But, our new lobby looks awesome.

Hall Estill Keeps It Local - 405 Magazine - December 2015 - Oklahoma City (http://www.405magazine.com/December-2015/Hall-Estill-Keeps-It-Local/)

That looks fantastic! Ours is a little more humble, though we had a pretty tight budget :)

Designing a $12k Office On a $2k Budget - GoldFire Studios (http://goldfirestudios.com/blog/139/Designing-a-%2412k-Office-On-a-%242k-Budget)

^

That is amazingly impressive!

Correct. I wish they would light up the Cotter Ranch Tower like that again.

Cotter Ranch Tower looks dead in the day time, let alone at night. It is time for it to be renovated into Class A. Redoing the facade to something modern will work wonders for the skyline & life of the building. Below is an example of what I am referring.

1191011911

I'm no fan of the CRT design/style, but I suspect we'd someday regret re-facading it much in the same way we regret 101 Park and some other structures being done that way... something still lost...

I also don't support re-facading it either. For better or for worse, that type of architecture represents what was considered "modern" in the 1970s and 1980s. I remember when I was very young, that type of architecture meant "big city." Many of the mistakes of the past have shown that you don't re-facade buildings just because their architecture is out of style. The exception is if you are somehow converting bad urbanism to good urbanism.

Light the crown at night and I'll be a lot happier with it.

^^^^

I agree. Just fix the lighting and leave the rest alone. I don't see a need to Re-Façade the building. and if you can't keep it lit how on earth do you think they would ever get a new Façade put on.

That looks fantastic! Ours is a little more humble, though we had a pretty tight budget :)

Designing a $12k Office On a $2k Budget - GoldFire Studios (http://goldfirestudios.com/blog/139/Designing-a-%2412k-Office-On-a-%242k-Budget)

Outstanding! Just my style, too!

The exception is if you are somehow converting bad urbanism to good urbanism.

On that note, what to do about the plaza that surrounds the building. How could/should that be fixed?

On that note, what to do about the plaza that surrounds the building. How could/should that be fixed?

I really like the idea of creating a huge glass atrium as a pedestal to the building, one that goes all the way to the surrounding streets and incorporates retail and services on the ground floor and within.

The plaza now is completely useless and virtually unused and causes this huge wasted space right in the middle of the CBD.

I've noticed they are painting the crown of the Cotter Ranch Tower. Tonight the aircraft warning lights are off at the top of the building so obviously they are doing something. Anybody have any ideas?

I also don't support re-facading it either. For better or for worse, that type of architecture represents what was considered "modern" in the 1970s and 1980s. I remember when I was very young, that type of architecture meant "big city." Many of the mistakes of the past have shown that you don't re-facade buildings just because their architecture is out of style. The exception is if you are somehow converting bad urbanism to good urbanism.

Light the crown at night and I'll be a lot happier with it.

Agree. Right now the exterior might feel a bit dated, but in another 30 years, we've got a prime (and OKCs best) example of International Style in it's truest form. It's a slice of history that we need to keep intact.

Just putting in new windows, like they did with Founder's Tower, would make a world of difference.

Just putting in new windows, like they did with Founder's Tower, would make a world of difference.


http://static.flickr.com/33/47707967_31d3dbac42.jpg http://propimages.apartments.com/2767/1383538_64.jpg
Certainly made a big of difference with this project.

Yeah, Founders looks brighter and more inviting with the new windows. Money well spent imo.

What's the story with the absence of lighting on this building now?

Is it just dark because the Foghorn Leghorn guy who bought the place is too cheap to turn the lights on?

Probably. Which is his right, as much as I myself don't like it.

That said, I would be interested to know if there is an option for an entity like DowntownOKC to "reimburse" businesses for their lighting bills if they agree to keep the lights on. The BID board would probably have to vote on that expenditure, but it would be a potential central way of doing it for "qualifying buildings".

What's the story with the absence of lighting on this building now?

Is it just dark because the Foghorn Leghorn guy who bought the place is too cheap to turn the lights on?

Around early 2015, the LED lighting started to burn out at the top of the building and it appears they just removed it entirely instead of fixing it.


Probably. Which is his right, as much as I myself don't like it.

That said, I would be interested to know if there is an option for an entity like DowntownOKC to "reimburse" businesses for their lighting bills if they agree to keep the lights on. The BID board would probably have to vote on that expenditure, but it would be a potential central way of doing it for "qualifying buildings".

This would be an interesting idea. Do other cities have incentives like this to light their downtowns?

I haven't posted anything here in a few years. But from time to time I pop in and look over stuff that interests me. I've since moved to Dallas, then to Reno, back to OKC, and finally (hopefully for good) to Dallas. Anyway, I know this is off topic but I'm wondering if anyone knows just how tall the Biltmore Hotel was that was demolished in OKC... ? I've read some stuff that said it was 26 stories but doesn't specify the building's height.

Also, yeah... the downtown could use some lighting up to make it look more lively. I absolutely hate admitting Tulsa looks good. Ugh. Idk how. We're so much bigger and successful. It confuses me.

^ Two sources I found say 245' tall.

https://www.emporis.com/buildings/102796/hotel-oklahoma-oklahoma-city-ok-usa

https://www.controlled-demolition.com/landmark-hotel

I haven't posted anything here in a few years. But from time to time I pop in and look over stuff that interests me. I've since moved to Dallas, then to Reno, back to OKC, and finally (hopefully for good) to Dallas. Anyway, I know this is off topic but I'm wondering if anyone knows just how tall the Biltmore Hotel was that was demolished in OKC... ? I've read some stuff that said it was 26 stories but doesn't specify the building's height.

Also, yeah... the downtown could use some lighting up to make it look more lively. I absolutely hate admitting Tulsa looks good. Ugh. Idk how. We're so much bigger and successful. It confuses me.

245 ft (75 m) - 26 stories - 619 rooms

Source (#40-Sheraton-Oklahoma Hotel): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_voluntarily_demolished_buildings

Nine of the Most Beautiful Buildings We Ever Razed - OKC Edition: http://newsok.com/article/3935152

^ Two sources I found say 245' tall.

https://www.emporis.com/buildings/102796/hotel-oklahoma-oklahoma-city-ok-usa

https://www.controlled-demolition.com/landmark-hotel

Thank you. I think I saw that and converted the meters to feet but I wasn't entirely sure.

From Wikipedia:


Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Biltmore in Oklahoma City was an unassociated hotel that once stood downtown, at 228 West Grand Avenue. It was built in 1932 during the Great Depression by the city's prominent civic leaders at the time, headed by Charles F. Colcord. Designed by architects Hawk & Parr, the Biltmore had 619 rooms and was 24 stories high, making it the state's second tallest building only to the Ramsey Tower built in 1931, when it was completed. In 1936 alone, the Biltmore was headquarters for 104 conventions and saw 114,171 guests. After a $3 million renovation in the mid-1960s the Biltmore was renamed the Sheraton-Oklahoma Hotel. By 1973, the hotel had left Sheraton, and the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority agreed with the owners that the Biltmore had outlived its useful life. In contrast, architect I.M. Pei had envisioned keeping the hotel, and his sketches and models all showed the tower overlooking the surrounding "Tivoli Gardens". The hotel was one of the largest demolitions in the country at the time it was blown up on October 16, 1977 by a team of demolition specialists to make way for the "Myriad Gardens". Hundreds of low-yield explosives were planted throughout the building so that it would collapse and fall inward into an acceptable area only slightly larger than the hotel's foundation.[17][18]

From Wikipedia:

:(

No reason to :( at just that just for being wikipedia. The page where that quote is from appears to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman-Biltmore_Hotels#Oklahoma, and it has citations for the data (http://www.okhistory.org/research/hmresults.php?mapnoinput=2y&action=Search and The Vanished Splendor: Postcard Views of Oklahoma City). Wikipedia, always look at the citations.

Now, I might myself :( at it for a different reason since whoever added the text appears to have directly plagiarized those sources, but that is a separate issue from whether the information is reliable.

No reason to :( at just that just for being wikipedia. The page where that quote is from appears to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman-Biltmore_Hotels#Oklahoma, and it has citations for the data (http://www.okhistory.org/research/hmresults.php?mapnoinput=2y&action=Search and The Vanished Splendor: Postcard Views of Oklahoma City). Wikipedia, always look at the citations.

Now, I might myself :( at it for a different reason since whoever added the text appears to have directly plagiarized those sources, but that is a separate issue from whether the information is reliable.

The sad face was meant for the demolition of the builtmore. I intended to quote the whole text, not just "from wikipedia"

Oh, haha, okay.

These recent posts got me to thinking about the Biltmore so I did an image search. Since there's also a really crappy hotel in OKC that's also called Biltmore, I got several photos of gross crap that people found while staying there.

Anyway, I found this old photo of the Biltmore that we're talking about. It's from the Oklahoman. I just find it real interesting to look at these old photos and see how dense our downtown used to be. I believe this photo is looking south.

http://i.imgur.com/Go2EXN2.jpg

Also, notice the lack of superblocks. I know we can't do anything about the Myriad gardens (nor should we) but I hope that we can restore the street grid when it's time to get rid of the Cox Convention Center. Also, there's no reason for the block to the west of the Myriad Gardens to be a superblock either. And you might as well consider the block Devon is on a superblock. There's no reason to drive on Harvey south of Park unless you're going into one of the parking garages at Devon. I just feel that superblocks are bad for traffic (whether pedestrian or auto), they aren't on a human scale and they aren't friendly to people trying to get around the city (especially visitors).

Man, I look at the density, the architecture and the streetwalls in that old photo and it puts me on the verge of tears. To think of what we had and lost...

And then I think about it again. Would all of those old, small buildings really be economically viable in 2017? Would there be literally hundreds, if not thousands of small businesses willing to set up shop in all those spaces? There is a lot of downtown St. Louis that still looks like that, and, with the exception of the "artistic-type" blocks that are well gentrified, many of the buildings are either underutilized or out-and-out vacant. I used to wonder, when I worked in Downtown St. Louis, which is so averse to tearing anything down, which is the greater error? A historically intact, beautiful but under-utilized downtown, or a partially-razed, rebuilt and at-least-on-the-surface-of-things, more thriving area? Obviously there's a happy medium. But it doesn't make it any easier to look at photos like that one...

same can be said about streetcar, regarding had but lost...

These recent posts got me to thinking about the Biltmore so I did an image search. Since there's also a really crappy hotel in OKC that's also called Biltmore, I got several photos of gross crap that people found while staying there.

Anyway, I found this old photo of the Biltmore that we're talking about. It's from the Oklahoman. I just find it real interesting to look at these old photos and see how dense our downtown used to be. I believe this photo is looking south.

http://i.imgur.com/Go2EXN2.jpg

Also, notice the lack of superblocks. I know we can't do anything about the Myriad gardens (nor should we) but I hope that we can restore the street grid when it's time to get rid of the Cox Convention Center. Also, there's no reason for the block to the west of the Myriad Gardens to be a superblock either. And you might as well consider the block Devon is on a superblock. There's no reason to drive on Harvey south of Park unless you're going into one of the parking garages at Devon. I just feel that superblocks are bad for traffic (whether pedestrian or auto), they aren't on a human scale and they aren't friendly to people trying to get around the city (especially visitors).
Seeing that picture almost makes one sick at their stomach. What OKC once had and was like and all lost. My best friend that I taught with for 30 yrs before he moved to the Oklahoma History Center, he has since passed away nearly 8 years ago, we used to refer to Urban Renewal here as, "the rape of Oklahoma City".

I M Pead or I am Peed!

To be fair to Pei, his plans didn't call for the Biltmore to be torn down. I don't know what city leaders were thinking. Maybe they got overzealous with Pei's plan to tear down some buildings and just thought, "Let's tear everything down." Who knows.

It also brings up another interesting question; if Pei's plan had come to fruition, would we still want it today or would we be looking to tear down the Pei buildings? I know in the '60s and '70s that new was in and old was out but we were basically tearing down some classic, old buildings to make way for a bunch of buildings in the Logan's Run style of architecture. I just don't think we would want to be living in 2017 in a Logan's Run style downtown. I think it's best it never got built. But I hate that it tore down much of our downtown and left it with a bunch of empty parcels and surface parking lots.

These recent posts got me to thinking about the Biltmore so I did an image search. Since there's also a really crappy hotel in OKC that's also called Biltmore, I got several photos of gross crap that people found while staying there.

Anyway, I found this old photo of the Biltmore that we're talking about. It's from the Oklahoman. I just find it real interesting to look at these old photos and see how dense our downtown used to be. I believe this photo is looking south.

http://i.imgur.com/Go2EXN2.jpg



Much of that area to the south of the biltmore is where the new park is being constructed. If you look closely enough, you can see Union Station in the top left corner. My whole life that area has been a wasteland. Amazing to see what was there not too long ago.

I am very happy to have these old photos but its more heartbreaking to look at than to know that someone took time to make the Notebook. Quite a melancholy feeling.

Man, I look at the density, the architecture and the streetwalls in that old photo and it puts me on the verge of tears. To think of what we had and lost...

And then I think about it again. Would all of those old, small buildings really be economically viable in 2017? Would there be literally hundreds, if not thousands of small businesses willing to set up shop in all those spaces? There is a lot of downtown St. Louis that still looks like that, and, with the exception of the "artistic-type" blocks that are well gentrified, many of the buildings are either underutilized or out-and-out vacant. I used to wonder, when I worked in Downtown St. Louis, which is so averse to tearing anything down, which is the greater error? A historically intact, beautiful but under-utilized downtown, or a partially-razed, rebuilt and at-least-on-the-surface-of-things, more thriving area? Obviously there's a happy medium. But it doesn't make it any easier to look at photos like that one...

Are the two options mutually exclusive? Had whole blocks not been demolished, surely some would be vacant today. But that doesn't mean we're better off having knocked all of them down.

2Lanez, you're exactly right. They are not mutually exclusive and it's too bad that more care wasn't taken to preserve our built environment. It's not the monumental structures, Devon etc., that make a city, it's the block by block working spaces that define its character.

2Lanez, you're exactly right. They are not mutually exclusive and it's too bad that more care wasn't taken to preserve our built environment. It's not the monumental structures, Devon etc., that make a city, it's the block by block working spaces that define its character.
While I'm a lover of monumental structures/tall buildings, you are dead on right about the block to block working spaces that define and make the character of a city. Kudos to Dan Krutka, because that is what he is always saying about infill building.

My whole life that area has been a wasteland. Amazing to see what was there not too long ago.

Same with me. And wasteland is a perfect way to describe it.

While I'm a lover of monumental structures/tall buildings, you are dead on right about the block to block working spaces that define and make the character of a city. Kudos to Dan Krutka, because that is what he is always saying about infill building.

Which brings up another thing about that picture. There was no wasted space. Plazas became a big deal in the '70s. You can see it on what used to be the Myriad. Especially before the extra convention space was added onto the north side of it. You can see it on Leadership Square. Cotter Ranch. You can see it on the drawings of the Pei Plan. I thought we were over plazas and that's why I hate to see one on the new BOK building. They're always drawn or shown in the plans with lots of use and people milling around and hanging out in the plaza but it never happens that way IRL. The Leadership Square plaza is a barren wasteland. Plazas have terrible street interaction.

Oklahoma City was built on a human scale for the oldest form of transportation in human history - walking. Once the city started to be redesigned around the automobile, it went to crap. Fortunately, things are moving in the right direction, but with a pseudo-commitment to urban design on a human scale. There is still too much weight given to cars.

Oklahoma City was built on a human scale for the oldest form of transportation in human history - walking. Once the city started to be redesigned around the automobile, it went to crap. Fortunately, things are moving in the right direction, but with a pseudo-commitment to urban design on a human scale. There is still too much weight given to cars.

That's correct. At one time before the Pei plan you could do and walk to just about anything in the downtown area. It was a city. Then came ghost town.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Pei's plan more or less built around the automobile. From what I can tell by looking at pictures and plans, it appears his planned called for wide streets and boulevards. It doesn't look all that pedestrian friendly.

Pete, if I'm taking this thread too far off topic, feel free to move these posts.

I found this article (http://www.imaginativeamerica.com/2009/11/rambled-thoughts-on-architecture-urbanity-and-the-7th-generation/)which I thought had some interesting things in it. I thought this was of particular interest:


This morning, I read this old article at OKC Central about a architecture critic’s visit to Oklahoma City and comments on the City’s efforts back in the 1960s through 1980s with interest.

...on the quality of the setbacks and plazas surrounding downtown office buildings, is the influence of architectural trends and the general lack of urban understanding. Simply put: a good architect does not necessarily equate to a good urbanist. In fact, many renowned architects are very poor urbanists with destructive tendencies when given an opportunity to work at too great a scale.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Pei's plan more or less built around the automobile. From what I can tell by looking at pictures and plans, it appears his planned called for wide streets and boulevards. It doesn't look all that pedestrian friendly.

I think there were planned pedestrian areas surrounded by big garages and wide boulevards ala the remaining CBD stock flanked by Santa Fe & KerrMcGee garages and EK Gaylord.

No wonder we're working so hard on the parking garage district. It's every pedestrians dream to be flanked by garages...

I've learned that Mr. Cotter has passed away recently and so the building will have to change hands, which is not to say anything will be managed differently.

I've learned that Mr. Cotter has passed away recently and so the building will have to change hands, which is not to say anything will be managed differently.

http://www.jokelibrary.net/xOtherAtoM/g_to_m/kotter/kotter02.jpg

:(

It's been Cotter and Sons for some time now.

He has 3 sons who have probably been doing the large majority of running that business for quite some time; all are based in San Antonio.

I doubt much will change here. Unfortunately.

BTW, James Sr. bought a $3.2 million house that backs up to Lake Arcadia in 2012.

Never heard much about him so no idea if he actually spent any / much time there.

I've learned that Mr. Cotter has passed away recently and so the building will have to change hands, which is not to say anything will be managed differently.

I may be mistaken, but I think the building is for sale.

I may be mistaken, but I think the building is for sale.

Oh please, oh please, oh please...

I'll check into this.

I've learned that Mr. Cotter has passed away recently and so the building will have to change hands, which is not to say anything will be managed differently.

I am not sure it could get much worse than it has been under Mr. Cotter. Any change in management will be an improvement.

I really want to see the building lit up again.

I am not sure it could get much worse than it has been under Mr. Cotter. Any change in management will be an improvement.

I really want to see the building lit up again.

If a building not being lit up at night is the sign of bad management, then good management is very, very, very hard to find....Not seeing that as a sign of building management as a whole.

I rode up the elevator there last week to the petroleum club, and thought it might fall down halfway. Lotts of work to do.

So this little discussion has shaken free some new info...

It seems the 3 brothers are fighting with Cotter's widow (their mother) and the bank that holds the mortgage is threatening to intercede.

There are interested parties hoping for that so they have a shot at buying.

Sweetness

If a building not being lit up at night is the sign of bad management, then good management is very, very, very hard to find....Not seeing that as a sign of building management as a whole.

It's general lack of upkeep. In terms of the lighting, the building was lit not all that long ago but the lighting slowly went out and was never repaired. It's all indicative of ownership that is only interested in doing the bare minimum in terms of maintaining the building. I agree with sooner88 that the elevator is in bad shape.

^

Especially since they went to the trouble to fix and turn on the lights, only have to go out again and stay off.

The building management (not the owner) has changed I believe 3 times since Mr Cotter passed away. Been a bit of a nuisance as a tenant and each one seems to have gotten worse. The elevators are just one issue, but there's lots of little maintenance issues all through the building that I'd love to see fixed to improve the building. It would also be great if the windows got washed for once and the landscaping was improved in addition to the lighting.