development
|category1=Office Buildings
|category2=Arts District
|category3=Current
|category4=
|
|project=
|address=529 W Main (http://goo.gl/maps/7Px30)
|status=
|owner=
|cost=
|architect=
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height=
|sq. feet=2,407
|acerage=.10
|other=
|
|image=http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/grace1.jpg
|

Information & Latest News
Links
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R013682115)
Gallery

I'm going to miss all of those dust-bunny laden animals all over the walls.

supposedly be torn down to make way for some surface parking. Rumor is that Irvin Box has purchased the property (529 West Main, directly south of the Civic Center) and this is the plan.

I know this isn't a historic building of any sort (well it is old) but based on previous threads discussions, I'd like to know how the opinions range on this action, if indeed it is the plan. (I believe the source of my rumor).

The person who you heard the rumor from is wrong. Irvin Box did not buy this property, and surface parking is not the plan.

Bummer, we have enough surface parking. The Grace building isn't great, but it would be a nice building if remodeled and probably wouldn't take too much effort. I personally like the building. Definitely adds to the charm of that area.

Precisely what the area needs... a sea of surface parking!

Building looks fine to me:

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2731/R013682115001vA.jpg

Building looks fine to me:

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2731/R013682115001vA.jpg IMO it looks a little run down. No loss there.

IMO it looks a little run down. No loss there.

Sure it needs a little freshening up, and isn't particularly iconic, but they don't make them like this anymore. It's serviceable and we already have enough vacant lots.

Don't count on this being such an easy thing to pull off. It still needs to go through Downtown Design Review Committee, which is tasked with ...


OH NEVER MIND.

Good point, Steve. We need a strong showing TODAY at 1.30 dealing with SandRidge, because we'll probably lose, but hopefully we can send a strong message to the city that future demolitions will not be just accepted. This is so stupid..

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2731/R013682115001vA.jpg

Our Downtown Design Review Committee will probably let this slide by too. And who the heck said this building looked run down? What the ****? No it isn't. That had better been a joke. Any structure that is converted into open-paved parking is a loss. There's always a better use for the site then a parking lot.

I think it'd make a nice little cafe or something.

How many buildings are we trying to demo right now...4 currently? Not to mention in the past what the Brewers, Community Foundation, and others have done with little advance warning..

I think Sandridge is 4 plus 2 parking structures? (haven't confirmed the 2 parking structures part), Red Cross building was just demo'd, building behind OKC Community Foundation, and now Grace?

What a dump !!

I think Sandridge is 4 plus 2 parking structures? (haven't confirmed the 2 parking structures part), Red Cross building was just demo'd, building behind OKC Community Foundation, and now Grace?

There's also a really cool building on Classen in the Asian District that will probably be replaced with one of those strip mall things. I guess the old Steffens ice creamery bldg in Bricktown is safe for now.

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2731/R013682115001vA.jpg

This could make a great little market, butcher, grocery, neighborhood bar, gallery, etcet.

I own a little building like this one that is in really bad shape. This one looks to be pretty intact. No more surface parking! I know they have a parking problem during major events, but no land should be worth more as surface parking than being a functional structure.

With the streetcar on its way, I think it will be hard argument to tear down more stuff for parking until downtown is at full capacity for the existing peak demand.

And if there is such a need for parking so that buildings are being destroyed for paved parking, I find it much more appropriate to just select one of our many paved parking lots and build a parking garage. The thinking of so many of the people in our downtown area just isn't appropriate.

And if there is such a need for parking so that buildings are being destroyed for paved parking, I find it much more appropriate to just select one of our many paved parking lots and build a parking garage. The thinking of so many of the people in our downtown area just isn't appropriate.

I could not agree more. Why do we need so many ugly paved open lots when one garage could take the place of several lots?
Even Walmart plants a few scrubby trees in their hideous lots. These small ones have a chain link fence and nothing more, for the most part.

It would be nice if downtown Okc zoning and planning were to put a moratorium on surface parking lots.

I would rather see a vacant lot then more surface parking. At least that way there would be more incentive to either build a structure or sell.

Once there is a paved surface parking, we rarely see them disappear.

I know this isn't a historic building of any sort (well it is old) but based on previous threads discussions, I'd like to know how the opinions range on this action, if indeed it is the plan. (I believe the source of my rumor).

The neon sign should be saved at least!

What a dump !!

That dump does has done my laundry for several years.

The neon sign should be saved at least!

Agreed. That is a killer sign. There are plenty others that should be saved too!

It would be nice if downtown Okc zoning and planning were to put a moratorium on surface parking lots.

That wouldn't change anything. City ordinances are almost never followed when it comes to downtown development and the planning establishment is the laughing stock of downtown..

supposedly be torn down to make way for some surface parking. Rumor is that Irvin Box has purchased the property (529 West Main, directly south of the Civic Center) and this is the plan.

I know this isn't a historic building of any sort (well it is old) but based on previous threads discussions, I'd like to know how the opinions range on this action, if indeed it is the plan. (I believe the source of my rumor).

I just had dinner with my gf at Trattoria. We started talking about this thread and walked across the street to look at the building. The owner, Donny, came out and confirmed that he sold it yesterday. Irvin Box is not the buyer. I did not press him for a name but he did say that it is a lawyer who wants to turn the building into a law office. He was quite amused to hear about this thread.

Apparently, this lawyer fellow is considering shaving off the frontage facing main by about 30' for additional parking. There is some discussion about putting a second floor on (or at the least the capability to) on the side that faces the Civic Center. The new owner does not have intentions to include a home in the plan as has been done a few doors down by other lawyers.

Donny, who I had never met before, was very nice and reminisced about his family's history downtown. He did not have any kids to pass the business on to and is looking for a second career that won't be so physically demanding. Best of luck to him.

I drove by the site after the SandRidge hearing and was amazed..the building is basically a super thin wafer in the middle of a huge sea of parking. They need more parking?

There is this ingrained idea out there that people have to be able to swing their car around at the front door, I guess.

I can't see why one would want to alter the setback of this building. I guess it might not look exactly how you think a law office should look, but it's classic. With a little paint and new windows it could be made to look really sharp.

Will building code even allow for the setback to be altered? In any other "major league" city, I imagine it wouldn't.

NO SETBACK!! Boo!! That's ridiculous. And save the sign:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2660/3809589041_df38e4d09c.jpg

Urban Pioneer, your account sounds like it's more on target... I'll check into it.

There is this ingrained idea out there that people have to be able to swing their car around at the front door, I guess.

I can't see why one would want to alter the setback of this building. I guess it might not look exactly how you think a law office should look, but it's classic. With a little paint and new windows it could be made to look really sharp.

Will building code even allow for the setback to be altered? In any other "major league" city, I imagine it wouldn't.

Yeah, the special city code for downtown development requires 60% of the front facade to be within 10 feet of the front of the property. But I hope nobody seriously expects city code to be upheld anymore, at this point.

It's a shotgun-style building so it would actually be relatively easy to increase the building setback by literally chopping off some of the front. I hope they don't.

I just had dinner with my gf at Trattoria. We started talking about this thread and walked across the street to look at the building. The owner, Donny, came out and confirmed that he sold it yesterday. Irvin Box is not the buyer. I did not press him for a name but he did say that it is a lawyer who wants to turn the building into a law office. He was quite amused to hear about this thread.

Apparently, this lawyer fellow is considering shaving off the frontage facing main by about 30' for additional parking. There is some discussion about putting a second floor on (or at the least the capability to) on the side that faces the Civic Center. The new owner does not have intentions to include a home in the plan as has been done a few doors down by other lawyers.

Donny, who I had never met before, was very nice and reminisced about his family's history downtown. He did not have any kids to pass the business on to and is looking for a second career that won't be so physically demanding. Best of luck to him.

That's crap, if he wants that much parking, he shouldn't be downtown. There are parking lots all over that area, as well as street parking. Do people not understand what a downtown area is supposed to be?


I drove by the site after the SandRidge hearing and was amazed..the building is basically a super thin wafer in the middle of a huge sea of parking. They need more parking?

I agree, there is only one space up front plus one handicap, but the left (west) side of the building has some angled spaces that go up to the building itself. The other sea of parking is paid parking lots, but there is also street parking. Can't we encourage MORE streetwall in our downtown area and not the continued suburbinzation of our entire city? If he wants to shave off some of the building, why can't he put the parking in back?

i used to live at the montgomery and found Grace to be part of the charm.

i thought that one of the selling points of the downtown streetcar was to allow those visiting downtown to park on the edge of town and utilize the streetcar to get around---thus eliminating the need for a lot of drive and park situations-----and the need for more parking lots.

maybe the streetcar route doesnt include the civic center but it should.

I used to take my husband's cleaning over there in emergency situations since they were open all hours and he used to travel so much. But I do love the little residence above the law office down the block and would love to see more of that sort of thing downtown. I just love the little courtyards with flowers and such in the middle of such urban areas. Hopefully this turns into something similar.

There are plenty of empty lots in that area. Dozens! Build a two-story office/apartment on one of those. Gah! This is so frustrating.

I park across the street from Grace Cleaners. On the street. For free. Every day.

Until we change our property tax structure to de-incentivise surface parking and incentivise high density devlopment, places like Grace and the YMCA will be more profitible as parking lots. We have a long way to go, but there are those of us willing to work toward solutions, which may one day help...

Until we change our property tax structure to de-incentivise surface parking and incentivise high density devlopment, places like Grace and the YMCA will be more profitible as parking lots. We have a long way to go, but there are those of us willing to work toward solutions, which may one day help...

What solution would you recommend? This is an incredibly difficult situation of microeconomics--a lot of cities that have attempted to implement solutions to this problem have in fact backfired in a huge way, such as Dallas..

From a spiritual perspective, the Grace sign always struck me as profound. While we're on the subject of surface parking, what does the future hold for the Bob Howard downtown car establishments? What a waste of great land immediately south of the Myriad Gardens and adjacent to the Ford Center. Will the relocation of I-40 make business a little more difficult for them?

From a spiritual perspective, the Grace sign always struck me as profound. While we're on the subject of surface parking, what does the future hold for the Bob Howard downtown car establishments? What a waste of great land immediately south of the Myriad Gardens and adjacent to the Ford Center. Will the relocation of I-40 make business a little more difficult for them?

I think what is going to make business more difficult for them is the City (according to the Core to Shore report etc) has that area targeted for mixed use development. That and if the Ford Center ever gets renamed, they lose the natural synergy (from my reading of the agreement, the Thunder only had 180 days to renegotiate). Since that time has already long passed, it is my reading that the initial naming agreement is in full force and effect. There was an article by Steve that mentioned the 180 day clock had started ticking (think it was when the Seattle settlement was reached). I car dealership can just about go anywhere and they could always relocate to somewhere along the relocated I-40. Which brings up the thought, haven't seen much mentioned about development plans along the new I-40. Development seems to naturally follow infrastructure for the most part (streetcars, interstates etc.) know they have the immediate area for the string of parks secured, but what about the adjacent land that had been earmarked for residential development etc. The City seems to be focusing on the development around the north Park and non-funded Boulevard etc. How do you convince businesses to NOT develop along I-40 and these other places instead?

To get back to the thread topic...good point about the sign, maybe a downtown church could re-purpose it.

What I don't fathom is incurring the cost of chopping off 30' of the building for some minimal level of additional parking. That's just not adding a lot of parking space for the dollars.

looks to me that bob howard is already on the way out - look how empty their lots are (at least as shown from the Devon cam vantage point).

Also, I think it is in OKC's advantage to keep the Ford name - HUGE HUGE brand label, so much so that many Seattle fans were immediately jealous and wondering how OKC got it's arena (with no permanent tenant at the time) with a HUGE brand label.

Hopefully, OK Ford or Ford itself could step up and offer the city/team(s) something long term and financially profitable.

What solution would you recommend? This is an incredibly difficult situation of microeconomics--a lot of cities that have attempted to implement solutions to this problem have in fact backfired in a huge way, such as Dallas..

A friend of mine with an urban planning background suggested a property taxation structure that would penalize surface parking and incentivise multiple floor construction in the CBD. It works in other cities, so I am told...

A friend of mine with an urban planning background suggested a property taxation structure that would penalize surface parking and incentivise multiple floor construction in the CBD. It works in other cities, so I am told...

Has your friend suggested this to Okc officials?

I worked in the funeral business from the mid to late 80s
and I remember that Grace cleaners was known
all around the city as a cleaners you could take an American Flag
to & have it professionally pressed while you waited at 2AM
if need be. What was more impressive was that they always
did it for free. I would guess that a huge percentage of flags
that were draped over caskets in OKC over the years were
pressed by Grace. This building should be something for the
community to enjoy. It screams potential. It reminds me of
Carlo's Bakery in New Jersey on the show the Cake Boss. Paint
that building burgandy, put a red sign in the rectangle with gold
lettering and a matching fabric canopy and turn it into a great
cafe/bookstore for everyone to enjoy and a piece of architecture that
can't be duplicated. Whoever bought this building should consider
that the fabric of a community is it's buildings, they have a memory,
and he should look at himself as a caretaker
and not just keep it for himself as a law office, or tear it down for
a parking lot, which is worse.

A friend of mine with an urban planning background suggested a property taxation structure that would penalize surface parking and incentivise multiple floor construction in the CBD. It works in other cities, so I am told...

I'm not sure specifically what you are talking about though because there are different approaches and the ones I'm aware of have failed miserably, such as in Dallas. Bluedogok can comment a lot more on that than I, since I'm an environmental design student, and my urban planning knowledge is not that great.

I know that there is a way to index the percentage of site capacity. You take the maximum density allowed by the zoning for a parcel and compare it to the square footage that exists on the site. Perhaps it would be eligible for some kind of ad valorem tax rebate?

Wrong Box, but Dennis Box is clearly involved. Thanks go to Oklahoma County Assessor's site.


Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R013682115)

So, source wasn't completely informed, but not a bad RUMOR.

Wrong Box, but Dennis Box is clearly involved. Thanks go to Oklahoma County Assessor's site.


Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R013682115)

So, source wasn't completely informed, but not a bad RUMOR.

DALAKRI PARKING LLC - looks like it's toast, then?

A friend of mine with an urban planning background suggested a property taxation structure that would penalize surface parking and incentivise multiple floor construction in the CBD. It works in other cities, so I am told...


I'm not sure specifically what you are talking about though because there are different approaches and the ones I'm aware of have failed miserably, such as in Dallas. Bluedogok can comment a lot more on that than I, since I'm an environmental design student, and my urban planning knowledge is not that great.

I know that there is a way to index the percentage of site capacity. You take the maximum density allowed by the zoning for a parcel and compare it to the square footage that exists on the site. Perhaps it would be eligible for some kind of ad valorem tax rebate?
I don't think Dallas incentive-ized at the property tax level other than reductions for a period in assessments for building which has worked somewhat. When I lived in Dallas about 40% of the land in the CBD was surface parking, it has improved greatly but I don't think the incentives have driven it as much as general interest in downtown has come back all over the country.

I still think the incentive for demolishing a building in favor of surface parking has nothing more to do with than the revised property tax assessment and sitting on the property until someone will offer them more, surface parking isn't making people in this part of the country rich. I think a piece of property that has been "improved" should retain the previous assessed value even if it becomes an "unimproved" property, after all the setup for surface parking is truly an "improvement" over a dirt lot. I know down here in Travis County it seems most property is assessed on a "potential value" basis since property tax is the main revenue source for the state and local gov'ts.

Here are a couple of posts about this issue, the comment by Rick Rybeck in reference to an article that Walter Rybeck wrote on the Planetizen article in reference to the main (Next American City) article is pretty spot on in my opinion.

Planetizen - Keeping Bad Property Investment Our Of Your City (http://www.planetizen.com/node/44507)

Next American City - When Investment Is a Bad Thing (http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2354/)

ICMA Press - PM Magazine: Retooling Property Taxes (http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9202/public/cover.cfm?author=walter%20rybeck&title=retooling%20property%20taxes)

Update on this property...

Regarding demolition, that was for the NORTH part of the building that was not original to the property. Not sure if this is complete yet.

And last month, the new owners received approval to renovate:

"...replace existing front entry doors
with glass and aluminum doors; remove infilled storefront at east
elevations and replace with new aluminum frame storefront; install
steel canopy over south and east storefronts; install new steel tube
and steel plate awnings at east and west elevations; remove existing
window and replace with full-light aluminum door at east elevations;
remove infilled window and replace with relocated steel casement
window at west elevation; install asphalt parking lot; install
landscaping at drive access and within site."

Glad to hear they are replacing the infilled window with a casement. Rarely do people go to that effort. Gotta look closer at the building before I know how I feel about the rest of that.

Has there been any indication of what the new use might be?

Believe it will be law offices.

Hmm, not terrible.

Currently, the building is being renovated by one of the guys that was involved in several of the film row renovations.

Here are some photos of the progress, courtesy Urban Pioneer:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/grace1.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/grace2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/grace3.jpg

Well that's an upgrade from his digs at SW 25th and Western.

Well that's an upgrade from his digs at SW 25th and Western.

wrong guy

That's the way it's done. Top notch.