I believe there was an article a couple of weeks ago that said he was going to build a 3 or 4 story building on that space......unless I just drempt it.

I just went back and post #38 confirms the developers intentions is to replace with a larger structure.

Right. But we've all see developers with intentions before. Somehow they are always in a hurry to demolish, but not always in such a hurry to rebuild.

That is unfortunately the impression I was given by that news article. It didn't seem like there were any concrete new construction plans. I hope I'm wrong with that gut feeling.

This "new building" seems more of a vague whiff of what could be, in the sense that all of these vacant lots we have been graced with are shining opportunities for infill. If my recollection serves me correctly, they wanted to hopefully see their offices on this site someday, combined with any other tenants they could muster to build a larger building.

I hate to disagree with everyone on this thread, but I really didn’t see any great architectural features or historical significance to this building. I run by this building every day and am a downtown resident and have always wondered what could be done with it. But the building does not even have window on the side and is built of concrete blocks. I think sometimes these (like the Hale) building just need to be torn down and something else useful built. Some sort of sentiment if good, but it should not stand in the way of progress.

There in lies the problem - what if it is torn down and nothing is built. Urbanism (at least New Urbanism) isn't about the buildings, it is about the open and public space defined by the buildiings and the sense of place created by the buildings. Suburbia is defined by buidlings surrounded by open space, but urbanism is characterized by the open space that exist between buildings - which is almost counterintuitive. For the record, suburbia has no sense of place - it is identical everywhere it exist. So what does that mean in relationship to the Hale Building? The Hale building was a point of reference along Broadway and as a runner I am you know all about reference points. It also framed the interesection give it a uniqueness that wasn't found anywhere else in the City. Can this same effect be achieved with another structure? Yep, so long as it is built out to the sidewalk. So like I said, it isn't about the structure per se, but about how the structure effects and defines the public space.

So, a dilapidated falling down building defines new urbanism. Cool!

And I am glad to know why I keep getting lost in the suburbs. They are identical everywhere. Very confusing.

And I am glad to know why I keep getting lost in the suburbs. They are identical everywhere. Very confusing.

Well, smartass, they are pretty much identical everywhere.

So, a dilapidated falling down building defines new urbanism. Cool!


¿Que?

Well, smartass, they are pretty much identical everywhere.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=30176

Just sayin'

The Hale building was a point of reference along Broadway and as a runner I am you know all about reference points. It also framed the intersection give it a uniqueness that wasn't found anywhere else in the City.With very minor edits, you could say the same about almost any 7-11 store, or other building. Since only one building can be located at a unique address, every building has its "uniqueness that wasn't found anywhere else in the City."

As far back as 1950, the Hale building at NW 5 and Broadway was a run-down dump. I went there occasionally to buy DuPont's Velour Black enlarging paper, since George was the only dealer in OKC to stock it at the time. As soon as I could find it elsewhere, I quit going to Hale's. The most charitable thing I can say about the establishment is that it was quite eccentric...

Far more important and unique were the OPubCo printing plant just west of the tracks on NW 4, or the Coca Cola bottling works a block south of there on NW 3. I mourn all of our history that was lost to Urban Renewal, and most particularly the Huckins (and to a lesser extent the first brick building built in the city, across the street from the Santa Fe station).

If we get a more urban-friendly building at NW 5 and Broadway that will be great -- but even a surface parking lot will be preferable to a building that was allowed to run down for more than 60 years!

¿Que?

I am sorry...being sarcastic. This dilapidated building doesn't define urbanism. But hopefully, what replaces it does.

I remember the grenade they had on the front counter with a number on the pin of the grenade that said "take a number".

Well, smartass, they are pretty much identical everywhere.

Don't worry - it's Rover. You can't take him serious because as soon as someone calls him out on it he claims he was being sarcastic. Just smile and move along.

The people who don't take themselves too seriously know sarcasm.

Hale building wasn't valuable for urbanism IMHO. That is all I am opining about.

This dilapidated building doesn't define urbanism.

Sigh...

None of our dilapidated buildings define urbanism, right?

Sigh...

None of our dilapidated buildings define urbanism, right?

That is absolutely not what I am saying. Trying to force arguments to the extreme is a good debating tactic, but poor planning tactic. I also stated that is my OPINION that this building was fairly insignificant and very limited even IF someone found enough interest or value in salvaging it. I would much rather fight to get a quality development for the entire corner / block that is much more in keeping with urban principals. Only time will tell, I guess.

Rover, you took the words right out of my mouth. If we can stray from our usual path beginning with impressive renderings/grandiose ideas and ending with disappointing/embarrassing results, this would be a nice corner for a much more substantial project.

That is the problem here, the if factor. I don't see why the property owner couldn't have held onto the building, deferred maintenance so holding onto the building wouldn't have been a liability (obviously the Hales never spent a dime while holding onto it), and waited for demolition permit when they were ready for a building permit as well. Why are these steps in the process years apart in most cases?

This property owner is soon going to find out just how much money they can make land squatting and using it for parking in the interim. I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying that here we have let someone with NO track record downtown, demolish a smallish but iconic historic building, without any concrete plans for replacing it with anything else on the block. There's no telling how this will turn out.

This site is just as likely to be a new development, as it is long-term surface parking, and also as it is the next horrible CC site. lol

because by definition dilapidated buildings are a hazard to the public ..

...I'm just saying that here we have let someone with NO track record downtown, demolish a smallish but iconic historic building, without any concrete plans for replacing it with anything else on the block. There's no telling how this will turn out.

This site is just as likely to be a new development, as it is long-term surface parking, and also as it is the next horrible CC site. lol

"we let" - as in "we let" the legal land owner do whatever they deemed in their best interest with THEIR land and structure?

I liked the Hale building well enough. Not enough to care that its gone. But it was kinda unique (except for the unintended skylight). However, I like the comfort of knowing if you invest in property that doesn't have any restrictions at the time when you bought it, then you can do with it what you will as far as sit on it, expand it, sell it, scrap it, whatever. Is it always going to be in the best interests of the city? Nope. But the freedom to do so is.

"we let" - as in "we let" the legal land owner do whatever they deemed in their best interest with THEIR land and structure?

I liked the Hale building well enough. Not enough to care that its gone. But it was kinda unique (except for the unintended skylight). However, I like the comfort of knowing if you invest in property that doesn't have any restrictions at the time when you bought it, then you can do with it what you will as far as sit on it, expand it, sell it, scrap it, whatever. Is it always going to be in the best interests of the city? Nope. But the freedom to do so is.

I'm unsure that you realize that there are design ordinances and an entire design overlay district that makes building permits in downtown a completely different animal than on S. Bryant. The reason is because there is no public investment in the way of MAPS1, MAPS3, countless other public works projects, along S. Bryant. Otherwise, if the sole reason for your land values skyrocketing was this level of public investment, then the public obviously should have some leverage in holding downtown property owners to a higher standard. You shouldn't get away with having it both ways, getting us to pump money into your pocket, and then doing what you want no matter the repercussions to downtown districts and detracting from that public investment in downtown that is unique from any other area of the city.

This debate was settled already. You can't just do anything downtown, there's a difference between following the ordinances that are the only way downtown will evolve into the environment we're hoping for, and what ticky tacky guys like Chris Moore have gotten away with in their pursuit of pushing the envelope further each time in their war against building codes.

This city has decided not to stand up for its ordinances. We're seeing the result of this with each sub-par development that occurs, and nobody does anything about it. What we're doing each time is reducing the value of our own public investment and diminishing our ROI with each sub-par building permit.

That is the problem here, the if factor. I don't see why the property owner couldn't have held onto the building, deferred maintenance so holding onto the building wouldn't have been a liability (obviously the Hales never spent a dime while holding onto it), and waited for demolition permit when they were ready for a building permit as well. Why are these steps in the process years apart in most cases.

I'm not torn one way or the other about this but wouldn't there be an issue about higher property taxes for the owner if the building remains?

Probably, I'm not sure how that factors in though.

Probably, I'm not sure how that factors in though.

Maybe because you're not the one paying the taxes, Spartan. LOL

Well, I just couldn't tell which way you were going to go with that. :rolleyes:

But that's a keen observation, I am not rallying to take a collection to help them pay taxes on a building they bought in upright (albeit barely) conditions. They knew what those taxes were when they bought the property, it's a matter of public record. "It lowers the taxes for the owners" is not a public consideration for a demolition permit, or shouldn't be, if we have serious codes.

At what point will we stop stooping so low to let any reason fly for cheapening the public investment in downtown? Building standards have been accepted across the country, Edmond has a sprawly suburban aesthetic that they enforce through building codes, for example. Codes say how much of the facade must be brick, for example - which is an outrageous abuse of private property rights AND it increases property values for everyone, which is clearly a clever guise just to increase everyone's taxes. Oh the communism up there in Edmond!

I think we're getting away from the point though, these are all the negative hypotheticals. There is no reason that the owners of this city block along Broadway in Oklahoma City could not achieve their stated positive goals within the existing city code framework as it should be enforced. The obvious interpretation of the form-based codes that we have in place is to discourage demolition.

It would be nice to see demolition actually discouraged, rather than encouraged, which was the role of the city in this case. Actually, that is the default role for the city in any cases like this, and that needs to be seriously re-examined.

I'm unsure that you realize that there are design ordinances and an entire design overlay district that makes building permits in downtown a completely different animal than on S. Bryant. The reason is because there is no public investment in the way of MAPS1, MAPS3, countless other public works projects, along S. Bryant. Otherwise, if the sole reason for your land values skyrocketing was this level of public investment, then the public obviously should have some leverage in holding downtown property owners to a higher standard. You shouldn't get away with having it both ways, getting us to pump money into your pocket, and then doing what you want no matter the repercussions to downtown districts and detracting from that public investment in downtown that is unique from any other area of the city.

This debate was settled already. You can't just do anything downtown, there's a difference between following the ordinances that are the only way downtown will evolve into the environment we're hoping for, and what ticky tacky guys like Chris Moore have gotten away with in their pursuit of pushing the envelope further each time in their war against building codes.

This city has decided not to stand up for its ordinances. We're seeing the result of this with each sub-par development that occurs, and nobody does anything about it. What we're doing each time is reducing the value of our own public investment and diminishing our ROI with each sub-par building permit.

That's not the issue. The issue is the owner decided not to make improvements and had a wrecking ball take down their building and their investment. The city gave them a permit to do so, so what's the issue? Give me an open space over a dilapidated building unused space any day.

I'm not torn one way or the other about this but wouldn't there be an issue about higher property taxes for the owner if the building remains?

In a perfect world property taxes would be inversely proportional to the amount of impervious surface on the lot, then multiplied by the height with all property starting at the same valuation based on sq. footage. For example, a lot 100% covered by a 5 story building would pay the same property tax as a vacant grass covered lot. This would encourage the grass lot owner to build something that produced income instead of sitting (in some cases for 50 years) on a vacant lot. As for the Hale Building, their property taxes should go UP after demo because in the owner’s eyes the value of the land went up. If the value went down then why would they tear down the building? Who in their right mind would destroy value? Clearly the owner thinks the land is worth more sans structure.

This city has decided not to stand up for its ordinances. We're seeing the result of this with each sub-par development that occurs, and nobody does anything about it.Looks to me as if in this case, the city did stand up for its ordinances concerning dilapidated structures that amount to public nuisances. Allowing the building to stand, unmodified, in its final condition would have been a case of ignoring the public good -- and a building that run down would decrease, not increase, the property value of its neighbors.

I agree with your general platform, but in this specific case I think you've picked the wrong opponent. It wasn't the city that offended; it was the property owner who refused to correct the problem and retain the structure. And in this case, I think the owner made the correct decision.

For that matter, while I hated to see Sandridge demolish the old India Temple building at Kerr and Broadway, I thought they made the correct decision about the Wright Building which it had become. In the late 40s and early 50s, my insurance agent's office was on the second floor of that building, and every time I had to visit him there I was afraid that the floor might collapse beneath my feet! The building was allowed to decay for far too many years to make renovation a practical option, more's the pity...

:iagree:

That's not the issue. The issue is the owner decided not to make improvements and had a wrecking ball take down their building and their investment. The city gave them a permit to do so, so what's the issue? Give me an open space over a dilapidated building unused space any day.

We would not have a single historic building left then. Almost all of them have been abandoned at some point. So what do you, demolish the entire city?

We would not have a single historic building left then. Almost all of them have been abandoned at some point. So what do you, demolish the entire city?No, we already did that to downtown some 40 years ago. Many of those that fell had not even been abandoned at the time. Hopefully we've learned something from that tragic error.

It's not a question of abandonment, but of proper maintenance before abandonment, and willingness to repair when called to account by the city's code enforcers.

No, we already did that to downtown some 40 years ago. Many of those that fell had not even been abandoned at the time. Hopefully we've learned something from that tragic error.

But we didn't demolish every historic building, quite the contrary, the plan was never realized and we tore down some of the best, but there is still an impressive amount of historic buildings left in OKC even compared to similar cities. The lesson shouldn't be what we did, but what we can do.

So, how long is too long to wait, and how dilapidated is unacceptable? When does something lose it's value and become a nuisance or danger? Are any and all four walls worth saving? Is any particular location sacred?

Rover, I'm not arguing any points with you unless you're also trying to make a blanket statement that all old buildings need to be demolished.

However, yes, this city needs a more forward-thinking preservation policy. The better historic policies, which foster a good collection of historic buildings in the cities that have them, do seriously discourage demolishing just any old buildings.

I think the issue hinges on structural integrity and whether it can be saved. That's why I'm not actually balking at THIS case, but I am pointing out the consequences that we need to be prepared for with this site. That is all. I hope it gets developed, but there is a reason a lot of people aren't holding their breath, and there is a very good reason why the fate of the Hale Photo Building is a shame - that is simply because it was a cool building.

Why do we have to make this any more complicated than that?

I am just saying that there needs to be tighter definition of what is worth preserving and what is not. It is loose and mostly subjective now. I am NOT in favor of demolition unless the building is a safety hazard or creates a public nuisance. I do think it is reasonable for the city to create and enforce a level of maintenance that must be adhered to. By the time these buildings get to this sad state it is mostly too late. We must be more proactive. And "coolness" is a way too subjective definition as a reason to save or not. There are plenty of buildings I think are cool you probably wouldn't.

I am just saying that there needs to be tighter definition of what is worth preserving and what is not. It is loose and mostly subjective now. I am NOT in favor of demolition unless the building is a safety hazard or creates a public nuisance.

That is extremely loose and mostly subjective.


And "coolness" is a way too subjective definition as a reason to save or not. There are plenty of buildings I think are cool you probably wouldn't.

I disagree, I think that is simply the best way to look at it, and I think based on examples there is a firm precedent, such as the preservation battle of the Gold Dome. Imagine if someone wanted to build a McDonald's on the Milk Bottle site? That would be not good... :(

Safety is ambiguous and hard to define, but cool isn't. Uh, okay.

Safety opens up the door for any derelict VAP to be demolished.

If you can argue the Hale is a public safety problem, you can argue any secured VAP as a public safety problem. These things generally get established on the basis of precedent.

Safety opens up the door for any derelict VAP to be demolished.

2 people fell from OU buildings in the last two weeks and died. How many people have been injured or killed in the Hale Photo Building in the last 20 years? Who votes for tearing down Evans Hall and the new dorms?

2 people fell from OU buildings in the last two weeks and died. How many people have been injured or killed in the Hale Photo Building in the last 20 years? Who votes for tearing down Evans Hall and the new dorms?
I see what you are saying but ironically, they removed the fire escape

2 people fell from OU buildings in the last two weeks and died. How many people have been injured or killed in the Hale Photo Building in the last 20 years? Who votes for tearing down Evans Hall and the new dorms?

Another lucid apples to apples and on subject argument.

So, I guess public safety and nuisance issues are not relevant in the new urbanist philosophy. Any building is preserved, regardless of condition, history, etc., as long as one or more people think it is cool and they don't have to pay for renovating it. It seems this is always the argument. At least Spartan uses some reason, intellect and fairness in advising which buildings he sees worth saving. Others would keep a dilapidated dog house I guess.

I see what you are saying but ironically, they removed the fire escape

Thus making the building even less safe.

Rover, this is a case where you have to separate the preservationist (Spartan) from the urbanist (me and others). I only care about building density, sidewalk utilization, setbacks and the like. The preservationist care about those things also, but they are a secondary consideration. The preservationist found value in the Hale building because it was old. The urbanist found value in the Hale building because it focused foot traffic to the sidewalk and defined the boundaries of intersection. It accomplished those things while still being vacant. The same goes for KerrMack and India Temple - but where the urbanist and preservationist split is on things like Stage Center. The preservations see it as a piece of history, the urbanist see it as a suburban style waste of space.

We also have a third kind of downtown enthusiast - the 'drive by urbanist'. They only seem to care how downtown looks from the car. How tall is the building (the taller the better) and is it shinny (the more reflective glass the better). They aren't much interested in sidewalk interaction because they spend most of their time looking at downtown from 10 miles away.

Even the urbanist must surely give some weighting to the actual condition and usefulness of the building, the aesthetics, and yes, the safety concerns. This building never invited interaction and looked more like a vault plopped down on a corner. An outhouse at the corner would also define the corner and provide mass. It just wouldn't be appropriate. I have actually read quite a lot on new urbanism and I believe that the philosophy is still to make the human experience better. I would have a hard time believing that navigating by terminally un-cared for, decayed and potentially unsafe properties is somehow better and encourages walkability, etc. While I don't advocate the demolishing of buildings, this one is (in my humble opinion) one that wasn't worth losing much sleep over. The real concern to me is more about what eventually replaces it. That is where the activism needs to take place.

vacant lot < vacant building < occupied building

Vacant lots create negative space. Have you ever been to a ghost town? If so, did you explore it from the main street or from the backs of the buildings? Human nature is a weird thing. Even though there is nothing open (abandoned for decades) people still seek out confined positive spaces even in the wide-open West.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Image1.jpg

Wow. Thanks. I've never seen that diagram before. That fully explains why the Hale building was worth salvaging. Now if we can just convince a developer to put an A shaped development on that block we would have the perfect urban OKC.

Okay...I AM being sarcastic and poking fun. I still think it was a nondescript, dilapidated, old building which wasn't useful. But AGAIN...just my opinion. I would much rather see a well designed (yes URBAN design) building replace it...something which would actually invite people to the corner and to the area. Until we stop people from letting these properties get into this awful shape we will continue having these arguments as to which one's should be saved or left to continue to crumble. If this building had been maintained I would agree that it should be saved. But if it had been maintained a proper use might have been found and we wouldn't even have to debate these things.

Rover- just to set the record straight, I am not saying we should have saved the Hale building or prevented it from being razed IF there is a plan to replace it with something else. I can't wait to see what replaces this building. I just hope it happens in my lifetime.

The problem in OKC is not demolitions; it is SPEC demolitions with no firm plans for a new building. In the past 25+ years that I have been in OKC, I can think of only a very few times a recently-demolished building was replaced by anything other than a parking lot or an empty lot.


The Finley Building, now being replaced by Aloft (I would've swung a wrecking ball on this one myself...the higher and better use is undeniable)
A small building that was demolished to clear the way for the Hampton Inn in Bricktown (ditto)
A fairly substantial warehouse demolished to make way for the NW plaza of the Bricktown Ballpark (would have been cool but likely impractical to incorporate in the ballpark's layout)

The common denominator in all three was that another building was firmly planned (and funded) to take the place of the demolished structure.

I'm sure there have been one or two other places here or there where a demolished building has been replaced by another structure inside of a generation, but there are very few and they were very far between. Meanwhile I show you many dozens or even hundreds of lots where interesting buildings once stood and now there is only dirt, weeds, grass, asphalt, or some combination thereof.

The "tear it down & something better will replace it soon" line of reasoning is entirely fallacious.

It was torn down because it was dilapidated, not with plans to replace.

I'm quite familiar with the Hale Photo Building, thanks.

I'm sure there have been one or two other places here or there where a demolished building has been replaced by another structure inside of a generation, but there are very few and they were very far between.I can cite two more within the past year, both between MacArthur and Rockwell along Northwest Expressway: the abandoned Pioneer Pies location, replaced by an auto body shop, and similarly abandoned Charcoal Oven, replaced by a botique. Neither replacement building appears to be any significant improvement over its predecessor, but occupied buildings are usually preferable to derelicts.

I'm quite familiar with the Hale Photo Building, thanks.

Sorry if it offended you. I was just responding to your previous post. I guess you were making a blanket pontification and not addressing the Hale Building demolition specifically. It appeared to indicate you thought that was the reason for demolishing the Hale and I was only pointing out that wasn't the reason for demolition. The owner doesn't appear to be promising anything.

Rover, that is incorrect.
http://newsok.com/hale-photography-building-in-downtown-oklahoma-city-is-sold-set-for-demolition/article/3681783

Rover, I wrote the story on Hale, talked to the new owner. He is promising to build a 3-story building on the site and paid a lot of money to acquire the additional lot to the east to pull this off.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Rover, I wrote the story on Hale, talked to the new owner. He is promising to build a 3-story building on the site and paid a lot of money to acquire the additional lot to the east to pull this off.

So the acquisition has gone through?

Yep. And Rover - no harm, no foul.

Here's an ad from 1963:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/halephoto1963.jpg

So what happened to the original building? It looks as if there had already been destruction of the top floor(s). If THAT building pictured above was what was actually demolished it would have been more disturbing.

Here's an ad from 1963:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/halephoto1963.jpg

This doesn't even look close to what was there, other than the shape.

Apparently, at some point in OKC's past a 'facade' salesman on his way to Shelbyville stopped in OKC and sold us a bunch of crappy facades, which were then used to cover up all the cool stuff.

My guess would be fire on the third floor at some point in the building's history, resulting in removal of the top floor and facade change. Explains a lot about the building, actually, if that is true. As it sat it was most definitely NOT a three-story structure, even one with a covered facade. Like I mentioned earlier, it sortof had a weird second story loft.

I can cite two more within the past year, both between MacArthur and Rockwell along Northwest Expressway: the abandoned Pioneer Pies location, replaced by an auto body shop, and similarly abandoned Charcoal Oven, replaced by a botique. Neither replacement building appears to be any significant improvement over its predecessor, but occupied buildings are usually preferable to derelicts.
Sorry, I was intending to be downtown-specific. I can think of a number of examples where suburban tear-down resulted in new (if often inferior) buildings replacing the demolished structures. I can think of very few where the same has happened downtown and even fewer where a spec demolition was replaced by a new structure in less than a generation.