Let's say a tower of 35 floors and the quality of Devon was proposed. Is that a sufficiently good "better use" than the three existing buildings? Honest question as to how to qualify the concept of better use. Or, is there no better use than preserving what is there? Is the only option to save the facades? Are facades fake preservation or real preservation?

It's pretty much a given those three buildings along Main Street are going to make way for a new Pickard Chilton tower; most likely 20-25 stories and will be home to consolidated (and perhaps expanded) operations of Bank of Oklahoma. Devon will likely take space as well.

That leaves the Auto Hotel, which may be a part of this tower plan as well. Or, it could be renovated; it's fate is unclear.

Then, you have the entire south half of the block. One North Hudson will soon house Pickard Chilton / Hines and Clayco employees for their respective construction projects, so it's not going anywhere for at least a few years.

That just leaves the bus station and the surface lots to the east, plus the old Lunch Box building. There is a decent possibility those may all be razed to make room for a parking garage with commercial on the ground floor.

As I've stated, I know they had been looking at renovating the bus station but have also been considering new development on that site. I believe either scenario is a strong possibility in the near future.

Let's say a tower of 35 floors and the quality of Devon was proposed. Is that a sufficiently good "better use" than the three existing buildings? Honest question as to how to qualify the concept of better use. Or, is there no better use than preserving what is there? Is the only option to save the facades? Are facades fake preservation or real preservation?

I would probably consider the building(s) you describe as higher and better use assuming a couple of things; one being that 420 W Main (City administration building) is retained and two being that much attention is paid to the street-level interaction of the new buildings. However, I think strong consideration MUST be made to retaining some of the other structures and incorporating them in the development. That would make it a win-win for all.

The facade retention you describe is known as "facadism" and is typically frowned upon in the preservation community. In my personal opinion it makes a mockery of the historic building; it is either worth preserving in its entirety or it's not. Exceptions would be when a building has been gutted by fire or collapse and a facade is retained in the construction of a new building or even to define a green or alleyway where the building once stood.

Here is an (admittedly old) article on the practice from the National Trust for Historic Preservation: When History Is Only Skin Deep - National Trust for Historic Preservation (http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/story-of-the-week/2001/when-history-is-only-skin.html) . There are plenty of other articles if you search for the term facadism.

Thanks. Sorry for the over-reaction.

But the idea that the bus station -- and possibly other buildings on this block -- may be torn down (for parking or another use) is nowhere near baseless.

I know for a fact that the owners have spoken to others about the possibility of new construction on the bus station site. This is in addition to the pretty clear intention to remove at least three buildings from the Main Street to make way for a new tower.

The good news is that any demo has to go through the appropriate channels; the bad news is those channels have an almost 100% track record of approving these types of demolitions.

There was previously a building next to the bus station torn down for temporary parking. Anything can happen.

I love all this new construction but really wish we would not limit ourselves to all of them being in the 20-25 foot range. They provide some density but not much to the skyline from any distance. You will still only see the Devon sticking out like a sore thumb. Actually, it will now look more like a flipped off middle finger! Why not lessen a couple buildings to 18 stories and add a couple to around 35 stories? This would give us a couple of 600 foot jewels that would add so much more to to overall look and feel of downtown. These would be close to as tall as the Williams Towers and would be seen from long distances for every person traveling through our city. I just can't figure out why we are stuck in the 25 floor range when going up by 8-10 would make a huge difference in balancing things out so much more and be soooo much more visually appealing.

I love all this new construction but really wish we would not limit ourselves to all of them being in the 20-25 foot range. They provide some density but not much to the skyline from any distance. You will still only see the Devon sticking out like a sore thumb. Actually, it will now look more like a flipped off middle finger! Why not lessen a couple buildings to 18 stories and add a couple to around 35 stories? This would give us a couple of 600 foot jewels that would add so much more to to overall look and feel of downtown. These would be close to as tall as the Williams Towers and would be seen from long distances for every person traveling through our city. I just can't figure out why we are stuck in the 25 floor range when going up by 8-10 would make a huge difference in balancing things out so much more and be soooo much more visually appealing.

Because the developers with the means to develop are not concerned what the skyline looks like from a distance. They will do what is feasible for their success and bottom line.

So... what does Preftakes intend to do with building #1 in the pic at the top of the page? 434 W Main seems pretty useless unless you have Coney Island and Pizza Town.

So... what does Preftakes intend to do with building #1 in the pic at the top of the page? 434 W Main seems pretty useless unless you have Coney Island and Pizza Town.

Only so much that can be done with it and if they were going to buy the Pizza Town building, you would think that would have already happened. It's been for sale for quite a while.

But the corner is a really cool little building with great exposure.

I suppose it will get a little renovation and be leased out. They've had it listed for lease for quite a while.

It was not directed at you. And you're wrong about the second part, as ljbab728 pointed out. And then of course it was accepted as gospel and met with righteous indignation. It's a familiar pattern, but that's not a reflection on you, nor was I calling you out.

It should generally be assumed that all criticism on this board is (or should be) directed at me. Just kidding.

Thanks. Sorry for the over-reaction.

But the idea that the bus station -- and possibly other buildings on this block -- may be torn down (for parking or another use) is nowhere near baseless.

I know for a fact that the owners have spoken to others about the possibility of new construction on the bus station site. This is in addition to the pretty clear intention to remove at least three buildings from the Main Street to make way for a new tower.

The good news is that any demo has to go through the appropriate channels; the bad news is those channels have an almost 100% track record of approving these types of demolitions.

This. I don't know why any historic preservationist could even possibly think of themselves as relevant in OKC. What building has OKC saved from a planned demolition in the last ten years? What suspense has their EVER been in the demolition of our history?

I also want to make clear, just in case anyone is still clinging to the hope of an OKC demolition denial someday, that these have quite often gone against a city staff report recommending against approval of the proposed demolitions in accordance with city codes. Our problem is not for lack of trying on the part of qualified, informed, and intelligent people. That is bittersweet for me to say after my past advocacy involvement. The full context of OKC's current demolition festival is really astounding, and I'm someone that's seen a lot of demolition in a lot of places.

Historic preservation should not be dependent on a developer wanting it. It really does have to come from the community.

This. I don't know why any historic preservationist could even possibly think of themselves as relevant in OKC. What building has OKC saved from a planned demolition in the last ten years? ...

While not exactly a topic I follow often, the Gold Dome is the only building I can think of being saved in the last ten years.

Edit: double post when my browser started acting funky

It should generally be assumed that all criticism on this board is (or should be) directed at me. Just kidding.

That sounds like a very reasonable request to me, Spartan. :wink:

This. I don't know why any historic preservationist could even possibly think of themselves as relevant in OKC. What building has OKC saved from a planned demolition in the last ten years? What suspense has their EVER been in the demolition of our history?

I also want to make clear, just in case anyone is still clinging to the hope of an OKC demolition denial someday, that these have quite often gone against a city staff report recommending against approval of the proposed demolitions in accordance with city codes. Our problem is not for lack of trying on the part of qualified, informed, and intelligent people. That is bittersweet for me to say after my past advocacy involvement. The full context of OKC's current demolition festival is really astounding, and I'm someone that's seen a lot of demolition in a lot of places.

Historic preservation should not be dependent on a developer wanting it. It really does have to come from the community.

Does the Walnut Bridge qualify ?

Shockingly that was more than ten years ago... :eek:

There are people focused on preservation, they just aren't always given the power to make decisions at this level. One example I can think of, is the historic element enforcement in Heritage Hills by the committee that governs that (residents). They've been given power to approve/deny a huge swath of things, and have even had the wherewithal to deny requests from rather notable people. I can't remember if it was Norick or Humpheys but one of them wanted to build a new "carriage house" except that the proposal had it being a monstrosity of a building in scale, totally out of proportion or design of the house and era. I used to work with a lady that was on that committee at that time, and she told quite a few interesting stories that can give you an appreciation for the level of work they were doing to try and keep things historic in that area.

I do wish we had more people focused on things like that in the downtown area. I'm not saying every little thing should be saved (lets face it, we're not freaking Boston, nothing here is more than 130 years old) but there are things that SHOULD qualify and it shouldn't be the "best intent" of the developer being the thing that keeps the structure. We've been lucky in MidTown that we've had developers looking there specifically because of the historic elements and they have been focused on restoring them. Downtown....we just don't have that. We've torn downtown down once, lets not do it again.

While not exactly a topic I follow often, the Gold Dome is the only building I can think of being saved in the last ten years.

The Gold Dome never got to the point where a decision had to be made by the review boards.

Box filed a demolition permit but never filed with the design review committee, and their approval would have been the required first step. But it never got that far.


There was a building in Midtown owned by Midtown Renaissance -- an old 4-plex -- that had its demolition denied. But MidtownR never pushed and wasn't ready to redevelop the property yet, so I suspect it the subject will be readdressed down the road.

But it's a fair point... When was the last time the City actually stopped a planned demolition?

I think there could be a case here for pieces of the original main street to be salvaged. I disagree with the poster (was it Spartan) who said it was not viable in urban construction (I think the comment was, if historic is worth salvaging then save the entire building not just the façade).

Here in Seattle we have a large scale development in the new South Lake Union area which is retaining a 'historic' warehouse frontage. There is currently a huge hole in the square block but the parts of the façade they wanted to keep is held up by temporary pylons until the building is complete. This will be a mid-rise office block (as all of SLU is) by the way, yet it is taking the place of something of historic value (to Seattle at least) and they are keeping it. I know there are several new skyscrapers under construction in Vancouver where historic low rise façade is being retained similarly and they have many existing examples already complete.

I can post pictures I took of the Seattle block with my windows phone (if Pete tells me how :) ). I think something like this COULD be done on the Main Street frontage should OKC want to retain those truly historic elements. And could calm fears some of us have about the block disappearing or the possible lack of value/feasibility of façade retention in new development.

But it's a fair point... When was the last time the City actually stopped a planned demolition?[/QUOTE]

Right. They haven't and they won't. It's a pro development city and always has been, especially when influenced by local money and power.

"Pro-development" is ironic.

I am the most pro-development planner you'll ever meet, I'll even talk about how great gentrification really is. The disconnect is that OKC hasn't learned yet that the best way to get good development is by rejecting bad development. To me "pro development" means protecting and advocating for development opportunities.

The crucial systemic thing is that OKC is getting good development in spite of itself due to the prevailing wind of a very strong economy. There is no perceived need for any change despite the strong possibility of external variables.

I think there could be a case here for pieces of the original main street to be salvaged. I disagree with the poster (was it Spartan) who said it was not viable in urban construction (I think the comment was, if historic is worth salvaging then save the entire building not just the façade).

Here in Seattle we have a large scale development in the new South Lake Union area which is retaining a 'historic' warehouse frontage. There is currently a huge hole in the square block but the parts of the façade they wanted to keep is held up by temporary pylons until the building is complete. This will be a mid-rise office block (as all of SLU is) by the way, yet it is taking the place of something of historic value (to Seattle at least) and they are keeping it. I know there are several new skyscrapers under construction in Vancouver where historic low rise façade is being retained similarly and they have many existing examples already complete.

I can post pictures I took of the Seattle block with my windows phone (if Pete tells me how :) ). I think something like this COULD be done on the Main Street frontage should OKC want to retain those truly historic elements. And could calm fears some of us have about the block disappearing or the possible lack of value/feasibility of façade retention in new development.

Are you talking about the 5 stories being added to the old auto-row building?
Old building on Seattle's Capitol Hill grows up ? literally - Puget Sound Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/06/old-building-on-seattles-capitol-hill-grows-up.html?page=all)

This project is really cool, and I've wondered if this were at all possible on the Preftakes block.

nope, there is a new building being built in SLU. It was an old warehouse on Fairview but they're saving the façade in the corners and having 10 storey (or so) twins pop up. I was at our SLU office on Wednesday and noticed it as I was driving by. I did a double take of the façade retention with the tremendous hole in the square block, and circled back to get pics. Again - if Pete or someone will share how to post, I will as I think it could be a good model for OKC.

nope, there is a new building being built in SLU. It was an old warehouse on Fairview but they're saving the façade in the corners and having 10 storey (or so) twins pop up. I was at our SLU office on Wednesday and noticed it as I was driving by. I did a double take of the façade retention with the tremendous hole in the square block, and circled back to get pics. Again - if Pete or someone will share how to post, I will as I think it could be a good model for OKC.

I think this is what you're talking about:
Touchstone plans office towers on old Troy Laundry block | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022438234_troyblockxml.html)

Yep, that's quite an interesting way to develop the property. Unfortunately, the buildings were mostly demolished, and only the facades were being retained. I think in the case of the Preftakes Block, many people would want the storefronts to have a fighting chance for survival. Retaining only the facades would underscore how much has been lost. If there's a way to add density to the block and retain the storefronts, we would all win.

rich, you are good. Yes, that is the complex under development where they're retaining the heritage facade.

You're right, but thing is - it likely is not feasible to retain the storefronts themselves. But the facade could be saved and could give history to maintain a presence while allowing for large scale development. Again, this is just an example OKC could follow that other cities are doing (and I just happened to drive right by this one leaving work. ...).

btw, hopefully OKC's development will be FAR better than Seattle's Troy "towers". lol

The problem is, after so many years, the facades are in pretty bad shape. In some cases you'd be putting on a new facade that looked like the old one. You wouldn't really be saving much.

Looks like the drilling crew was out again this morning getting soil/core samples in the alley west of the Lunch Box.

Looks like the drilling crew was out again this morning getting soil/core samples in the alley west of the Lunch Box.

Thanks for the intel.

I'm really starting to believe we'll see a parking structure go up on the southwest corner of that block in the very near future.

Just taken by lasomeday; samples being taken just east of One North Hudson:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/preftakes111114.jpg

Was that taken with a calculator? Good news, though!

Haha... That was taken from far away with super hi-res, so I had to crop it way down which is why it looks so bad.

But, it certainly tells the story. Very interesting stuff.

A little OT: The ex-wife always called him Nick Breakfastflakes. To this day, I can't read or hear his name without thinking of that.

A little OT: The ex-wife always called him Nick Breakfastflakes. To this day, I can't read or hear his name without thinking of that.

That's AWESOME...lol.

So, I'm starting to hear things that indicate plans may have shifted for this block.

Looks like plans may be heating up for a taller tower at Sheridan & Hudson in the place of One North Hudson and the Auto Hotel.

First, we see crews taking core samples all over this block, including all around One North Hudson; even to the east on Hudson. Then, we see the following massing model appear in the Clayco presentation. Now, I've heard from a good source that the plan is for a 43-story building at Sheridan & Hudson with commercial / parking in place of the three buildings along Main Street and a very large parking structure with commercial along Sheridan.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9261d1412690083-og-e-energy-center-stagenew6.jpg

Demolitions aside, all this does make sense. Devon is out of both office space and parking and we know that Bank of Oklahoma wants to consolidate and even expand operations on this site as well. And if you're Devon, who just engineered the complete re-do of the Myriad Gardens and have all your other structures on the park, why not have most the office space on this block face the park too? Nichols fought very hard to make sure his beloved convention center fronted the park as well.

Building up along Hudson would make it very easy for Devon to bridge the two blocks together. Plus, they just made the critical mistake of building their last building too small, which has required them to lease space in several other buildings and take parking spaces in two different structures. You would think this time around they want to be able to accommodate their growth.

I also think the parking crunch necessitates this type of coverage. If there is to be significant office space here, they would need a garage about the size of the existing Devon structure, which is massive.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it's starting to look like a possibility.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sheridanhudson1.jpg

This view shows just how great replacing the Cox with a cluster of towers and cool development would fill-in downtown. I would like to see a tall spire on the new tower t hough.

Now we are talking! This will make the skyline look so much better. Can you imagine how it would look if the a couple of the the 4 proposed Clayco and Milhous towers were in the 30-35 range? That would be quite amazing and you would have an even more balance and impressive skyline. Anyway, I hope this happens because this will be great.

Pete, when should we know some concrete details?

Pete, when should we know some concrete details?

I wish I did.

This whole thing has been so mysterious but they seem to be moving forward.

Awesome news. This is exactly what's needed to balance the skyline. Hopefully it comes to pass. What kind of controversy will surround the loss of One North Hudson if a 43-story tower is being built? Do you think it will cause significant outcry?

I never thought they would consider demolishing One North Hudson but this would likely play out just like SandRidge and Stage Center.

They would propose something great, take some heat, City staff would recommend against it, and the Downtown Design Review Committee would likely approve.

This has been the pattern with every other downtown demolition.

One difference: One North Hudson was recently occupied and fully functional. In the other situations, the case was made that the building was too expensive to repair.

It should cause some outcry. An agreement could be reached with the city so that Preftakes purchases lot 16 from the city, and agrees to provide parking for a certain number of city vehicles in the new garage. Lots 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are easily big enough to put in a tower, of any height, and have a massive parking garage. There's no need to tear down One North Hudson, or the Motor Hotel.

That said, I'm still excited about the new tower.

There is a huge difference between this and Sandridge. Sandridge tore down buildings to plant ugly trees. This would be buildings and the land would be more useful. Just saying.....

It has always seemed unlikely they would seek to demolish One North Hudson and that's the part of this that doesn't completely add up.

On the other hand, to fit a big tower and parking on that block, they may have decided it's the best way.

Good to hear that the development is still in some stages to prepare us for more good news. Can't help but feel that there are bright days ahead for OKC...

If it's 43 stories, then it's between 720 and 760 feet tall. That would be impressive.

Sweet

When looking at the picture posted, what buildings does basically everyone's eyes gravitate to? It's easy, this new tower and Devon and it isn't even close. I like the Clayco stuff but I love, love this one for sure. Lets just be honest, can you imagine what the skyline would look like if they added even 100 more feet to just a couple of the Clayco towers? If not, scroll up and look at the picture again and add about 100 feet to a couple of those buildings and then look at the skyline- that would be quite impressive to say the least.

When looking at the picture posted, what buildings does basically everyone's eyes gravitate to? It's easy, this new tower and Devon and it isn't even close. I like the Clayco stuff but I love, love this one for sure. Lets just be honest, can you imagine what the skyline would look like if they added even 100 more feet to just a couple of the Clayco towers? If not, scroll up and look at the picture again and add about 100 feet to a couple of those buildings and then look at the skyline- that would be quite impressive to say the least.

Soondoc,
They must have read all of your previous post about height and reconsidered their plans. Great job and congrats !

When looking at the picture posted, what buildings does basically everyone's eyes gravitate to? It's easy, this new tower and Devon and it isn't even close. I like the Clayco stuff but I love, love this one for sure. Lets just be honest, can you imagine what the skyline would look like if they added even 100 more feet to just a couple of the Clayco towers? If not, scroll up and look at the picture again and add about 100 feet to a couple of those buildings and then look at the skyline- that would be quite impressive to say the least.

Here's the contact page for the folks at Clayco. Maybe if you inundate them with emails, they'll add height to their buildings. Clayco - Contact Info for Chicago and St. Louis Construction Offices (http://www.claycorp.com/our-firm/contact-us/)

You're welcome Bellaboo, always glad to help. Actually, I am sure they do have people reading these boards to find out what the public is thinking. I think they really want to do this right for all of them and also it gives a gauge of demand and expectations. I think if Clayco thinks that people are ecstatic about a 20-25 foot tower, they will go just that and even that could get scaled down some. If people state on here we have the demand to go a little bigger, those towers will be more recognized if they did, etc, it could make a difference.

If I was Clayco, even though I was excited about this project, I would be a little bit bummed that a block or so away their will be a high rise that will make his look like mid rises. I do NOT mean that as a back handed slap on his project, but lets just be real. His project will not be nearly as noticed when this new tower gets built. It will be Devon and the new kid on the block and they will look down on the 4 nice and new mid rises. How often does even the Cotter Tower get noticed now (of course it does itself no favors)? The Clayco will be about a 100 foot smaller than that. Like I said, I love this new tower much more than I dislike the Clayco. I would love the Clayco if only they would go a 100 foot or more on 1-2 of the proposed buildings. If they don't and this tower gets built, the will be very much over shadowed (no pun intended).

For there to be any sizeable office use on this block, there is going to need to be a big parking garage. There is zero parking available downtown right now and Devon has already overflowed into two additional structures.

The red outline below shows the size of the Devon garage superimposed on this block -- the buildable area is in orange. As you can see, it takes almost all the space.

It then starts to make sense that to add just one 40-story tower, they would need every bit of the rest of that block just for parking, especially since the City building is going nowhere.

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

So one north Hudson and the motor hotel will be demolished...unbelievable

Awesome news. This is exactly what's needed to balance the skyline. Hopefully it comes to pass. What kind of controversy will surround the loss of One North Hudson if a 43-story tower is being built? Do you think it will cause significant outcry?

There will be a major outcry. Get out your chap stick & lip balm, there will be an Apocalypse. Armageddon, a total catastrophe with blood in the streets; it will rival the Civil War, carnage everywhere, a Project 180 blood bath. They will need help from neighboring planets to curve the violence.

Oh, what a terrible thought...

So one north Hudson and the motor hotel will be demolished...unbelievable
9539
This is the Devon tower to scale, it has the biggest footprint as a skyscraper in the city. Is this new building going to have one as big?? Because even if so it will still fit in this section...
As of parking, can there be an underground parking lot? Or can another one be built on the north east section, and just make it more vertical. If there was underground parking..and a 8 to 10 story parking garage would that be enough?

So one north Hudson and the motor hotel will be demolished...unbelievable

I'm not saying that.

But it does seem to be a possibility.

There will be a major outcry. Get out your chap stick & lip balm, there will be an Apocalypse. Armageddon, a total catastrophe with blood in the streets; it will rival the Civil War, carnage everywhere, a Project 180 blood bath. They will need help from neighboring planets to curve the violence.

Oh, what a terrible thought...

Or Pete's monthly bill will be slightly higher from all the bandwidth used in this thread. lol

One thing to keep in mind about One North Hudson: it's a very small building in terms of square footage.

Only about 50,000 SF which is the equivalent of about two floors in Devon Tower. The upper floors (2-10) are only 4,368 SF each, which is pretty tiny.

Given the huge investment already made in this block, the strong demand for office and parking space and it's proximity to all that's great in downtown, you could see why this building might not make economic sense.

Absolutely not advocating for demolition, just trying to think like a developer.

It's absolutely feasible to to put a 10 - 15 story garage on everything west of Hotel Black and put a 40 to 50 story tower on top of the NE corner of the block.

I'm sure there are reasons that they would want to tear down Hotel Black and the Motor Hotel…but the question is are those reasons good enough to do such a thing. I'd argue not.

Someone with exact info can help us out here - but I had a professor tell me that back during the boom of the early '80's, One North Hudson had a bad rap about ceiling heights in the building - not sure if it was a joke from him but he stated the ceiling heights were 7' 6"..... If that's the case, not sure how desirable it would be to keep the building ?

So one north Hudson and the motor hotel will be demolished...unbelievable
9539
This is the Devon tower to scale, it has the biggest footprint as a skyscraper in the city. Is this new building going to have one as big?? Because even if so it will still fit in this section...
As of parking, can there be an underground parking lot? Or can another one be built on the north east section, and just make it more vertical. If there was underground parking..and a 8 to 10 story parking garage would that be enough?