I am a young guy that absolutely has no attachment to historical buildings downtown. The question I ask is why do people get so upset about historical buildings being torn down? You have blocks of old historical buildings that sit empty and when someone comes in and wants to tear it down and build something new everyone freaks out. What is the big deal?

As a young guy it is certainly understandable that you may feel this way. I remember when I was young(er) and watched the old Biltmore Hotel be blown up in the name of progress. It was all very exciting and I could hardly wait until a shiny new structure took the place of the old crumbling wreck (which never happened by the way). It was only later in life, once I had travelled a bit, not just in the US, but also abroad, that I realized that the most dynamic and truly livable places on this planet are those that have a healthy respect for both the future, the present and the past. Truly the best places, where people of all ages and background like to gather to interact, go to restaurants, work, live and just be, are those places that have established this respect for the past.

Old buildings enrich a city because of their warmth (often more natural materials are used) their human-scale and, frankly, their patina. It is nicer and even more fun to sit at an outdoor cafe in front of an old brick facade with a great awning and some greenery around than on a sterile plaza of granite and glass. I have personally lived this in London, New York, Paris, but also in Minneapolis, Boston, Portland, Oregon.. you name it.. these are great places to be. This is where people want to go... PARTICULARLY young people!

So when you say, 'away with the old' and bring on the new', don't forget that those old buildings were once new and the new ones will one day be old. It is better to learn to appreciate ALL buildings (and people for that matter) for what they are and what they bring to our society instead of simply sweeping away what is not new and shiny.

Hope this helps you understand that you are in a way the owner of those old historical buildings downtown, so if you do away with them so effortlessly, don't forget that you are doing away with a part of your own history and your ability to enrich your own life. Not to mention that someone may do the same with you one day!

By the way I am 50, not 80. You will learn this all sooner than you think.

oakhallow - the problem in Oklahoma is that the buildings were removed and nothing replaced them except grass and parking lots. I can name dozens of new places that are built to human scale that do just fine in attracting people to sit in sidewalk cafes and hangout. The older building are cool because "they don't build them like that anymore", but that doesn't mean they couldn't build them like that anymore. For the last 30 years post-modern glass office buildings have been all the rage, but as the concept of liveable urbanism trickels down to the average person you will see a trend going the other way. Just look at the difference between Devon and Chesapeak. If Chesapeak had built the campus downtown and pushed their building out to the street they could have created the the most old world urban environment in the country outside of colonial America. They had the right idea, they just picked the wrong location.

Kerry and David Pollard have summed it up nicely. I will add that as a young person myself (born in the great year of 1986), I have come to appreciate the character that older buildings and the fabric they provide. It simply cannot be replaced by some of the new things being put out there.

I would probably be a little more open to new construction in the place of where historic buildngs stood, but, at least in OKC, the record for new buildings in the footprints of old is dismal. If you saw pictures of how this place used to look as recently as the 1960's and saw what was in its place now you would know what I mean.

I would probably be a little more open to new construction in the place of where historic buildngs stood, but, at least in OKC, the record for new buildings in the footprints of old is dismal. If you saw pictures of how this place used to look as recently as the 1960's and saw what was in its place now you would know what I mean.

It is almost as if the military tested nuclear weapons on OKC. We got all the destruction but none of the rebuild. Have you seen a picture of Hiroshima lately? They literally got his by a nuclear bomb and now is one of the most dense places in Japan.

Before:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/798.jpg

After:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/asia_pac_hiroshima_then_and_now/img/3.jpg

http://picturrs.com/files/funzug/imgs/travel/hiroshima_nagasaki_04.jpg

Truly the best places, where people of all ages and background like to gather to interact, go to restaurants, work, live and just be, are those places that have established this respect for the past.

Old buildings enrich a city because of their warmth (often more natural materials are used) their human-scale and, frankly, their patina. It is nicer and even more fun to sit at an outdoor cafe in front of an old brick facade with a great awning and some greenery around than on a sterile plaza of granite and glass. I have personally lived this in London, New York, Paris, but also in Minneapolis, Boston, Portland, Oregon.. you name it.. these are great places to be. This is where people want to go... PARTICULARLY young people!

By the way I am 50, not 80. You will learn this all sooner than you think.

I agree with what David Pollard said but especially what I left. You can build a building that looks like an old building but it's not old. The age adds to the mystique. I love it when bars, restaurants and shops utilize old areas. Bricktown, St. Louis Union Station, West End Dallas, Downtown Denver, etc.

For one second, compare the Skirvin remake to the Renaissance or even the Sheraton. No comparison. Sure, they could've built the Renaissance or Sheraton with more architecture, but these days costs typically prohibit that. So you end up with more stucco, and less substance.

So, instead, you end up with this:
Before:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/Postcards/downtownmisc06_baums.jpg

After:
http://www.downtownokc.com/LocationImage.aspx?LocationID=831

And what no one has mentioned yet, it is very green to reuse old buildings rather than destroy and rebuild. It's the environmentally friendly thing to do by rehabbing an old building into a new and purposeful use

I am a young guy that absolutely has no attachment to historical buildings downtown. The question I ask is why do people get so upset about historical buildings being torn down? You have blocks of old historical buildings that sit empty and when someone comes in and wants to tear it down and build something new everyone freaks out. What is the big deal?

Your username is "oakhollow." Is that a subdivision in Yukon or Moore or something?

My response: "The way things are" doesn't always make it right. The goal is to have the best built environment possible, and almost always, what replaces historic buildings when they are lost, is totally inferior. In most cases it is nothing.

Furthermore, I do believe that there is an intangible piece of our heritage in historic buildings. How can Oklahoma ever "mature" and grow as a state if we keep tearing down all of our heritage? We have practically NOTHING that is from before WWII at this point. You say "blocks and blocks" but I have to ask two questions. 1, have you been downtown? Where are these blocks and blocks of nothing but old buildings? And 2, have you been to other cities? Have you ever seen a truly successful urban environment before? I'm not talking about subdivisions named "Oak Hollow" I mean like downtowns of cities like Austin, San Antonio, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, etc. and countless other reasonable "peer" cities (so, throwing out SF and NYC, basically). Even KC and Memphis, which people don't think of as amazing downtowns, do have amazing collections of historic buildings in their downtowns. And guess what? They're full of galleries, lofts, restaurants, bars, offices, etc.

If there was any kind of state of permanence in OKC's built environment, if the dust would settle for one and people could take a deep breath and appreciate what we have before we lose it, then the same thing will eventually start to happen. Memphis is not a "nice" city by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that their downtown is such a vibrant, mixed-use urban environment speaks volumes to the power of historic buildings to attract a certain style that otherwise would not come to an area.

If you want something nice like a Saks or Nordstrom's in OKC, well this is going to be a shock, but it is NOT going to come in a development that looks like a Kohl's on the outside and has an enormous sea of parking in front of it. I know this may cause some to hyperventilate, but sometimes you CAN'T have everything look cookie cutter. Sometimes you have to deviate from the cookie cutter mold...

For crissakes, what a stupid thread. This is causing me to explode with negativity, all of these threads, all of these buildings under attack, all on one page of this forum...what is going on? This is never ending. It's just picking up pace and that famous "momentum" as they say... Is there nobody in Oklahoma left that actually appreciates historic buildings? I didn't even consider myself that big of a preservationist. Wow.

I like this thread...especially since I've been studying a LOT in the past few months. I have hundreds of photos and memorized most of what used to be downtown. Ask, and I've probably got a photo. Doug is probably the lore master of anything historic in OKC.

Main St & Robinson

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/ViewSouthonRobinsonfromMainJune1932.jpg
Left: American National Bank, State Theater, Baum Building
Center: ? Ask Doug, Tivoli Inn
Right: Colcord, Liberty Theater, ? pre-Katz Drug,
Right Corner: Biltmore
Everything but Colord is gone.

June 1932

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/MainRobinsonOKC4-8-11.jpg

April 8 2011

Map (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=35.46787899999999~-97.516438&lvl=20&dir=0&sty=x~lat~35.467879~lon~-97.516438~alt~341.15~z~30~h~170.1~p~-1.6~pid~5082&app=5082)

Oakhollow:

I am not arguing that every old building needs to be saved, but as you mentioned in your post, the buildings people get most bent out of shape about are the "historical" ones. Ones that has a history and story behind them. Honestly, most didn't give a flip about the majority of the SandRidge destruction (I was among the crowd at first). On the surface (literally & figuratively), the India Temple building was nothing to excited about, until I found out it was the oldest standing structure in Oklahoma City and it served as the home of the Legislature for a couple of years. There is a picture in the underground Conncourse of the original City Hall. that building is long gone.

If we had torn down all of the old buildings, much of what makes Bricktown, wouldn't exist. The Oklahoman's Steve Lackmeyer had a blog entry about "Lost Bricktown" where even more of those types of buildings were forever lost. We are probably going to lose even more buildings that are in the Core to Shore (MAPS 3 park) area. Buildings that could be incorporated into the fabric of the Park (like Union Station is going to be spared and incorporated).

As others have pointed out, you can build something new that mimics original construction, but is probably cost prohibitive. I sincerely hope if the Skirvin expansion comes to pass, that they do everything possible to make it appear that it has always been there, part of the original design.

There have been many building that we have removed and regretted the decision later. The fact remains, once a building is gone, it is gone. Forever.

Main St & Robinson

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/ViewSouthonRobinsonfromMainJune1932.jpg
Left: American National Bank, State Theater, Baum Building
Center: ? Ask Doug, Tivoli Inn
Right: Colcord, Liberty Theater, ? pre-Katz Drug,
Right Corner: Biltmore
Everything but Colord is gone.
Yes, although at the time it was called by its original name, the 1922 Oklahoma Club Building (aka Oklahoma City Club Building).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/hotels/oklahomaclub01_vsp.jpg

The one in the center with the columns was the one I couldn't find the name.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/W%20Sheridan/grandrobinson.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Baum%20Building/ViewNorthonRobinsonfromCaliforniacearly1920s.jpg

Even the archive entry calls it '? building'.

Those are some incredible cityscapes. OKC will have to go a very long way until it recreates what was lost.

In the Stage Center thread, in this article, they mention it not being 'cost effective' to renovated the theater. They used the same phrase to describe moving the Baum Building, instead choosing to raze it. Cost is a fickle, temporary thing compared to the big picture.

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-stage-center-study-building-story,0,319058.story

You know what, in most places in the world, that have a TREASURE like the Stage Center, the question wouldn't be what to do with it. There would only be one option, save it now, or save it later. Demolishing unique pieces of architecture, or even vernacular architecture that is beautiful and has value (unlike almost anything built in OKC between 1950-2000), would not even be an option on the table.

I am tired of there not ever being any sense of permanence to OKC's cityscape. Why is it so hard to say, "No, this is here to stay."

Those are some incredible cityscapes. OKC will have to go a very long way until it recreates what was lost.

Spartan,
I agree, I did not realize how much density OKC destroyed. Very sad that early planners were so shortsighted

Speaking of the Oklahoma Club/Tivoli...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Myriad%20Gardens/myriadgardensworkbegins.jpg

It's the sole building on the Myriad Gardens lot.

The sentimental answer is that historical structures are the things that most often connect the people of today’s community to the people of the community’s past. Most structures can outlast generations and therefore capture and preserve a bit of what life in that community was like at the time the structure was created. In doing so it helps create a sense of longevity and historical pride in the community. When good buildings are built, the developer is conscious of the fact that the building will outlast the people of the present community and will be a part of and help define that community in the future. In many ways it was a gift to future generations and demolishing that gift is disregarding and, in some ways, disrespecting to those who built the city we now call our community. In doing so, it also defines the mindset of a community. If a community has the sense that nothing it creates today will have any value to the community in the future, there is no motivation to create anything that should last into the future. So, in a sense, a dismissal of the community’s past also sets an operational standard for the community that dismisses the future.

The pragmatic answer is that buildings are the number one identifier of a community. For better or worse, people’s impression of a place and community is in large part formed by their impressions of the structures that community has built and uses. The buildings define what kind of place a city is. And, whether one understands it or not, people like history, the mystique it creates, and the character it gives a community. This is why historical structures play a big part in the marketing and promotion of a community. This is why people are drawn to and enjoy districts like Bricktown. The historic structures add value to a community and offer the opportunity for an enhanced experience. If for nothing else, historic structures have value simply because people do value them and want to see them, hang out in them, and visit places with them. No one has to understand this to see that it is true. In an economic sense, historic structures are simply attractions that generate revenue and add premium value to otherwise commodity experiences (i.e. staying at a hotel, drinking a beer, having dinner…)

The subjective answer is that, often times, historic structures are just better looking. They were more detailed, more ornate, and prided themselves on having unique attributes. Even when a structure is not found to be better than what is built today, it often times has defining characteristics of a period that are worth preserving just for posterity and reference. They are works of art. Very complicated works of art that in their construction combined many different skill sets of many different people.

The Oklahoma City answer is that it isn’t a big deal. That is, it isn’t a big deal to save them. We have space, lots of space. We have tons of disposable developments, lots of ‘em. In my lifetime, there has been nothing torn down in Oklahoma City that HAD to be torn down for space. I believe it was Ford Price that sandbagged downtown for SandRidge saying that it would be several generations before a renovation of downtown’s buildings would be economically feasible. However, I think it will be generations before anything needs to be torn down in this city to create space that was otherwise unavailable.

Now, whether or not one personally finds value in historic structures, the reality is that MANY people do, both directly and intrinsically. Most successful communities recognize this value and place a huge opportunity cost on demolishing historic structures. In many cases, however, that opportunity cost is outweighed by the need for space for new developments that better meet the needs of the present community. However, that is NEVER the case in Oklahoma City. We don’t have a need for space. If anything, we have a need for more identity and marketability. Historic structures help provide that.

The reality is that in Oklahoma City we can have BOTH preservation of all historic structures AND all the new development we can handle for at least the next 20 years at next to zero opportunity cost. There simply is no reason to develop here at the expense of the community’s past. The great irony is that there are cities that actually are in the reverse situation where they have a huge opportunity cost of preserving historic structures, but are more successful in doing so and, yet, continue to attract more people and business not just in spite of preserving their history, but precisely because of it.

I am a young guy that absolutely has no attachment to historical buildings downtown. The question I ask is why do people get so upset about historical buildings being torn down? You have blocks of old historical buildings that sit empty and when someone comes in and wants to tear it down and build something new everyone freaks out. What is the big deal?
I'm older and wouldn't mind if an old building to be torn down was bland and featureless looking, architecturally speaking, but if it was not, I'd be freaked out, too. For instances, the old courthouse and post office, and some churches in a lot of main towns are well among the most attractive and historical treasures in those towns and should not be torned down.

I wonder if people in whatever suburban utopia is called "oak hollow" ever go to Bricktown or Mid-town, the trendy areas of downtown that would not be happening today without the ability to convert all of these "blocks and blocks of historical buildings that sit empty" into cool new restaurants, lofts, bars, and other such establishments that can not be recreated anywhere else in the city simply because the available real estate is not conducive. There are opportunities that you can only get with historic structures. I think that's the most important thing to realize.

I'm not a big history buff. In fact, I hate museums. I think historical exhibits are the most boring thing on the planet, unless it's a picture of a historic cityscape which I'm innately interested in for other reasons. I believe strongly in these intangible reasons for keeping historic buildings, but those are just supporting arguments for me. The fact of the matter, why I am such a staunch preservationist as many of you know, is because of these opportunities you can ONLY get with historic structures. Period.

We need more lofts in our city. You're not going to get it by tearing down the Preftakes-owned block and putting up some bland new buildings that look like Legacy Phase II. The only way you're going to get true lofts that add so much character and cultural vibrancy to the picture is by taking one of those awesome old buildings that are sitting mothballed and by embracing all of the urban things about it and making unique, one-of-a-kind spaces out of it. We need that mix of old and new. We need a virtual collage of different styles and preferences and lifestyles and designs that all come together as one incredibly exciting, vibrant, and cosmopolitan city. Historic buildings have to be a centerpiece of that. It's the only way.

That's why I'm such a staunch preservationist. It's not because I like the stories behind the buildings, which are definitely important. It's not because I prefer one style of architecture over another, because personally as a design student, you do break down those personal biases for certain styles over another. You learn to just appreciate good architecture as opposed to hideous architecture, whether it be high-design or just vernacular design. My penchant for preservation is also not because I like to be difficult and prickly, or any other reason. It has strictly to do with the unique redevelopment opportunities that historic buildings present, those opportunities that badly need to be taken advantage of.

April 8 2011

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-36.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-37.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-39.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-44.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-45.jpg

Clarence Ford Park in the Santa Fe Parking Garage.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-46.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-47.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-48.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-49.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-50.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-51.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-52.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-53.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-54.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-55.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-56.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-57.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-58.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-59.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-60.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-61.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-62.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-63.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-64.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-65.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-66.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-67.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/Devon%20Tower/April%202011/OklahomaCitySkyline4-8-11-68.jpg

Once again, GREAT pics!

Where/what is the last one, the Lion head from?

Sorry, forgot to add the video from the Devon discussion. It was from the top of the Terminal Building.


http://vimeo.com/22428689

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Terminal%20Building/21120-13.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Terminal%20Building/terminalbuilding1944.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Terminal%20Building/18827039.jpg

Once again, GREAT pics!

Where/what is the last one, the Lion head from?

I understand it is supposed to be from the Terminal Building.

They really ought to move those pieces of the Baum building to the Myriad Gardens or the new park when it's built. Hardly anyone gets to appreciate them crammed away next to the parking garage like they are.

I am a young guy that absolutely has no attachment to historical buildings downtown. The question I ask is why do people get so upset about historical buildings being torn down? You have blocks of old historical buildings that sit empty and when someone comes in and wants to tear it down and build something new everyone freaks out. What is the big deal?
That's a very legitimate question, oakhollow, and I'll give my own stab at an answer.

In the 1st place, not everyone does (freak out), quite obviously.

In the 2nd, for those who do, there are probably several different paths taken to reach that perspective. For some, a person's affection for one's home town may have a lot to do with it, and that's how it was for me. During my high school years, I was nuts over the town where I was mainly reared, Lawton, and, strange as it may seem, I recall drawing maps as a high-schooler which puffed up Lawton as the then unsung and under-appreciated 3rd largest city of Oklahoma. In those maps, all roads led to Lawton, America! I was proud of my home town then, though it was not here.

So, although born in Oklahoma City, my childhood was not here. My adult personal identification with this city began while working downtown as a law clerk in 1966, during law school at OU. Before then, though, there were some ties. I came to love Oklahoma City's old downtown (movies, John A. Browns, etc.) and general amusements (e.g. Springlake) and other ad hoc things (e.g., Toddle House near OCU, Beverly's north of the State Capitol Building, the nearby Park-O-Tell motor hotel nearby, Sussy's Italian restaurant on Lincoln Blvd.) during visits here for scholastic competition or visits to relatives who lived here. It was a "big deal" to come for a visit to "the City" (as well as the always engaging and somewhat scary experience of crossing the very long and narrow two-lane truss bridge which crossed the South Canadian river before reaching Oklahoma City). Before graduating from law school, I decided that I would live here after finishing a post-law school 2 year stint in the army in 1970, to work in the same law firm in which I clerked for 2 1/2 years.

After establishing my "permanent" home here in 1970 and during the better parts of Urban Renewal and as well as its bad parts, I came to love my home of both birth and choice as time went on.

However, my interest in Oklahoma City history only seriously developed around 15 or so years ago. Once getting that "hook," my interest in learning as much as I could about my home town increasingly grew. As it did, I increasingly came to value not only the city's future, but it's past, as well. Part of the interest had to do with tying together the individual pieces of my visits here, but, as time went on, I increasingly wanted to know more and more about my home town.

Probably, for me, it's kind of like a "family" thing. Most people, sooner or later, are interested in knowing more about their "family members" ... ranging from the dark side (e.g., family members who have gone to prison, etc.) to those who may have had more socially acceptable prominence. In my own family, I found one crook but none who became socially prominent. One takes what one gets. One's family includes the good, the bad, and the ugly ... all components form a part of personal identity, of who one "is." If one identifies with a city as part of his/her family and self-identity, as I do, the answer to your question may become easier to see.

One does not sever a tie with a family member very easily, hopefully never at all. For a city, those "old buildings" are part of this city's family and represent a part of who we are and how we came to be and for our appreciation for our town's future, as well. All of the parts form a piece of our collective whole, facets of who we are, and some parts are obviously more glistening than others but the darker pieces are just as much valued as the brighter, if not (sometimes) more.

But, even the forgotten parts are still there, like ghosts, remembered or not, just waiting to be recalled into present memory by someone who is living to see them there and make those parts of the city alive, once again. Every time that I learn something new (to me) about my town, I get a rush.

The pieces of our history that remain available to actually "be seen" today are few in number. To actually walk up to such a building and on the sidewalk to look at it, to touch it, to think about it, can transport one back in time if one is willing and one uses a bit of imagination. One can almost see those guys in their funny suits and hats and the gals with their bird-like hats and long dresses with bustles, the vintage vaudeville plays and early movies, and so on ... yeah, that's kinda weird, but it's really quite doable.

But one should not try such a thing unless one is willing to run the risk of infection. That caution I give to you.

Others will give you a different answer to your question, but this is mine.

The one in the center with the columns was the one I couldn't find the name.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/W%20Sheridan/grandrobinson.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Baum%20Building/ViewNorthonRobinsonfromCaliforniacearly1920s.jpg

Even the archive entry calls it '? building'.
Shucks. I was hoping that your query would be the easy answer, but no, you want an answer that requires more thought and study.

OK. Here you are. The 3-story building flanking the east side of the Oklahoma Club Building was the 1923 Farmers National Bank, much earlier established at a different location as the Farmers State Bank in 1903. The new building's address is shown as 200 W. Grand. More often, then contemporary Oklahoman articles simply show the bank's address as "southwest corner of Grand & Robinson."

Here are two graphics taken from Vanished Splendor II (Abalache Book Shop Publishing 1983). The 1st shows the interior of the bank in 1923 and the 2nd shows Vanished Splendor's text associated with the building's postcard.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/citynational_farmers_1923a_vsp2.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/citynational_farmers_1923b_vsp2.jpg

As stated above, the bank changed its name in 1930 and it became City National Bank. In addition to the very fine photo from OHS which you posted (looking north on Robinson at the Baum Building), here is another OHS photo showing the building in August 1949 as it prepared to move to its new location at the northwest corner of Grand & Broadway. The Biltmore, Oklahoma Club, and Colcord buildings are observable in the background, left to right.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/citynational_8_21_1949_ohs.jpg

In the above, notice the neon sign on top of the building, far right. The neon sign is prominent in this late 1940s OHS image:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/miscbuildings/citynational_neonsign.jpg

As noted above, City National moved in 1949 to its new location at Grand and Broadway, shown in this 1953 image:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/miscbuildings/citynational_1953.jpg

Postscript: This is just one more "rush" (see previous reply to oakhollow) ... thanks UnFrSaKn for the learning kick! Doubtless many more are to come. You are doing a fantastic job of chronicling today's existing buildings with our city's past. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for doing some research on it for me. If anyone could find that out, it would be you. I've actually thought about picking up copies of the Vanished Splendor books, which are almost like a requirement on the checklist of Oklahoma history buffs.

I really like that design on the interior of Farmers National Bank. You might think on the outside that it's a standard two story building, but imagine the surprise if you first walked in...
In one of the latest videos, I got some shots of the City National Bank with some old photos. It's just one of a very few that have escaped untouched by the decades of change downtown.

Thanks for doing some research on it for me. If anyone could find that out, it would be you. I've actually thought about picking up copies of the Vanished Splendor books, which are almost like a requirement on the checklist of Oklahoma history buffs.
Indeed, they are. The books are well researched to present accurate text associated with (mostly) postcards and collectively present a great deal of our city's historic detail. The books (3 of them) are a bit pricey, but one can shop around on the internet and find the best prices.

They really ought to move those pieces of the Baum building to the Myriad Gardens or the new park when it's built. Hardly anyone gets to appreciate them crammed away next to the parking garage like they are.

Some pieces might survive outdoors in a park setting but I'm guessing that some may be more fragile and need to be indoors.