According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it. Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.

Like I said, there are many other important urbanization battles worth fighting in OKC before bothering with this one.

I agree with you there, Chad. This one isn't worth splintering allies over.

That said, we may want to revisit this issue more and more as Mid-town becomes a holistic neighborhood. I think the Better Block Project will give us some more perspective here in a few months.

What if we could just have a pedestrian mall linking the two ends of 7th, and the park space to the north can become more of an actively-programmed open space that feeds off of the vitality of the surrounding blocks. I mean, this area was truly dead two years ago. Now there's Ludivine, Elemental Coffee, Cadence Yoga--that's just one block, with housing going in several of the immediate surrounding blocks.

And Mid-town does need a park.

According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it. Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.
Hmm. I have a hard time believing that, with just a naked-eye assessment. The structural engineer's website (http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?link=&id=1335&type=500&cat=) also seems to indicate differences between the primary facade and those at near-zero setback.

I have no reason to doubt this:


I worked on this project, the road in front was originally supposed to be open to traffic. In fact there was supposed to be varying textures in the road to create different sounds as you passed over them. The glazing in the courtyard is supposed to be laminated, blast resistant glazing with reinforced curtainwall framing. I know that because that whole curtainwall system is probably what I detailed the most in the project.

This building is probably the prime example of a government building designed to the USAF Force Protection Guidelines which was the standard in effect at the time of design. There are a lot of things designed into the building to mitigate any kind of "event" occurring, either inside or outside of the building.

And Mid-town does need a park.

Are people going to be taking pictures in this park? And do we really want kids playing next to a such a target? Which beggs the question, is this building even safe for the neighborhood? This place is protected 9 ways from Sunday, but the buildings around it aren't.

Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines

Let us pray to God you are right that they aren't called into action and that their existence is an appropriate deterrent. I know the implication is that they have little to do (as in a lot of motion and commotion) so they aren't needed. But that is a fatally incorrect assumption. We have seen the utter evil that happens when security is inadequate.

I don't disagree. Particularly after the fact and in our specific case. Obviously, survivors/the public have a right to adequate protection.

But think about it. If there had been moderate security in front of the old building and no parking meters, presumably a parked truck would have sparked some reasonable reaction.

My problem with many of the measures now in place, is that they seem over-reactionary. And again, I am not referring to the reasons behind this specific building design but in government buildings generally speaking.

It seems that we can never adequately react as a society/government. We must always over react. The story about the visitor disturbs me. So does the many over-reactions to William taking pictures of the Sandridge complex. I personally think that the terrorists have been quite successful in notching away at some basic Civil Liberties and certainly instilling some irrational paranoia at some very basic levels.

Picture taking from sidewalks requiring 4-hour closed-door interrogations seems to me a complete infringement on basic rights.

This is from the GSA website:

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/101562


Oklahoma City Federal Building
The Oklahoma City Federal Building, in Oklahoma City, Okla., is a national symbol of strength and resilience. Born of tragedy, the 181,000-square-foot office building replaces the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a nine-story structure that was destroyed by a truck bomb in 1995, killing 168 people.

GSA developed new security guidelines for federal buildings, many of which are introduced within the Oklahoma City Federal Building campus. While ensuring safety, GSA also required the public architecture of the new federal building to be open, accessible and inviting, in keeping with the democratic principles of our nation.

Tenants with any facility related questions, concerns or requests, should contact GSA's Oklahoma/New Mexico Service Center, using the contact information provided on the upper right.


I wonder if they know the street is closed.

Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines

Here are the Air Force Protection Guidelines. The Murrah Building is on the cover.

http://www.terrorism.com/documents/Legacy/asis/CE%20Force%20Protection%20Guide.pdf

Hmm. I have a hard time believing that, with just a naked-eye assessment. The structural engineer's website (http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?link=&id=1335&type=500&cat=) also seems to indicate differences between the primary facade and those at near-zero setback.
WAI was not the structural engineer on the project, Benham was. WAI did the vulnerability assessment which takes into account all systems in place to mitigate a blast event and was a consultant in those features, there were many things used from their assessment since this really was a "first of its kind" project for the GSA. Most DoD buildings did not have that level of security built in because most are on their own land with plenty of buffer around the more important facilities.

The setbacks play into the force protection, there is no way that we could have done that much glass on the walls that front NW 6th St, Harvey or Hudson Streets. The glazing is rated for blast protection from a certain distance. All force protection guidelines use a combination of construction assemblies and distance, it is why the walls at the street are thicker than those up higher, blast force would typically be greater at ground level. That doesn't mean that the walls higher up are susceptible to damage, far from it, they are still pretty thick solid walls on those three sides and the blast resistant glazing is in place on the windows that are in place. There are also blast mitigation features inside the building as well, in case of a walk-in suicide bomber type of attack.


Just an FYI but GSA (federal) buildings are not built to any USAF guidelines
The USAF Force Protection Guidelines at the time was our teams directive from the GSA during the design phase of the building. The GSA had no force protection guidelines in effect at that time and the USAF guidelines were the closest thing to them. They have since developed their own standard that is very similar to the USAF standard but adapted for the locales that the GSA would be located in. Most GSA buildings are not built under those guidelines, only the buildings they feel need to be are built under that directive. None of the GSA buildings that I have worked on since (including the replacement offices for the IRS office in Austin) have had force protection in the directive. The reason why the OKC Federal Building has them are obvious because of what did occur there. I also think it was a bit of a test bed for the GSA in terms of how much force protection should be built and what that does to the budget.

WAI was not the structural engineer on the project, Benham was. WAI did the vulnerability assessment which takes into account all systems in place to mitigate a blast event and was a consultant in those features, there were many things used from their assessment since this really was a "first of its kind" project for the GSA. Most DoD buildings did not have that level of security built in because most are on their own land with plenty of buffer around the more important facilities.

The setbacks play into the force protection, there is no way that we could have done that much glass on the walls that front NW 6th St, Harvey or Hudson Streets. The glazing is rated for blast protection from a certain distance. All force protection guidelines use a combination of construction assemblies and distance, it is why the walls at the street are thicker than those up higher, blast force would typically be greater at ground level. That doesn't mean that the walls higher up are susceptible to damage, far from it, they are still pretty thick solid walls on those three sides and the blast resistant glazing is in place on the windows that are in place. There are also blast mitigation features inside the building as well, in case of a walk-in suicide bomber type of attack.


The USAF Force Protection Guidelines at the time was our teams directive from the GSA during the design phase of the building. The GSA had no force protection guidelines in effect at that time and the USAF guidelines were the closest thing to them. They have since developed their own standard that is very similar to the USAF standard but adapted for the locales that the GSA would be located in. Most GSA buildings are not built under those guidelines, only the buildings they feel need to be are built under that directive. None of the GSA buildings that I have worked on since (including the replacement offices for the IRS office in Austin) have had force protection in the directive. The reason why the OKC Federal Building has them are obvious because of what did occur there. I also think it was a bit of a test bed for the GSA in terms of how much force protection should be built and what that does to the budget.

This is what this conversation should be based on. Not abstract arguments of civil liberties v. terrorism, and other irrelevant emotional issues.

According to our local expert - the front of the building is just as secure and blast proof as the rest of the building because the road was supposed to be open and the building was designed for it. Structural integrity of the building is NOT the reason the road is closed.
Pretty sure there was to be a complementary building on the north side and the facing fronts created an open space roughly the shape of a football. The building did not materialize after the FBI relocated to Memorial Road and several departments objected to being near the bomb site. Plus, the lack of funds contributed. But, the land had been acquired and the process started. So, what we see now is not the original plans for the site. In reality, had they completed the plan, you would get the building block out to the street as on the south, east and west. Perhaps there are ultimate plans to complete the complex, but that is probably doubtful. If it isn't going to happen, perhaps they will deed back the north property and the city can reopen the street. I doubt they have been asked to do so.

Accidental duplicate

Nick, the emotional issues are not irrelevant. Like I said, it's not the Alamo; an abstract something that happened 175 years ago. There are people working in that very building who survived an incredibly traumatic event, right across the street. As long as there is a generation of people directly tied to that day and those actions, it will be impossible to separate the emotion from it.

But I think what bluedogok said in his post confirms what I have been saying; the three walls that AREN'T fronting 7th are very special in their design, allowing them to be safer at near-zero setback than the front of that building ever could be in its current configuration.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just saying I think we're beating our heads against the wall in suggesting the street be reopened. It might seem like 1995 was a long time ago, but for many people it probably still feels very recent.

Nick, the emotional issues are not irrelevant. Like I said, it's not the Alamo; an abstract something that happened 175 years ago. There are people working in that very building who survived an incredibly traumatic event, right across the street. As long as there is a generation of people directly tied to that day and those actions, it will be impossible to separate the emotion from it.

But I think what bluedogok said in his post confirms what I have been saying; the three walls that AREN'T fronting 7th are very special in their design, allowing them to be safer at near-zero setback than the front of that building ever could be in its current configuration.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just saying I think we're beating our heads against the wall in suggesting the street be reopened. It might seem like 1995 was a long time ago, but for many people it probably still feels very recent.

This would seem like NYC passing an ordinance restricting skyscraper height at 10 stories again, despite FAA and USAF air traffic control systems that watch when planes get too close to skyscrapers.

Maybe there's a compromise that could be found on this "issue" ("quotations" because I can't imagine anyone wanting to take up this cause right now) by opening up the superblock to a public park.

Not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as your NYC ordinance would affect all of NYC rather than a single street outside of one building. You're overstating the impact that the 7th Street closure has on downtown OKC overall.

A better example would be the 185 foot windowless reinforced concrete base of WTC1 (Freedom Tower). It's a bummer from a city/pedestrian interaction standpoint and how necessary/effective it is could be easily debated, but it makes people, including the people who will be working in that building - some of whom will surely be survivors of 9/11 - "feel safer." In this case it is understandable, considering the symbolism of that building and the fact that the building it replaces has been subject to terrorist attacks and significant loss of life in the past. And again, it only affects one building. No other buildings in Manhattan are required to get 185 foot windowless reinforced concrete bases.

I am not in any way a fan of the street closure in question. I'm just suggesting that demanding it be opened is tilting at windmills.

This would seem like NYC passing an ordinance restricting skyscraper height at 10 stories again, despite FAA and USAF air traffic control systems that watch when planes get too close to skyscrapers.

Maybe there's a compromise that could be found on this "issue" ("quotations" because I can't imagine anyone wanting to take up this cause right now) by opening up the superblock to a public park.

No, more like the FAA saying, what the heck, go ahead and fly close because that attack will never happen again.