On a more serious note, don't be surprised if the place is demolished and replaced with a 7-11 or On Cue.

Hey, hey! This isn't Tulsa!! (Although even then, it would be a QuikTrip, which would give me reason for pause)

Anyone know what happened to the old interstate badge sign?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/S%20Walker%20Ave/21412M2341.jpg

Past articles stated that Preftakes was interested in purchasing the property, don't be surprised if Preftakes does purchase old bus station, then demolishes it. This is a big block, I can see Preftakes dividing up block, and selling different portions to different developers, and keeping a portion to himself. I can't see why Devon wouldn't want to build housing on that block, for employees.

Okay when Preftakes purchased the building adjacent to the east which was Frank bruno's building he took away the Express which the bus station was renting from frank. Then mr preftakes put up a huge metal fence so the Bus's had a hard time entering and exiting the area. I believe Mr allen does not want to sell to mr preftakes due to this occuring.

I just heard that there are active plans to turn the bus station into a restaurant. It's just word from a friend of a friend but I've heard other things from the same source that have ended up being true.

That would be very cool.. Probably the Bus Stations intent from the very beginning not to sell out..

If they can get that bus station renovated and turned into a nice diner before soon, it will be very difficult for anyone to get a demolition permit for it, especially as a unique Art Deco building. The argument of being dilapidated won't apply.

Difficult, but not impossible, in this city..

Hopefully they will build outdoor dining to the sidewalk so they don't have parking west and south of the building.

Maybe they can convert a bus or two to dining rooms like I have seen rail cars done elsewhere. LOL

That would be really interesting. I think that underneath the awning where the buses load on the side of the building would be a great place for outdoor dining, with an awesome view of the park, Devon, and Stage Center.

There are actually overhangs on both the west (Walker) and east sides and either/both would be great for a patio. Perhaps one could be semi-enclosed to protect against the elements.

As you can see from the assessor's schematic below, that is a good-sized building with 6,500 square feet on each of two levels. A restaurant -- unless it was unusually large -- would not require the full first level, especially if they utilize outdoor seating. It would be nice to have some wort of retail use to share the ground floor or even another restaurant. The upstairs could be used for offices or maybe even a two-level restaurant setup.

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/Sketches/sketchfile/2730/R010018260001.jpg

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/sketches/picfile/2730/R010018260001uA.jpg

The building doesn't look especially large, so I wonder what ceiling clearances are like inside.

I've been inside a time or two, and the ceiling are really high

As you can see from the assessor's schematic below, that is a good-sized building with 6,500 square feet on each of two levels. A restaurant -- unless it was unusually large -- would not require the full first level, especially if they utilize outdoor seating. It would be nice to have some wort of retail use to share the ground floor or even another restaurant. The upstairs could be used for offices or maybe even a two-level restaurant setup.

I was think the same thing. 13,000 sq feet is a lot of space and downtown has probably maxed out on meeting and banquet space. The ground floor is not setup well for retail (or dining) with minimal windows and doors. Any conversion to retail is going to require some pretty significant changes to the building. The second floor doesn't have any windows (not sure of the blue glass on the front is just decorative).

How much space does a toy museum need?

In my opinion a restaurant will not show near the return to overcome the sale price to a motivated developer, therefore I predict the property will be sold. Try to remember that Hall said he was looking at developing the Ford dealership property, then immediately put it up as a possibily for the new CC.

In my opinion a restaurant will not show near the return to overcome the sale price to a motivated developer, therefore I predict the property will be sold. Try to remember that Hall said he was looking at developing the Ford dealership property, then immediately put it up as a possibily for the new CC.

If a developer buys it what happens to it? Also, Hall didn't suggest his property for the convention center. According to sources, it was his business partners. To them it was 'found money' and they tried to cash in.

If a developer buys it what happens to it? Also, Hall didn't suggest his property for the convention center. According to sources, it was his business partners. To them it was 'found money' and they tried to cash in.

What sources are those? As to what the developer might do there, who knows. I hear from sources there is a demand for square block plazas. My guess, with no basis or knowledge, is it will be a 28 story building with a parking garage and plaza.

In my opinion a restaurant will not show near the return to overcome the sale price to a motivated developer, therefore I predict the property will be sold. Try to remember that Hall said he was looking at developing the Ford dealership property, then immediately put it up as a possibily for the new CC.

Fortunately pure capitalism doesn't exist in principle in the U.S. So obviously it will come down to some sort of compromise between profit margins and what the public likes. And really, that's a good thing. Downtown is a tiny little sphere of high interest in which the public is the primary stakeholder--if it weren't for the public's investments in the MAPS projects and other amenities and facilities downtown, there wouldn't be a real estate bubble. So I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that the building find a more egalitarian use.

But as for pushing for the highest return on investment for every parcel downtown, how is that possible? What does this one little plot of land with a cool building on it really mean in the long run for pushing downtown investment ahead? There is so much vacant land in downtown OKC, and so many ugly buildings that we'd all welcome a bulldozer for, that why do these great old buildings keep having to be demolished for the sake of progress? I don't get that. Having room for new development is NOT a problem that downtown should be having. If there is really not a suitable site for squeezing the highest ROI, there's always C2S.

I don't mean to start a war of words with you, just expressing how we've all been beat upside the head in the last few years by this maximum possible investment argument. Oy...

It is always the micro vs. the macro view of value and best use. If you don't own the property then its max financial value is of little interest. But I guarantee, if you own the building the thought of maximizing value is present unless you are interested in underwriting the public's interest and not many individuals and companies are that prioritized.

It is always the micro vs. the macro view of value and best use. If you don't own the property then it's max financial value is of little interest. But I guarantee, if you own the building the thought of maximizing value is present unless you are interested in underwriting the public's interest and not many individuals and companies are that prioritized.

And that depends on your timeline as well. If you want to have a long term property that demands a premium, you renovate. If you want short term cash and don't care what happens to it you sell. The idea that the only way to maximize return is to demolish is clearly a misguided one. That would be like saying Bricktown and Plaza Court would have been better off torn down 15 years ago. We also have a ton of stuff that was torn down for spec and no return was generated for years, if at all. Those who understand how lucky they are to have assets with historic equity capitalize on it. Those who don't usually find themselves in a 50/50 position. It's just like the historic neighborhoods. There is a reason they outpace the rest of state in appreciation: they have something you can not get anywhere else.

With its history as a bus station, let's call it the "Hub Diner" or just "The Hub".

I have no idea if my information is correct, just that it has been in the past. Also, as we know, plans don't always come to fruition in OKC (or anywhere else proabably). I hope so though, as I think it could be an incredible space if renovated.

At least it is a fun rumor to speculate on.

Is a building built in 1940 now considered historic? Did the legislature meet there for a number of months while the dome was being erected or was there another significant happening that I am unaware its occurence? The reason I ask is to know what to expect from preservationists if the building does sell and demolition is announced.

It is always the micro vs. the macro view of value and best use. If you don't own the property then its max financial value is of little interest. But I guarantee, if you own the building the thought of maximizing value is present unless you are interested in underwriting the public's interest and not many individuals and companies are that prioritized.

Well, it's more than just a one-way road, however. The city has to grant that demolition permit, and as we all know, the city has certain ordinances required for the upkeep and appearance of downtown. One of those ordinances that the city should chose to enforce (at any time now) is that existing buildings stay, and while I'm all for granting an exception in cases where a building truly is an eyesore, there would be nothing wrong with the city choosing to enforce ordinances that developers should be aware are present long before they bought property in the downtown region.

A few examples of where citizenry have a right to "meddle" with "private property rights."

1. Someone has a nice home in the suburbs. Someone proposes to build a huge 3-story metal shed less than 50 feet behind their house, it will tower over their house, cause a shadow, and as an eyesore it will reduce the property value. The owner of the nice home has a right to prevent that shed from going up and protecting his property values from such an egregious assault.

2. Some new people move into the neighborhood. The neighborhood has design standards, but they ignore them and paint their garage bright pink. The neighborhood has reached an overwhelming consensus that the pink garage is not a good idea. The new neighbors have ignored the HOA however. The city must get involved.

3. Some neighbors have stopped caring. They mow their grass once a year and it is shoulder-high during the summer. The city must get involved, not only is it an eyesore, but it is also a public safety hazard--it will attract huge amounts of undesirable things like wild animals and insects.

4. Somebody puts up a huge 2-story inflatable dragon in Bricktown, right on the canal. Bricktown is a historic district that relies on its image for business. That image is dependent on being taken seriously as a serious urban district, and besides, the huge inflatable dragon is an eyesore that shouldn't even be allowed in Del City. The city must get involved and put an end to this insanity.

These and many more examples are cases where the city gets involved and meddles in "private property rights" every day. Across the U.S., it happens hundreds of times a day. I believe that cases of building demolition are another example in which the city has to get involved and not put the developers well on their way to demolishing a building that should stay.

Is a building built in 1940 now considered historic? Did the legislature meet there for a number of months while the dome was being erected or was there another significant happening that I am unaware its occurence? The reason I ask is to know what to expect from preservationists if the building does sell and demolition is announced.

Well even though you're "the other side" the reasons for preservation and urban planning shouldn't be a secret. Simply put, it's a cool, unique space. It's also Art-Deco, how many of those are left downtown, eh?

Is a building built in 1940 now considered historic? Did the legislature meet there for a number of months while the dome was being erected or was there another significant happening that I am unaware its occurence? The reason I ask is to know what to expect from preservationists if the building does sell and demolition is announced.


I can't speak for the preservationist as I am an urbanist. As long as they push the building out to the sidewalk and don't put in a plaza they could tear it down.

4. Somebody puts up a huge 2-story inflatable dragon in Bricktown, right on the canal. Bricktown is a historic district that relies on its image for business. That image is dependent on being taken seriously as a serious urban district, and besides, the huge inflatable dragon is an eyesore that shouldn't even be allowed in Del City. The city must get involved and put an end to this insanity.

Thanks, I wouldn't want to see it here either.

I can't speak for the preservationist as I am an urbanist. As long as they push the building out to the sidewalk and don't put in a plaza they could tear it down.

How can you ask them to push the building out to the sidewalk when the current building is not out to the sidewalk. No street wall will be harmed. So, as an urbanist what else would you object to if a 28 story building with a parking garage and exceptional landscaping were announced for the whole block or perhaps two 28 story buildings for the block?

Why would such a development HAVE to go on a block that is already completely full of buildings??

This building will be sold to the highest bidder. Fun to speculate but a Cafe is a huge long shot..

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is there a stipulation in the city building codes that says, "BUT if you pay $______ for a building, these codes do not apply to you." ??

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is there a stipulation in the city building codes that says, "BUT if you pay $______ for a building, these codes do not apply to you." ??

You will not see it written anywhere but it does exist in reality. Your mental health would probably improve if you accepted that as an unpublished fact.

I'm sure my blood pressure would be more normal as well if I just accepted this and other things. But why should I?

Why would such a development HAVE to go on a block that is already completely full of buildings??

This is too easy to answer as I thought it would be readily apparent to a high school Freshman. It is because some one has identified that block as the block they want, not any of the others.

Ooh, nice ad hominem. I almost forgot for a second that you have no concern whatsoever for the community or the good of the city.

You will not see it written anywhere but it does exist in reality. Your mental health would probably improve if you accepted that as an unpublished fact.

Absolute BS. Hate to disagree, but I call them as I know them!!

Absolute BS. Hate to disagree, but I call them as I know them!!

I can't help but think you thought we were referencing bribes, which we were not. Surely you don't think that exceptions are not made for people that have or will make substantial investments in the core. Sandridge was a case in point.

Ooh, nice ad hominem. I almost forgot for a second that you have no concern whatsoever for the community or the good of the city.

Could not disagree with you more strongly on this one. I care for the city a bunch. You care for old urban planning guidelines that might work in one city but not in another. OKC is no longer a city that those guidelines can apply. People will erect buildings and their corporate offices in the core if the requirements from the city meet their criteria. They will build them on Memorial if hassled by outdated ordinances. I remember you or another urbanist stating let them build on Memorial. Well they have been, along with NW Exressway and we ended up with a failing core. Maybe it can be turned around, but urbanist will not help, it will be in spite of you, but you could still get your density and more urban housing as a result.

How can you ask them to push the building out to the sidewalk when the current building is not out to the sidewalk. No street wall will be harmed. So, as an urbanist what else would you object to if a 28 story building with a parking garage and exceptional landscaping were announced for the whole block or perhaps two 28 story buildings for the block?

It has to be pushed out to the street because city codes require it. As for the landscaping, in an urban environment landscaping should be restricted to sidewalk planters and the center median of the road. If they want a park-like setting for residents they need to do that on the second or third floor terrace. Now if we are talking the whole block and they wanted to do an interior courtyard then I would be good with that also. The last thing I would want is a 20 story towers built in the middle of a park with 30 feet between the sidewalk and the front door. If they want to do that then they need to go build on NWExp or Classen Blvd.

This:
http://www.greenroofs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/1010midtown12.jpg

Not This:

http://www.archicentral.com/wp-content/images/327892947_far19s4f-528x324.jpg

You care for old urban planning guidelines that might work in one city but not in another. OKC is no longer a city that those guidelines can apply. People will erect buildings and their corporate offices in the core if the requirements from the city meet their criteria. They will build them on Memorial if hassled by outdated ordinances. I remember you or another urbanist stating let them build on Memorial. Well they have been, along with NW Exressway and we ended up with a failing core. Maybe it can be turned around, but urbanist will not help, it will be in spite of you, but you could still get your density and more urban housing as a result.

The ordinances that govern downtown were just adopted a few years ago. Since the new ordinance have been put in place downtown has seen more development than the previous 20 years under the old ordinances.

The ordinances that govern downtown were just adopted a few years ago. Since the new ordinance have been put in place downtown has seen more development than the previous 20 years under the old ordinances.

Perhaps you could help me out here as I can't remember any development in the core except for Devon and I feel certain that the tower was not built out to the sidewalk. What am I missing in the last 20 years?

Multiple parking garages, Courtyard, Ford Center, Legacy, multiple redevleopments in Midtown/AA, etc. Also nearly all of Deep Duece. I think all of it has been built under the current design standards but one of our resident city planners could tell us for sure.

You are correct about Devon Tower though - it is not urban at all, it's just tall. Tall doesn't mean urban, it just means tall.

Closing of Union Bus Station may be cheered by downtown Oklahoma City leaders, but future of site remains uncertain (http://newsok.com/closing-of-union-bus-station-may-be-cheered-by-downtown-oklahoma-city-leaders-but-future-of-site-remains-uncertain/article/3566360)

BY STEVE LACKMEYER
Published: May 10, 2011

For the past 20 years, one task has eluded some of downtown's most powerful movers and shakers — the relocation of operations at Union Bus Station.
Now it looks like that dream is coming true with the depot's closing set for this fall, but uncertainty surrounds what's next for this increasingly prominent corner.

So, should the city just buy it on behalf of its citizens and let everyone vote on development? Or, we can establish a minister of urbanization whose central party committee can determine what is in the best interest of the city. I understand Moscow is very urbanized and this worked for them.

(Just teasing y'all))

I find it very sad our "City Leaders" are excited Greyhound is moving out of downtown, in a city already pathetic by intermodal transportation standards, why are they cheering it's departure from the downtown core. Once again it shows Mick and the gangs ineptitude on what we need in a downtown core. First the trolleys and pathetic bus system, then the street car was almost nixed, now this. I'm a big of a cheerleader as anyone for OKC, but find this news disturbing. If anything they should have been figuring on where we can move greyhound downtown and how it will easily transition to the future downtown transportation hub.

So, should the city just buy it on behalf of its citizens and let everyone vote on development? Or, we can establish a minister of urbanization whose central party committee can determine what is in the best interest of the city. I understand Moscow is very urbanized and this worked for them.

(Just teasing y'all))

The City built Bass Pro and the Chamber had their own suburban downtown proposal. I would rather let two chickens and a goat have more say than the City or Chamber. However, if they create a position as described I would like to apply.

agreed metro. They could have at least suggested that they build a new terminal in West Downtown - that's close to I-40 and not far at all from DOWNTOWN nor the rider base. Wouldn't it be more prudent to have the intercity bus terminal close to the city bus terminal/routes? Isn't that also much of their customer base (not to be condescending, but constructive)?

Im not totally against the move to Eastern/I-40 because this could spur that area somewhat (which badly needs a new destination) and help 'extend' the core, but I think taking it away from downtown (which is totally central to OKC's metro area) is a big mistake. I also find it appauling that the city dislikes inter-city busses running in downtown. It's downtown, it's a core - isn't it suppose to have all kinds of activity? and Dont all other major cities have their bus terminal in downtown? (I only know of small cities and towns who do it just off the freeway and not in a dedicated bus terminal). ....

Two steps forward, Three steps backward.

The City built Bass Pro and the Chamber had their own suburban downtown proposal. I would rather let two chickens and a goat have more say than the City or Chamber. However, if they create a position as described I would like to apply.

So the chamber is stupid or corrupt. Urban renewal is worse. Private investors are anti-OKC or evil. The suburbanites are just too stupid to understand what they should want. That leaves only three or four people in this city wise enough to let the rest of us know what we need and want. Thankfully they post on this site. It should easy to narrow down who the czar should be comrade.

Could not disagree with you more strongly on this one. I care for the city a bunch. You care for old urban planning guidelines that might work in one city but not in another. OKC is no longer a city that those guidelines can apply. People will erect buildings and their corporate offices in the core if the requirements from the city meet their criteria. They will build them on Memorial if hassled by outdated ordinances. I remember you or another urbanist stating let them build on Memorial. Well they have been, along with NW Exressway and we ended up with a failing core. Maybe it can be turned around, but urbanist will not help, it will be in spite of you, but you could still get your density and more urban housing as a result.

Popsy, what is a strategy you recommend for redeveloping downtown? It is 2011 and you really want us to focus on more office space so people can continue to go home to the burbs?

Reading this is more annoying than having to watch the Playoffs on this crappy ESPN website. Stop being negative towards people and actually suggest something in your posts. Do you know anything about downtown development other than that you don't like what I have to say about it??

I am amazed that no one corrected me earlier when I asked why they would want to drop their customers out on the edge of town (I also suggested that maybe they could visit the new Outlet Mall). I misread it thinking they were moving it by the truckstops out that way. But I see it is going to be at the Fort Smith junction area and that isn't nearly as bad as I thought. I do hope that they somehow repurpose the building instead of bulldozing it.

On edit: Is the Ft. Smith junction any better for bus access? Isn't the only direct exit to Martin Luther King/Eastern going eastbound on I-40? How does the relocation affect that? Seems like it would be like putting it out at Mathis Brothers... great visibility but not the easiest thing to get to (have to go through several blocks of city streets/stop and go traffic).

So the chamber is stupid or corrupt. Urban renewal is worse. Private investors are anti-OKC or evil. The suburbanites are just too stupid to understand what they should want. That leaves only three or four people in this city wise enough to let the rest of us know what we need and want. Thankfully they post on this site. It should easy to narrow down who the czar should be comrade.

Now you are finally starting to understand...LOL

So the chamber is stupid or corrupt. Urban renewal is worse. Private investors are anti-OKC or evil. The suburbanites are just too stupid to understand what they should want. That leaves only three or four people in this city wise enough to let the rest of us know what we need and want. Thankfully they post on this site. It should easy to narrow down who the czar should be comrade.

I said none of that, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

Well, regarding its actual use as a bus station, there are certainly better places to act as a bus terminal. The Grayhound station is no longer in an ideal spot. It's small, cramped, and has border disputes with its neighbors that limit its use. I remember I rode the bus from there about 9 or 10 years ago, and it was not an experience I'd care to repeat. Not that a truck stop will really be better.

As far as the building being used as something else, most of you guys are forgetting external costs. The owner of most properties will have limited funds to a certain degree. Unless they're Devon or Chesapeake, they may not have the money to build whatever they want. With the bus station, how much money does the current owner have and how much is he willing to spend on a renovation or on new construction? Who is willing to buy? How much money do they have?

The answers to those questions determine how our downtown develops. Nick Preftakes apparently has a plan that requires the entire block. He's been sitting on his butt waiting to acquire every bit of property that he can. He has the money to do pretty much whatever he wants, but he's not doing anything until he gets the bus station.

Whatever the "best use" of the property is, I'm not sure. Ideally, I would want every existing building of any worth downtown to be renovated and new buildings built on empty lots. I'd want big art deco skyscrapers to go in where ugly parking lots now sit, and cool midrise apartment buildings to replace vacant one story cinderblock buildings. However, the issue is money, and getting enough investors who share the dream and are willing to pony up the cash. That's OKC's real trouble, is we simply don't have enough people with both money and vision.

It's weird because that's already a very complete block, though. Every single one of those buildings on that block would make a bang-up renovation project. There is such density there, such an urban vibe. If Preftakes' plan doesn't involve a great deal of renovation, and I mean a great deal...then this city is truly a lost cause.

Well, regarding its actual use as a bus station, there are certainly better places to act as a bus terminal. The Grayhound station is no longer in an ideal spot. It's small, cramped, and has border disputes with its neighbors that limit its use. I remember I rode the bus from there about 9 or 10 years ago, and it was not an experience I'd care to repeat. Not that a truck stop will really be better.
As far as the building being used as something else, most of you guys are forgetting external costs. The owner of most properties will have limited funds to a certain degree. Unless they're Devon or Chesapeake, they may not have the money to build whatever they want. With the bus station, how much money does the current owner have and how much is he willing to spend on a renovation or on new construction? Who is willing to buy? How much money do they have?

The answers to those questions determine how our downtown develops. Nick Preftakes apparently has a plan that requires the entire block. He's been sitting on his butt waiting to acquire every bit of property that he can. He has the money to do pretty much whatever he wants, but he's not doing anything until he gets the bus station.

Whatever the "best use" of the property is, I'm not sure. Ideally, I would want every existing building of any worth downtown to be renovated and new buildings built on empty lots. I'd want big art deco skyscrapers to go in where ugly parking lots now sit, and cool midrise apartment buildings to replace vacant one story cinderblock buildings. However, the issue is money, and getting enough investors who share the dream and are willing to pony up the cash. That's OKC's real trouble, is we simply don't have enough people with both money and vision.

I think a truck stop would be far better as a terminal. I haven't ridden a bus out of the Union bus station in ten years but...

A truck stop would have showers. This would be invaluable for someone on a long trip. Imagine three or four days on a bus without a shower.

And truck stops would have a small food court or possible restaurant.

And there is the convenience store inside the truck stop where travelers could buy a soda, bag of chips, magazines or a movie.

The Union bus terminal had none of these when I last rode out of there.

Popsy, what is a strategy you recommend for redeveloping downtown? It is 2011 and you really want us to focus on more office space so people can continue to go home to the burbs?

Reading this is more annoying than having to watch the Playoffs on this crappy ESPN website. Stop being negative towards people and actually suggest something in your posts. Do you know anything about downtown development other than that you don't like what I have to say about it??

Wow. The Queen of negativity asks me to stop being negative towards people. First I am not negative about people, only the ideas some preach. Do I find you to be objectionalbe, the answer is yes. Why? You are a name caller, you try to create facts that have no basis in reality, your insecure ego is always in attack mode, etc. There are too many things to list so I will quit here, except to say that were someone to suggest that you could best be compared to a steaming pile of human excrement I would be forced be to endorse their thoughts.

You ask me to give my strategy for developing downtown and I will share as it a simple one. First let me point out that you, nor any in this forum have a solid idea as to what will or won't work. I don't care how many urban planning books you have read it makes no difference if you are unwilling to make trade offs that allow things to work. Larry Nichols said he is going to do his best to grow downtown OKC and my plan is to let him have a go at it. So who do you think has a better shot at growing the OKC core? The forums' urbanists or Larry Nichols?

Here is a deal for you. If you will reign in your absurdness I will not respond to your posts.

You ask me to give my strategy for developing downtown and I will share as it a simple one. First let me point out that you, nor any in this forum have a solid idea as to what will or won't work.

See what I'm saying? I asked you for a plan. You can't give a plan, you only have one mode, and that's attack mode. You have no idea yourself, just that you have to spout venom toward others. You my friend are absolutely worthless in these kinds of discussions, you've contributed absolutely nothing to discussions other than flame wars. And then you put words in other people's mouths. I'm not metro, I'll be the first to say I'm skeptical about how influential people on the Internet can be. Then you seek me out because I find personal ways to voice my say. When you disagree with my point of view you say I pull facts out of nowhere. What is a fact that I have pulled out of nowhere? If anything, you deny anything and everything. You're like the Tea Party of development. And then we get into these pathetic Internet shouting matches, and it's such a waste of time because it's never debating an actual idea. It also goes back to the exact same thing. You always lure people into the exact same worn debate that basically goes like this: "You all are morons who don't know what you're talking about because you have an idea. Let Larry Nichols have the ideas. Morons." How exactly is that productive? Have you ever had a useful idea in your life??


I don't care how many urban planning books you have read it makes no difference if you are unwilling to make trade offs that allow things to work. Larry Nichols said he is going to do his best to grow downtown OKC and my plan is to let him have a go at it. So who do you think has a better shot at growing the OKC core? The forums' urbanists or Larry Nichols?

Has there been a single person on here who has criticized Larry Nichols? Come on. We've talked about him, for sure, but nobody has ever criticized him. If you want criticism, bring up the subject of Tom Ward, and I'll show you how it's done. But it is aggravating when you pull this Us vs. Larry Nichols issue out of thin air. NOBODY ever attacked Larry Nichols. In fact, if Nichols, a man who has enormous respect within the community, articulated a position that was contrary to the urban mantra, I guarantee you people would sit down and listen. Might not agree 100%, but would at least see what he is saying. I think you're getting a little over-defensive when you insist on constantly picking wars and inventing these imaginary issues like opposing Nichols. Give me a break, and put the 'shrooms down.

The one thing you are right about is that I "call names" as you put it. I would say everything I have said to your face if you were a real person, too. But you aren't. You are some pathetic figment of the Internet who hides behind a screen name and randomly pops up to disperse negativity and venom and then goes away after you've accomplished a few pages of a flame war. You would have us believe that you sit down every night and pray to the oil CEO gods, but it seems unlikely that you could really be serious about more than have of the things that you say. So even when you seem like you might possibly be serious, your two cents is still absolutely worthless more often than not. You have never offered a single idea. You have never discussed a single issue seriously. Your head is rammed too far up your ass to give two damns about the details of any issue, and you've expressed time and time again that you don't care. The oil gods will take care of it all, and anyone who questions the oil gods, will live to regret it. I guess.

Why don't you stop hiding behind a fake name. Why don't you come out in public and voice your thoughts on these things? Or better yet, get over how badly your life must suck and come up with an actual IDEA to counter with or at least tone down your personal negativity. If you want to go negative and start lacing your posts with personal attacks, I am perfectly fine with that. I can have as much fun as you can by sitting behind a computer screen and harshly criticizing someone.

But what I'm done with is trying to reason with you, or even starting out responding nicely. You're beyond pathetic. I should probably have you on my ignore list, in fact, a lot of us probably should, to be honest. Have fun responding.

First let me point out that you, nor any in this forum have a solid idea as to what will or won't work.

Not specifically, no, but in general it's easy see that renovation and restoration has created more value to downtown property owners and the community than demolition has. Oklahoma City's downturn coincided with a major coordinated demolition of a lot of downtown. The beginning of its renaissance coincided with a major coordinated redevelopment of downtown's most dilapidated district.

Furthermore, anyone who has traveled to other communities or is at least aware what kind of communities people tend to travel to, know that well preserved communities tend to be more marketable and in higher demand. I realize there is still a strong isolationist sentiment in Oklahoma City, but most preservationists are simply trying to help create a community that more people actually want to visit, let alone live in. And if, redundant, turn key model developments are the key to Oklahoma City's image and marketability woes, then, hey, we're already set for several generations! But, considering the unusual amount of positive press and free marketing we have gotten since downtown's turnaround began typically centers on districts anchored by preservation and redevelopment efforts, as opposed to demolition and disposable development, then I think it's pretty clear what the community's best interest is when trying to decide if structures unique to our community should be torn down.

The best part is, though, that we can have all the new construction the city demands for the next 20 years and still preserve every last building currently standing. I'm not saying they ALL need to be save, but even if we did, we'd still have plent of space to go around for as much new stuff as we can support. Given our glut of empty space and disposable development, we can offer a city with character through preservation and innovative new development without tearing down a single property. The reality is that it's not a big deal to ask developers to spare some of the city's history, if for nothing else, they can usually go 5 blocks in any direction and find somewhere else to do it that doesn't come at the cost of the city's current character. In fact, they can probably go to OCURA and get some prime real estate and pretty much do whatever they want with it.

Sparky, You need to work on your reading comprehension. No where did I try to pit you or any urbanist against Larry Nichols. I merely asked who might be the most effective at growing the urban core. Next, I have identified my identity in this forum before and with a little effort you could probably find it. I have had popsy as my nickname since high school so it is a part of my true identity. I consider the rest of what you had to say as jibberish, so I won't waste my or any one elses time responding to it. Here's hoping your gain maturity with age regardless how long in the future it might take.

You say the most contradicting things.


No where did I try to pit you or any urbanist against Larry Nichols. I merely asked who might be the most effective at growing the urban core.

Um. You just did it again. Are we seriously playing this game?


Here's hoping your gain maturity with age regardless how long in the future it might take.

Surely the mature response, eh? How's that for irony.

Imagine Main Street 1950, Imagine Main Street 2020 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/05/18/imagine-main-street-1950-imagine-main-street-2020/)