I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.

I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.

has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

Yes, I've heard that area called that many times and for good reason.

I hope at least the section between the new I-40 and the river gets cleaned up.

I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.

I've seen them myself and they look like they were professionally produced. That picture makes them look like cardboard.

I've seen these signs up for over a month now, maybe longer if I remember right. That little strip between the river and I-40 is almost completely devoid of any life. However, I really dig the empty garages and buildings lining the street. It would be a really neat area if gentrified, which obviously, someone is taking the proactive step. That strip has also received rebuilt sidewalks and curbs along it's entirety.

Awesome find, cool sign, and yes that area has been called that for a long time. I like it, definitely original to OKC

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma ,+73109&layer=c&sll=35.460776,-97.514550&cbp=13,24.55,,0,-9.4&cbll=35.459925,-97.514578&hl=en&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma, +73109&ll=35.459925,-97.514578&spn=0.000451,0.00079&t=h&z=21&panoid=XF12pE_hfneFTbDTiX0wvw)

One of my earliest experiences at an underground dance club was in the basement of this building in 1992.

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma ,+73109&layer=c&sll=35.460776,-97.514550&cbp=13,24.55,,0,-9.4&cbll=35.459925,-97.514578&hl=en&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=512+S+Broadway+Ave,+Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma, +73109&ll=35.459925,-97.514578&spn=0.000451,0.00079&t=h&z=21&panoid=XF12pE_hfneFTbDTiX0wvw)

Apartments now... Condo conversion later.

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

Well, that's a shame.

Typical OKC. If there is an older building with character, get that fu**ing thing down as quickly as possible.

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

Is this a recent development? I was not aware of this...

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

Of course, .... Why should we expect anything else?

I wish that OKC would get it in thier head that a city is vastly more interesting and genuine when the New is woven in and amongst the historical older structures that can still have ultility. It is sensless to demolish buildings such as this particularly when we have a undeminished supply of vacant lots so readily available within the urban core. Lets try filling them in rather than trying to wipe the slate clean for grand gestures and plans that oh yeah (I.M. Pei) sometimes due to unforseen economic forces don't make it into existence. Same song differnt day...

Of course, .... Why should we expect anything else?

Of course, building sets empty for years, with mother nature taking it's toll adding to further decay of said building, the City decides to remove said building and a few get their Hanes in a wad. Why not be proactive and try to save said buildings prior to it's demise.

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

Well that is just freaking great. Who is running this show, Destructo the Clown?

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.

I have got to get out of this town!

Is this a recent development? I was not aware of this...

No, this has been the plan all along; unfortunately.

It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.

I have got to get out of this town!

okc hasn't been behind tulsa for about 15 years

It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that have kept Tulsa behind OKC.

Fixed for truth.

Regarding the Harvester Building, as I posted earlier, apparently discussions were had at the last Park Subcommittee meeting regarding saving/salvaging some of these old builds to be potentially incorporated in the park design. So it sounds as though saving them is a potential option should the Park Committee be allowed to make recommendations or change the original concept.

This building doesn't even border on the park!

I believe it was originally acquired under the assumption the convention center would be built in this area and in that case, it would have to have been razed. But of course that all has changed so I hope they reconsider the fate of this building.

It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.

I have got to get out of this town!

Have fun in Tulsa. They have been so much more progressive and their city leadership works so much better than here. LOLROF.

Have fun in Tulsa. They have been so much more progressive and their city leadership works so much better than here. LOLROF.

Who said I was moving to Tulsa? I was just comparing two cities.

I's sorry. I thought you said you were getting out of this stupid town and you obviously prefer Tulsa. Great. Go there if you think things are better there. Or anywhere else you want. It would be horrible to stuck in a stupid and behind town. I am sure their grass really is greener.

Who said I was moving to Tulsa? I was just comparing two cities.

I agree with Rover, that really is what it sounded like. Believe me, the grass is NOT greener. But hey if you hate OKC so much and love Tulsa so much, do move there. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, I just want people to be happy, and if someone isn't happy here, they should go to where they are happy. And for the record, I love Tulsa, I just happen to love OKC more.

This building doesn't even border on the park!

I believe it was originally acquired under the assumption the convention center would be built in this area and in that case, it would have to have been razed. But of course that all has changed so I hope they reconsider the fate of this building.

I hope you are right, I think it would be a great spot for lofts or condos.

It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.

I have got to get out of this town!

Piling on a bit, but we blew by Tulsa in the mid '90's. It's their leadership that is in question. If enough revolting is said about this building, it will make a difference. Look how the boulevard went from 6 to 4 lanes over night, I'd bet a large part of it was due to this board.

The disappointing thing is that this, along with many others that get demolished, are allowed to be ignored until it comes to this. Initiatives to make these properties into something meaningful and lasting going forward needs to happen before we expect the city to save or protect it. It is like we expect to ignore and abuse these properties and show them no love....until someone else agrees and wants to tear them down. Then, all of a sudden everyone gets emotional. Get emotional BEFORE not AFTER it is too late.

Does anyone ever think the cost of repairing a building is not justifiable? I am pretty sure the city does not have the money to buy every single building build before World War II, and rehab them. It is not a knock to OKC or any other city, its just the way that it is.

Does anyone ever think the cost of repairing a building is not justifiable? I am pretty sure the city does not have the money to buy every single building build before World War II, and rehab them. It is not a knock to OKC or any other city, its just the way that it is.

Why do you think that the CITY has to do anything? People make investments in real estate all the time, and historic preservation is one of many viable development portfolios that are common-place downtown. Numerous people have made those projects among the most successful in all of downtown. And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.

And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.

Spartan, that's a very broad statement and not always true.

The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.

Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.

The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.

Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.

Spartan, I'm in agreement with you about preservation of existing worthy buildings. I still don't believe, however, you can such a broad statement about the economics involved. Every project can be very different.

Great, I hope you as fervently argue the point with the whole downtown OKC real estate establishment that is clinging onto the contrary categorical statement, just like generations typically will cling onto outdated and unsustainable methods.

Spartan, that's a very broad statement and not always true.

Actually, it's probably never true.

The sad part is the City, and quasi-city organizations, set the standard and OKC has set the bar real real low. From lower bricktown, to the chamber building, to the proposed police headquarters - it is all bad. When they do something right like the Skirvin it is usually because they partner with a private company.

Why do you think that the CITY has to do anything? People make investments in real estate all the time, and historic preservation is one of many viable development portfolios that are common-place downtown. Numerous people have made those projects among the most successful in all of downtown. And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.

I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved.
Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.

okc hasn't been behind tulsa for about 15 years

Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years? Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC. Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC. I am probably moving to Denver.

Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years? Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC. Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC. I am probably moving to Denver.

bye

bye

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

I thought you were serious, too. There are a lot with Tulsa tunnel vision that say the same things.

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

i did not ... sorry about that ...

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

Neither do I, drive careful.

Actually, it's probably never true.

Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.

I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved.
Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.

Well, you tell me which happens first. That building gets renovated by private investors, or they instead by the closest vacant lot and build a smashing mixed-use development on that site. If you ask me, the second scenario is a LOT further off.

That is if we're going to look at these things in a truly objective sense, rather than assessing difficulty level before anything has even been examined properly. That's how we've lost at least 10 historic buildings in last 3-5 years. This trajectory is unacceptable and will probably leave all of Bricktown and Automobile Alley razed before the world is even over in a year.

Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.

You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.

Hey, I'm pretty open-minded. Other than the Bricktown Ballpark, show me an example of a historic or even just a good-quality old building demolished in downtown Oklahoma City in the past 25 years, then replaced with another building of substance and quality (or in fact anything other than a parking lot or patch of grass), and I will totally consider jumping on the "it's better to tear it down than wait for a developer" bandwagon.

Better yet, show me ANY building that was torn down on spec (the building in Bricktown was demolished to make way for a sure-thing ballpark), and replaced by something better in the past 25 years. Anything? Bueller?

Re-use is certainly preferrential. Why does it seem to take the threat of demolition to get any momentum to reconstruct and re-use these historic properties? Should the city set up its own historic preservation which accross the board bans the deconstruction and REQUIRES minimum maintenance for preservation. What happens if a current owner can't afford to keep the property up but no reasonable buyers are willing to take the risk or make the investment...does the city foreclose on it?

You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

Or, more often that that, you literally get...nothing.

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

Pretty generalized and sterotypical statement. I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building. Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too. I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

Pretty generalized and stereotypical statement. I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building. Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too. I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.

Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.

Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.

The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.

Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.

Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.

Leadership Square - they almost did NOT tear down an old building that would have been on the southeast corner of the block....they made a big deal how it made the price go up for such a small building. But it would have been way out of place if it would have been left.

For that matter, any of the buildings built between 1970 and 1985 would have replaced old structures.

If clearing land created development OKC would be the envy of the world. As urbanized said, that is the lesson we should have learned from urban renewal (queue the International Harvester building). No plan to replace but for some reason it has to be cleared and it must be done ASAP.

If this true, and it is still on the slate for the wrecking ball, then where is the Preservation community? I can't see how it is, since the CC is not going there and it is not part of the park.

Leadership Square - they almost did NOT tear down an old building that would have been on the southeast corner of the block....they made a big deal how it made the price go up for such a small building. But it would have been way out of place if it would have been left.

For that matter, any of the buildings built between 1970 and 1985 would have replaced old structures.
There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.

But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

If this true, and it is still on the slate for the wrecking ball, then where is the Preservation community? I can't see how it is, since the CC is not going there and it is not part of the park.

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

Another thing: the demolished buildings that WERE replaced in the 60s, 70s and 80s all had one thing in common: they were in the CBD. There were going to be new buildings built in the CBD no matter what, driven by market demand. I think the chances of something on the fringe of downtown -- torn down on spec -- being replaced by a new structure anytime soon are pretty remote. At least that's what history tells us.

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

I'm serious. What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?

I'm serious. What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?

According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.