millions and millions of dollars supporting that vision. Automobile Alley has been sold as a district with a need to preserve the character of it. Unfortunately, west Main street and that area doesn't seem to be organized and a group vision isn't apparent to the public. Therefore, a single owner of so much property can wrestle control away and replace the public agenda with their own.

Also, maybe it has been done and has been unsuccessful, but I wonder if there doesn't need to be more one-on-one lobbying and education done with developers and guys like Larry. By the time their self serving plans are done it is very hard to change the momentum. OKC is a small place and the core of movers and shakers is smaller. What can we do to influence them without being adversarial? How can we get them on the same page BEFORE all the self interests are served?

I was expecting to get blasted for saying what i said. Thank Spartan for being civil.

I couldnt care less with what my neighbor does to his property

Either you do, or you don't actually own property. You'd care if they put up extra bright lights shining through your windows day and night.

This is a strawman anyway. Building codes that restrict what property owners can do with the property they own exist and they always will in these sorts of discussions. Claiming that property owners can do whatever they like is nonsense.

Also, Spartan's 150 years ago reference was to slavery. The historical rights of people to own other...let's go with stuff...has long been more complicated than "they own it, they can do what they like".

Come on now. Slavery is a terrible and completely irrelevant thing to add to this discussion. Any thinking person today knows that you cannot own people, but few would dispute that you can own land.

The bright lights example is a great one. So is loud music, a nudie club, a meth lab, a hog farm or 10,000 other things your neighbor could do with their property that would diminish the livability and value of your own. It never fails in demolition arguments that someone tries to trot out the idea of absolute property rights, and the fact of the matter is that they do not exist, and are even further from reality the closer one gets to the center of a city and the more neighbors surrounding him.

Codes, ordinances, district design guidelines, all of these are real things. They protect the community, and protect the property investments made by others. They are the law if the land, and in general one agrees to abide by them when purchasing a property covered by them.

Property owners need to look at whatever legal restrictions apply. For instance, a friend of mine bought a home on a golf course here in OKC. As an avid golfer, it was his desire to retire on a golf course and be able to walk down to the clubhouse. Well, the owner of the golf course decided it was more valuable as home sites and tore out the course. After reading the covenants, it was clear the homeowners could not stop the change from golf course to housing. Even though the vast majority of owners adjacent to the course bought homes because of that and would be against its removal, they hadn't read the covenants when they bought. They could not after the fact keep things from happening.

What I am saying is that it is very difficult to claim your right as a neighbor is being denied when in fact there is nothing in law to protect you. You have taken the risk by not changing the laws PRIOR to the proposed changes. The problem we have is in not proactively putting in place the restrictions we need. The more we fight after the fact, the more we lose. We HAVE TO GET AHEAD of the problem and get things changed NOW.

Activism works. But it requires more than internet anger.

So without having to read through a bunch of diatribe, are changes being made to The Plow (topic of the thread)?

If there was, Pete would likely tweet about it. Other than that, most of what you read on here is diatribe anyway. Follow OKCTalk on Twitter for any real updates.

If there was, Pete would likely tweet about it. Other than that, most of what you read on here is diatribe anyway. Follow OKCTalk on Twitter for any real updates.

I have been for years, including contributing new stories and FB as well.

Come on now. Slavery is a terrible and completely irrelevant thing to add to this discussion. Any thinking person today knows that you cannot own people, but few would dispute that you can own land.

The bright lights example is a great one. So is loud music, a nudie club, a meth lab, a hog farm or 10,000 other things your neighbor could do with their property that would diminish the livability and value of your own. It never fails in demolition arguments that someone tries to trot out the idea of absolute property rights, and the fact of the matter is that they do not exist, and are even further from reality the closer one gets to the center of a city and the more neighbors surrounding him.

Codes, ordinances, district design guidelines, all of these are real things. They protect the community, and protect the property investments made by others. They are the law if the land, and in general one agrees to abide by them when purchasing a property covered by them.

Look, I know slavery is a horrific thing to bring up in a conversation and my intent wasn't shock (that's why I avoided using the word, and referred more to the duration of legal precedence here) - I was just empirically speaking to gurantula's more philosophical point about absolute property ownership. I agree with you, Rover, and David regarding regulations that affect property. There is established legal precedent for zoning, ordinances, taxing districts, covenants, etc. These things are regulated just as they regulate property owners, ie. checks and balances.

Again, just responding to the notion of absolute ownership rights. That is not what "land use by right" means..

10011
Taken today, doesn't look like a whole lot has changed since the last pictures.

There are people working there right now ( I'm across the street at Starbucks) and pretty much every weekday. It will probably be one of those buildings that is finished quickly once they put in the new windows.

Right, there isn't a lot to do outside other than the windows.

Instagram (http://instagram.com/p/yIKbmAFz7E/)

http://photos-e.ak.instagram.com/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/10919538_424981320986204_1777333986_n.jpg

February 14 2015

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7413/16407976378_5fd229ca29_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/16409341659_2808519fc8_b.jpg

Steve's update with video.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5395466&headline=Renovation%20on%20Bricktown%20warehouse%2 0Rock%20Island%20Plow%20Building%20breaks%20new%20 ground