Some people see architecture has a reflection of time - others see it as a reflection of place. I prefer place. I want to know where I am, not when I am.

Those are gross general categories left to subjective debate regarding HOW it reflects either or both. I can put an unimaginative and bland building IN the street and it may be "urban" but it doesn't make it good architecture. It may reflect time and place if the time and place is boring, I guess.

Edmond's is just a cookie cutter suburban "fake urban" look. I'm not sure why anyone is impressed by it. Other than a small setback, it's the same as any other brick building on UCO's campus.you're funny :)

Some people see architecture has a reflection of time - others see it as a reflection of place. I prefer place. I want to know where I am, not when I am.
In which case you should prefer the architecture of the proposed OKC police station - setback issues aside - which is more sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood than would be the Edmond design. There is no Territorial architecture anywhere near the OKC location. The closest thing that is similar architecturally to the Edmond design is the building that houses Coney Island. I'm all for grand architectural flourishes on public buildings, but I wouldn't support for a minute a reconstruction of Disneyland's Main Street in downtown OKC.

If it was up to me the new OKC police station would be Art Deco, along with the new parking garage. I am not sure I understand the Disneyland comment. Why is Main St Disney bad, but Tomorrowland Disney or Downtown Disney are good?

If it was up to me the new OKC police station would be Art Deco, along with the new parking garage. I am not sure I understand the Disneyland comment. Why is Main St Disney bad, but Tomorrowland Disney or Downtown Disney are good?
That design is of its time. Not Tomorrowland. But it also has nods to buildings close by, including the art museum, I think. It won't stick out like a sore thumb. The Edmond building would look completely out of place. As for Art Deco, I wouldn't mind buildings that had Deco touches, but you often seem to advocate the building of structures that are architecturally identical to the historic structures surrounding them. This is actually generally FROWNED UPON by preservationists. It is called "creating a false history." Those buildings are of their time, and the create a dialogue with the era in which they built. New buildings should do the same. I don't prefer one architectural style over the other; I only prefer authenticity. Historic reproductions are not authentic.

Locally sourced building materials, construction techniques based on local climate, and architectural tradition are not authentic? I would say they are the most authentic.

Anyhow, I know we disagree on this subject but the architecture community is coming around.

Vernacular Architecture and the 21st Century | ArchDaily (http://www.archdaily.com/155224/vernacular-architecture-and-the-21st-century/)


Vernacular architecture, the simplest form of addressing human needs, is seemingly forgotten in modern architecture. However, due to recent rises in energy costs, the trend has sensibly swung the other way. Architects are embracing regionalism and cultural building traditions, given that these structures have proven to be energy efficient and altogether sustainable.

Also


As for Art Deco, I wouldn't mind buildings that had Deco touches, but you often seem to advocate the building of structures that are architecturally identical to the historic structures surrounding them. This is actually generally FROWNED UPON by preservationists. It is called "creating a false history." Those buildings are of their time, and the create a dialogue with the era in which they built. New buildings should do the same.

That is because you and the preservationist (who would be out of a job if we start making them like we used to) you reference see architecture as a function of time. I see it as a function of place. To use Steve's word of the day. I am in to placemaking, not timemaking.

I quite disagree about contemporary architecture mimicking historical architecture is "creating a false history," I don't even like using the word "mimic" or "copy" because it seems rather derogatory. I rather see it as influential and paying homage to different styles of past architecture because, no doubt, architecture of several decades ago was (is) quite intricate and beautiful. It's interesting to see in my studio class the different styles that my fellow classmates and I do for different projects. Some of us do very modern forms and some of us do very traditional and historic forms (I like to do both, and/or the combination of both; modernization of historical architecture).

Anywho, I like both of the renderings for the OCPD HQ and the Edmond Police Dept. I never rely on a rendering to represent the final product, not just for the general form of the building (because that changes all of the time) but also for the materiality of the building. I find that renderings don't quite do justice for representing materials as it would in real life. When Edmond's Police Dept. is complete, assuming they go through with the above rendering, I'm sure it'll look much less "fake" and more true to what actually makes the building itself.

Locally sourced building materials, construction techniques based on local climate, and architectural tradition are not authentic? I would say they are the most authentic.

Anyhow, I know we disagree on this subject but the architecture community is coming around.

Vernacular Architecture and the 21st Century | ArchDaily (http://www.archdaily.com/155224/vernacular-architecture-and-the-21st-century/)



Also



That is because you and the preservationist (who would be out of a job if we start making them like we used to) you reference see architecture as a function of time. I see it as a function of place. To use Steve's word of the day. I am in to placemaking, not timemaking.

This in no way supports your assertion that we should reproduce buildings of a historic style and detailing. I appreciate your gusto for placemaking, but you are clearly in over your head when it comes to architecture.

This in no way supports your assertion that we should reproduce buildings of a historic style and detailing. I appreciate your gusto for placemaking, but you are clearly in over your head when it comes to architecture.

Why shouldn't we? The things architects are churning out now aren't exactly awe-inspiring.

Oklahoma City-Ugly
Edmond-Not much better

Oklahoma City-Ugly
Edmond-Not much betterI disagree with both of those. OKC is not ugly to me, and Edmond isn't anything special, but it a very nice place to live, imo. I've noticed OKC has really became nicer over the last few years and hope it continues. We need to get rid of all this industrial crap along our highways and that will help tremendously!

Also, I love this new police station, the one in Edmond and the one being built in OKC. I just wish the one in OKC would be a little closer to the road and have a more impressive entrance.

I disagree with both of those. OKC is not ugly to me, and Edmond isn't anything special, but it a very nice place to live, imo. I've noticed OKC has really became nicer over the last few years and hope it continues. We need to get rid of all this industrial crap along our highways and that will help tremendously!

Also, I love this new police station, the one in Edmond and the one being built in OKC. I just wish the one in OKC would be a little closer to the road and have a more impressive entrance.

Sorry, I meant I was talking about the police stations but I do agree with you about the cities, sorry I was not clear!

Sorry, I meant I was talking about the police stations but I do agree with you about the cities, sorry I was not clear!Oh oh, I see. Well, I think the Edmond Police station is really nice for what it is, I can see how is kind of "blah". Not too much to it anyways.

Oh oh, I see. Well, I think the Edmond Police station is really nice for what it is, I can see how is kind of "blah". Not too much to it anyways.

Yeah, true

I'm not saying that Edmond isn't a nice place to live....i personally wouldn't want to live there. But it's more to do with personal opinions of people than the drive of the city or whatever.

But if you live in Edmond, you're exposed to cookie-cutter suburbia on a daily basis. There is very little unique design in Edmond. Heck, the hospitals on 35 are some of the more interesting designs there and they aren't even in the core of the city. Edmond is what it is....a mostly upper-middle class suburb. What it lacks is a historic identity that gives it an "esque". Part of that is simply a dertivative of the state itself not being very old, and couple that with the fact that Edmond didn't boom until really the last 30-40 years. It's too "new" to really have any style to it that can't be found in a magazine at Home Depot.

If this stations is "downtown" Edmond, then great, it fits in more with the old-school brick storefront look. Use that turn of the century look and go with it...that's fantastic. But please dont try to convince me that it's some fantasicly unqiue awesome place that they got "top work" from.

If this stations is "downtown" Edmond, then great, it fits in more with the old-school brick storefront look. Use that turn of the century look and go with it...that's fantastic. But please dont try to convince me that it's some fantasicly unqiue awesome place that they got "top work" from.

It is downtown. One block off of Broadway.

More to follow:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/police1a.jpg


This is an old site plan but it does show how this building would be situated:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/newpolice1.jpg
This looks fine to me but I wonder:
(1) How do the proposed structures compare in square footage to the existing ones?
(2) Are these large enough structures to accommodate needs during the next 10-15 years without expansion?
(3) Are these structures designed to allow for future vertical expansion?

Anyone know?

ya, I too am wondering why OKC is low balling this? Why not plan for the future and build taller?

If that is the case then we need cops that have a pair. Heck, even the new Edmond police station is built right to the sidewalk.

Personally, I am getting tired of people being afraid of their own shadow.

For those who haven't seen it, here is the new Edmond police station:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/edmond/3530d1363763837-new-public-saftey-center-8574389582_9124d03b3a_b.jpg

The impressive thing that I like about this Edmond project is just how well it makes an effort to mark the corner. The frieze rises up at the corner where it creates an axis that points down at the intersection. Almost every public building OKC has built lately reduces the massing that immediately abuts the main frontage and that drives me insane. It's not even a suburban design, it's just trying to soften the impact whereas people in this city before WW2 sought the exact opposite, they wanted public buildings to be bold and impactful.

The underlying design philosophy with this project and the elementary school has got to be how do we make a large building look as small and unimpressive as possible?

Now I understand the prior comments about the setback...wasn't as obvious in other renderings

Large setbacks may be a necessary evil when it comes to law enforcement and other government buildings in the current environment.
If it is designed to force protection guidelines then you have to have an 80 foot setback or a strengthened facade with shallower setbacks, the federal building has both. Blast resistant glazing and wall construction can get very expensive, very quickly.


Why shouldn't we? The things architects are churning out now aren't exactly awe-inspiring.

ya, I too am wondering why OKC is low balling this? Why not plan for the future and build taller?
Most architecture is driven by developers and designing to as low of a budget as possible, unless it is a vanity project the budgets don't allow for "awe-inspiring" for the most part. For public buildings you have a large segment of the public that view anything other than a Star metal building level of construction as an unnecessary cost, any kind of adornment is criticized as too much money. The same goes for building more than you need, planning for the future costs money and those that squawk the loudest draw the most attention and the penny pinchers usually squawk the loudest. OKC has been notorious for having people with this type of mentality, then people get upset whenever a building is torn down or significantly modified many years later when some foresight could have saved money in the end but they will never "get it" that ends up costing taxpayers more.

When you get into high dollar public architecture you usually get a star/ego-architect that eats up a ton of the budget and a whole lot of cost overruns because they don't concern themselves with making a building function like it should or to be easily constructed, it is all about form over function. Every Pei/Cobb/Freed (private) building that I worked on in Dallas was horrible to space plan with a bunch of wasted space because it was form over function, the Dallas City Hall is a functional nightmare. There are ways to achieve both but those type of designers don't because they don't feel they have to. You can run into a situation like the new DIA Hotel/South Terminal project where the budget is lowered (from 650 million to 500 million) and the architect (Calatrava) quits because the budget and schedule wasn't up to their standards, he took 12.9 million in fee and left. The city had to task the hotel architecture firm (Gensler), the train station under the hotel is the only Calatrava design work that is being kept with AndersonMasonDale taking over the train station design to complete the project.

Yes, the same people who will complain about the cut corners are the ones who complain about paying taxes and opine about waste.

That said, even with the same budget, I do agree that even using the same style, the development could be more neighborhood friendly overall. I agree with Spartan on this.

By the way, often in the same way that the designer's creative issues cause space planners problems, their issues many times cause issues with the mechanical systems resulting in poor system choice, poor operating characteristics, and a building lifetime of higher operating costs. Stuff flows downhill, as they say.

I agree about the massing on the corner. It's about the only thing I really like about the Edmond building...unless it were to be built in Guthrie, in which case it would be fine.

By the way, often in the same way that the designer's creative issues cause space planners problems, their issues many times cause issues with the mechanical systems resulting in poor system choice, poor operating characteristics, and a building lifetime of higher operating costs.

I don't know where you get that crazy idea.

http://journalrecord.com/files/2012/02/stage-center-ms_02-03-12.jpg

I agree about the massing on the corner. It's about the only thing I really like about the Edmond building...unless it were to be built in Guthrie, in which case it would be fine.

The only thing I really notice about the Edmond building is the impressive vertical window wall that incorporates a beautiful classic frieze, and then on the other edifices to me it just registers are harmless masonry stuff and an attempted arcade of territorial windows, but because the corner massing is so prominent and beautifully done the sides just don't matter.

One of the first things they teach with urban design is to use your massing to make a point and draw attention to the primary vantage point. It drives me crazy when projects ignore that very important ground rule.

Renderings from ADG that were featured in the print version of the Oklahoman:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/police1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/police2.jpg

Seems like everything has been done before in one form or another....

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/bc-NBA-practice-facility-ms_10-10-11.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/bc-NBA-practice-facility-ms_10-10-11.jpg.html)

Does the City get a discount for the architect using the same design twice?

Does the City get a discount for the architect using the same design twice?

Bwhahaha....can't say i'm a big fan of this thing...or the particular style it uses, but hey, it's better than nothing (and what's there today). Who knows, maybe we'll look back in 50 years and say "man that thing is a treasure". It's amazing how feelings change about styles. Look at Frank Lloyd Wright. Some of his most famous works were seen as Horrid in his day. Hell, Igor Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was BOOOED at it's premier in Paris. Now it's seem as an all time masterpiece.

Tastes change...

Does the City get a discount for the architect using the same design twice?

HAHA. Well done.

Construction set to start in December on this project:

Construction to start in December on new $22M Oklahoma City police headquarters | News OK (http://newsok.com/construction-to-start-in-december-on-new-22m-oklahoma-city-police-headquarters/article/3881385)

Construction set to start in December on this project:

Construction to start in December on new $22M Oklahoma City police headquarters | News OK (http://newsok.com/construction-to-start-in-december-on-new-22m-oklahoma-city-police-headquarters/article/3881385) I thought this was initially a $50 million + project? Am I missing something? Did they decide to downsize the project?

I think the $50 mil was for both this and the new courthouse.

The current police headquarters will be torn down and that lot used for parking.Is this going to be structured parking or just a surface lot? Also, are they still going to build a new courthouse?

Is this going to be structured parking or just a surface lot? Also, are they still going to build a new courthouse?

Are you getting worried about where to park when you have to go there after all of those speeding tickets, plupan? LOL

Are you getting worried about where to park when you have to go there after all of those speeding tickets, plupan? LOLwell, it is safe to assume I have probably paid for a door in that building by now

I really don't like how this building turns in back on Main Street:

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-ee04c5e83c99a08a14f3b257c302cc16.jpg


http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-7d8369a9052d3aa3264e325c4f423cc9.jpg

I really don't like how this building turns in back on Main Street:



I hadn't seen that rendering before. Yeah, it really does create a blank (5' or 6' high') street wall. Exactly what you don't want in an urban environment. I didn't mind the design until now... and it's "too late" to change it. I also don't like how blank the entire west side appears to be.

What an ugly ass building. Let's emulate the worst aspects of OKC's architecture and give it poor street interaction.

What an ugly ass building. Let's emulate the worst aspects of OKC's architecture and give it poor street interaction.

What architecture firm designed this? What input (if any) does our planning department have on projects like this?

Huge retaining walls on both Shartel and Main, which are more important frontages than the north side with the main entrance.

I know there are security issues but there are much better ways of dealing with this than putting up massive concrete walls up to shoulder height.

They must have wanted a compound.

I can guarantee that force protection is why that wall is there on the street. The city probably wouldn't listen to any other alternatives as well.

I'm probably going to get a bunch of sh*t for saying this, but I don't mind it. It may not be a new urbanist lovers wet dream, but it doesn't look horrible, imo.

The building looks good, but is it going to get more badly needed Cops on the street?

The building looks good, but is it going to get more badly needed Cops on the street?

Not really.

I'm probably going to get a bunch of sh*t for saying this, but I don't mind it. It may not be a new urbanist lovers wet dream, but it doesn't look horrible, imo.

I agree, plupan. Designing a police station has different priorities than most new construction downtown. I mean, they aren't going to put any shops or restaurants on the first floor. LOL
I don't expect every new building to be a Mona Lisa.

Construction to start in December on new Oklahoma City police headquarters | News OK (http://newsok.com/construction-to-start-in-december-on-new-oklahoma-city-police-headquarters/article/3881385)

Scott Dedmon, principal and director of design at architectural firm ADG, told the city council Tuesday that architects strived to make the building work with historic buildings in the Civic Center complex. Vertical windows, tan and red brick, and material with the look and finish of limestone will tie the police headquarters to neighboring structures such as city hall, he said.
Thoughts?

Construction to start in December on new Oklahoma City police headquarters | News OK (http://newsok.com/construction-to-start-in-december-on-new-oklahoma-city-police-headquarters/article/3881385)

Thoughts?

Sure. They failed miserably.

it is the Police Headquarters, not meant to be a pedestrian friendly building!

No words.

Monolith?

The city is ruined now.

Sure. They failed miserably.
I concur...

ADG is putting together quite an impressive portfolio...not.

$20 million building permit for this project today.

Should be starting soon.

They might as well put razor wire along the tops of the retaining walls and have snipers on the roof.

it is the Police Headquarters, not meant to be a pedestrian friendly building! Agree! The design is ok, however, we are not talking about some sexy corporate headquarters building, Lol.

Agree! The design is ok, however, we are not talking about some sexy corporate headquarters building, Lol.

This. Don't know why there is such an uproar over a building that none of us would technically want to go to. Also, since I assume this is getting paid for by taxpayers, what would people say if they built some $60 million dollar sexy headquarters? heads would roll

It's not the design, it's how it relates to Main Street and Shartel, which are both important in terms of future development.

There are other ways of making a building secure than building an 8' concrete wall all around it.

By doing so, this building will be a huge black hole in the middle of a developing area.

I don't think a lot of people get that part of being "pedestrian-friendly" is not so much about inviting them into that specific building as it is making the sidewalk appealing and making people want to continue past the place in question. A location with a bad sidewalk vibe can be a barrier, cutting off pedestrian activity from places further down the line, and actually hamper new development to entire parts of a city. If you give subtle or even not-so-subtle signals that "we don't even want you to walk in front of our building," or "there's nothing worth walking to down here," people subconsciously pick up on them and the unintended consequence is that you punish your neighbors further down the street.

I don't think a lot of people get that part of being "pedestrian-friendly" is not so much about inviting them into that specific building as it is making the sidewalk appealing and making people want to continue past the place in question. A location with a bad sidewalk vibe can be a barrier, cutting off pedestrian activity from places further down the line, and actually hamper new development to entire parts of a city. If you give subtle or even not-so-subtle signals that "we don't even want you to walk in front of our building," or "there's nothing worth walking to down here," people subconsciously pick up on them and the unintended consequence is that you punish your neighbors further down the street.

That's fine and all, but make no mistake, one half-block is not going to change someone's decision/curiosity to walk this street if there is actually something worthwhile on the other side.

That's not an endorsement on my part...but it's really not a big deal at all. This development is standing in stark-contrast to where we are today with a vast majority of the developments happening in downtown, and it is doing so with at least a passable reason.