development
|category1=Office Buildings
|category2=Current
|category3=Classen
|category4=
|
|project=
|address=1411 Classen (http://g.co/maps/8uxeu)
|status=under construction
|owner=Sunbeam Family Services
|cost=
|architect=
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height=
|sq. feet=
|acerage=2.62
|other=Site of old Classen Terrace building
|
|image=http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sunbeamwiki1.jpg
|

Information & Latest News
6/21/13: Sunbeam breaks ground (http://newsok.com/sunbeam-breaks-ground-for-new-building-in-oklahoma-city/article/3855354)
8/18/12: Sunbeam Family Services buys property (http://newsok.com/article/3595440)
Links
County Assessor Record (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R060122600)
Gallery

That property is severly under-used. The building might be old, but that doesn't mean the original developer had any insight on to construct an urban building. It is setback nearly 70' from the street and over 80% of the lot is parking - and the lot is an entire city block. I don't know what kind of design Sunbeam is working on but it can't get any worse than what was done in 1954. Mistakes made in the past shouldn't be kept just because they are old. Even an old mistake is still a mistake.

The best news is that Marva Ellard is still looking. I'm hoping some day we will get so see some new construction from her. I liked her plans for the old Mercy site.

Sad, I really like that building, it's got good mid-century modern styling.

It was very cool back in the day but when HTB moved into the old Maywood Presbyterian, it went into sudden decline.

It's been vacant for almost twenty years! Sad to see it go but something had to be done.

So, do we have any idea what they are building there? I am kind of indifferent on the structure, but I think demolition should be predicated on what will replace a building, especially of a certain age. Even worse than tearing down historic structures is tearing them down with no concrete plan or assured means in place to replace them. I'm not even asking that they be good plans at this point, just any plans before demolition is allowed to occur.

Sunbeam is planning to build a new office structure and consolidate from some scattered buildings in Midtown.

Haven't seen anything go to the Urban Design Commission as of yet.

I wish Classen and Lincoln would become urban corridors with structures built closer to the street and parking behind the buildings.

Hopefully it will have an urban design, but we will probably get some sort of suburban looking building.

I would have loved to see Marva work her preservationist magic on that building, it would have been a great project. This one is hard to argue against, though you can't control who buys a building, even if it's someone you don't exactly expect great things to come from.

This is why we have codes and design standards.

I would have loved to see Marva work her preservationist magic on that building, it would have been a great project. This one is hard to argue against, though you can't control who buys a building, even if it's someone you don't exactly expect great things to come from.

This is why we have codes and design standards.

Are you sure she would have tried to save this building or did she just want an entire city block adjacent to a major street? Her Mercy proposal would have fit nicely on this block.

Not saying that wouldn't have been fine, too. I just think some interesting things could have been done with this, but it is definitely an eyesore right now. This is one building that does need to go. (do I get +rep points for saying that?)

I think you could say that a crack house right south of the new I-40 was set to be demolished and someone on here would protest it, and say we should just renovate it! LOL

Define "crack house." There are a lot of buildings in that C2S area that should be saved. It would be the zenith of ignorance (not that that's you or anyone in this thread, just addressing an idea that is indisputably out there) for people to propose wiping clean an entire part of town that they've never been to and driven through. If you are ever feeling adventurous, drive down SW 3rd Street and think Bricktown in the 70s/80s.

Not saying that wouldn't have been fine, too. I just think some interesting things could have been done with this, but it is definitely an eyesore right now. This is one building that does need to go. (do I get +rep points for saying that?)

+1,000,000

Define "crack house." There are a lot of buildings in that C2S area that should be saved. It would be the zenith of ignorance (not that that's you or anyone in this thread, just addressing an idea that is indisputably out there) for people to propose wiping clean an entire part of town that they've never been to and driven through. If you are ever feeling adventurous, drive down SW 3rd Street and think Bricktown in the 70s/80s.

I wouldn't even call it adventurous to drive down SW 3rd. I think it's necessary to be any part of a discussion about what should be done with Core to Shore. There are some great buildings down there with a lot of potential and I agree that it would be shortsighted to raze anything. But, I believe the Parks Subcommittee is going to look at all the buildings on park land and see if they can be repurposed, which was good news to me.

Even though I think most all of them are structurally stable and could find legit adaptive re-use, if they're on park land, I was wondering if it would be possible to strip the building down a little bit, leave one facade complete, and turn it into a pavilion that honors historic Oklahoma architecture. Maybe the other three sides could then be glass, to make the building feel more connected to the park, or just open-air if possible. It would be an interesting idea...working with what the land gives you, in this case, historic buildings (usually it's trees, creeks, elevation changes, etc).

I think you could say that a crack house right south of the new I-40 was set to be demolished and someone on here would protest it, and say we should just renovate it! LOL

Complete non-sequitur bull****.

I want to know why people like this building? Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?

I want to know why people like this building? Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?

If you don't know your past you are doomed to repeat it.

If you don't know your past you are doomed to repeat it.

And what is this supposed to mean? That if you tear down any building of any kind for any reason then you will tear down EVERY buildiing? Lol

I want to know why people like this building? Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?

Oklahoma does not have a good history with saving historic buildings. The problem is that we tear down many old buildings, buildings that are examples of older architectural styles, simply because it is cheaper to build new. Depending on the new construction, it may be good (the new Devon building) or something cheaply thrown together. We don't want strip mall construction in our downtown area. It isn't built to last. It loses value quickly and contributes to urban decay. Meanwhile, renovation of older properties usually requires greater financial investment and thus more closely ties a developer to the property.

Htb used to be one of my clients and I've been in this building many, many times. It was not an architectural masterpiece nor was it necessarily an above average quality building. It is an ordinary building at best. By definition, since it is already built I guess it is "historic", but questionable as to it's significance.

It is also easy and simple thinking to believe every new building is worse than ones built a few years ago. Many buildings built in this vintage were not of highest quality.

I want to know why people like this building? Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?

A lot of times, newer buildings don't have the same relationship to the street and don't contribute to a safe pedestrian experience.

I want to know why people like this building? Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?

It is often a matter of quality over quantity.

Htb used to be one of my clients and I've been in this building many, many times. It was not an architectural masterpiece nor was it necessarily an above average quality building. It is an ordinary building at best. By definition, since it is already built I guess it is "historic", but questionable as to it's significance.

It is also easy and simple thinking to believe every new building is worse than ones built a few years ago. Many buildings built in this vintage were not of highest quality.

True, but I also don't think we've been fair to mid-century modern buildings. Some cities are only just now beginning to protect them, as they've been open-minded enough to broaden the scope of historic beyond craftsmen and art deco
(the scope of what's considered historic must continue to evolve over time in my opinion).

Some really impressive historic re-uses have been done on many of these buildings around the country, and without a doubt, these buildings can at first seem bland and bulldozer-ready, but they can be transformed into some of the coolest properties with a little bit of patience and vision. I have the feeling that a ton of windows would be all this building needed, but not normal square windows..either floor-to-ceiling windows or tons of different-shaped windows. With that, and some lighting to highlight this building and landscaping (come on, right now it's an abandoned building with a chain link fence around it, so it's hard to envision it as a new redevelopment), this would have been an awesome renovation.

So, you feel iT was a mistake to demo this building?

I talked to someone at Catholic Charities which offices directly to the north of this building who said they looked at expanding in this building but the asbestos problem was a big deterrent to anyone using it in the future. Apparently it was cheaper just to tear the sucker down. My question being did the company that did the demo have to take care of the asbestos before taking it down?

Yes, I read elsewhere that the asbestos has already been abated.

I talked to someone at Catholic Charities which offices directly to the north of this building who said they looked at expanding in this building but the asbestos problem was a big deterrent to anyone using it in the future. Apparently it was cheaper just to tear the sucker down. My question being did the company that did the demo have to take care of the asbestos before taking it down?

No contractors should be trusted to demo an asbestos building.

...Why do so many Oklahomans like to see historical buildings still in use? If the owner doesnt care for them, why should we?
There is a great quote from Vincent Scully (longtime esteemed professor of architecture at Yale): "architecture is a continuing dialogue between generations which creates an environment across time."

In a nutshell, it is important for cities to have physical links to their past, or the things that made (or make) that city unique or special will eventually be forgotten. This is pretty evident when you talk to random people in OKC and they tell you that we really have no history here. Our history might be short relative to other places in the U.S. (who themselves have short histories compared to other places in the world), but the history here is actually pretty special and fascinating. Unfortunately you mostly can't tell that by looking around, as we demolished many of those physical connections to our past a couple of generations ago.

Where it makes sense, it's important to keep the remaining historic links, or we become strictly a generic landscape of disposable buildings, home to fast food joints, easy-to-abandon box retail, generic housing and the like. We lose our "sense of place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_place)." Great -- or even just really good -- cities have sense of place. Those are the places people want to live in and visit. Nobody holds parades in mall parking lots.

The battle against "placelessness" is one worth fighting in OKC.

Well said.

Historic brick buildings are OKC. If someone doesn't like those kinds of buildings, they should get out. Stop pretending you like Bricktown and downtown when you don't actually appreciate the development process that got those areas as far as they are now.

Historic brick buildings are OKC. If someone doesn't like those kinds of buildings, they should get out.

Always the diplomat. Tone it down, Spartan. You're turning into a cartoon character...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

The good news is that I can always understate my passion for preserving OKC's treasures because I know it will be amplified by others. :-D

I talked to someone at Catholic Charities which offices directly to the north of this building who said they looked at expanding in this building but the asbestos problem was a big deterrent to anyone using it in the future. Apparently it was cheaper just to tear the sucker down. My question being did the company that did the demo have to take care of the asbestos before taking it down?

There was no asbestos. The state abated it years ago, but spent all their money doing it. a state agency was to remodel and move in. You can't tear down a building with asbestos without removing the asbestos first.

There is a great quote from Vincent Scully (longtime esteemed professor of architecture at Yale): "architecture is a continuing dialogue between generations which creates an environment across time."
I thought he was the play-by-play voice of the LA Dodgers :doh:

My father worked in that building before he moved to Benham in 1967

Thanks for the clarification Metro. I was pretty sure the building could not be torn down with asbestos in it but with some of the other shenanigans we have heard about with building demos you never know.

There was a very large building on Classen between NW13th and NW 14th St. It has now been demolished.
Wasn't that building the Catholic Charities at one time? Or am I thinking of something else?

Are you thinking of the Classen Terrace building (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25726169@N03/6306008310/)? It was next door to Catholic Charities.

Are you thinking of the Classen Terrace building (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25726169@N03/6306008310/)? It was next door to Catholic Charities.

That's it!
Are there any pictures of it before it became abandoned?

From metro:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/13classen4612.jpg

That's it!
Are there any pictures of it before it became abandoned?

Go here: http://okhistory.cuadra.com/star/public.html, click Archives, then search for Classen Terrace. Several photos available.

https://okhistory.cuadra.com/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?!28repos=SKCA&starhost=star-asp.cuadra.com&file=SKCA/0011g3.jpg&expire=1333928315&ip=&starid=skcacatremote!29/0011g3.jpg

https://okhistory.cuadra.com/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?!28repos=SKCA&starhost=star-asp.cuadra.com&file=SKCA/0011g2.jpg&expire=1333928338&ip=&starid=skcacatremote!29/0011g2.jpg

Wow, those spectacular streamlined awnings are such a defining element. That could have been a cool redevelopment.

Heh, just thinking about the neighbors in 1954 saying, "I can't believe they are putting up a big ugly building in our neighborhood" and in 2012 we are saying, "I can't believe they are tearing down this attractive building."

Well it was definitely not an attractive building when it was torn down. It needed a lot of work, and just to be clear, saddened as I may be by the lost potential, this is hardly a building I would have fought to save. And this is one case where any activity on the site is positive news. This is not normally the case.

Well it was definitely not an attractive building when it was torn down. It needed a lot of work, and just to be clear, saddened as I may be by the lost potential, this is hardly a building I would have fought to save. And this is one case where any activity on the site is positive news. This is not normally the case.

Pretty much. It was a dump. I'm hoping that the purchasers are actually planning to develop the land rather than try to hold on to it for a future purchaser at a higher price.

That's it!
Are there any pictures of it before it became abandoned?

Ahhh, heck....these are copyrighted to the OHS, but I'll claim fair use as we're not profiting on their use...Thanks to the Oklahoma Historical Society we have these...

Late 1954 - under construction:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5918/ctunderconstruction.jpg

Completed - 1955:

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2821/classenterraceokc2.jpg

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9467/classenterrace3.jpg

http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/3116/classenterraceokc1955.jpg

I remember once taking refuge under the awning of that building during a vicious thunderstorm. I was on a bicycle without a jacket of any sort. This was just before they put up the fence and the Property of State of Oklahoma Dept of Corrections signage on the fence. All boarded up with the sky dark gray, the place was creepy as hell. Those old photos just make the memory even more creepy.

I think the top photo has been stretched horizontally, but it's also interesting from the perspective of the lane splitting off onto Western. You'd almost think that was a post-60s weird idea.

I understand that Sunbeam has plans for this site. Are there any renderings for their new office building?

Hey, woah. You're wanting to see renderings along with building demolition applications? That's just communist.

I understand that Sunbeam has plans for this site. Are there any renderings for their new office building?

I believe they said they were just getting started with an architect.

Hey, woah. You're wanting to see renderings along with building demolition applications? That's just communist.

I smiled.

it's also interesting from the perspective of the lane splitting off onto Western.The lanes splitting off to the left were Western, as was the street going on to the right. The other street coming in at the foreground was Olie. Before 1957, "Classen Boulevard" began at NW 10 and Walker, ran diagonally up to NW 16 and Western, crossed Western at that point, and continued north as it does today. What is now Classen Boulevard from NW 13 south to Main Street was "Olie" and it stopped at Main.

In 1957, this part of Olie was rebuilt south of NW 10 and renamed Classen. The extension down to Reno was added after the Crosstown was built. The original Classen Boulevard from NW 10 to NW 16 was renamed as Classen Drive, and eventually blocked off from the new Classen/Western because it was deemed a traffic hazard (too many streets intersecting at the same point).

The Belle Isle streetcar line ran from NW 13 and Robinson Circle to Broadway to Main up Olie to NW 13, on Western from NW 13 to NW 16, then on Classen out to Belle Isle itself. For four months in 1946 I rode it to school every morning...

Here are links to the auction announcement PDF files. Maybe they would go with the wiki record for this building?

www.ok.gov/DCS/documents/Classen_Terrace_Bldg_Sale.pdf
www.ok.gov/DCS/documents/DCS-Announcement-06-11-2008.pdf

Sunbeam is kicking off a fundraising campaign for a new home at 1411 N. Classen Boulevard.

Sunbeam Family Services :: Campaign (http://sunbeamfamilyservices.org/campaign/)

Are those pictures of what the new digs will look like?

Is this the lot that had the old store that's now been demolished right where Classen splits?

Is this the lot that had the old store that's now been demolished right where Classen splits?

Not sure if we are thinking about the same area, but it looked like an old school and was then boarded up and used by the DOC.

Here is the OK county assessor page:

Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R060122600)