What is the purpose of that huge empty space just north of the Federal Building?

I suppose it's supposed to be a park but it doesn't really offer any reason to be there; in fact the concrete wall on the west side (and probably elsewhere) is shoulder high and thus not only a barrier but you can't even sit on the darn thing.

Does anybody know the thinking behind this? It just seems to be a huge, dead space.



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

This is an interesting article about the design based on an interview with the architect.
http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/rossbarney/oklacity.htm

What is the purpose of that huge empty space just north of the Federal Building?

I suppose it's supposed to be a park but it doesn't really offer any reason to be there; in fact the concrete wall on the west side (and probably elsewhere) is shoulder high and thus not only a barrier but you can't even sit on the darn thing.

Does anybody know the thinking behind this? It just seems to be a huge, dead space.



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

security

Yeah i'm not really sure what the purpose of that is supposed to be. It does leave room for future growth. but maybe another question is, does anyone remember what was on those two lots before the new building? Perhaps that's a better question in regards to why that lot was included at all? It honestly could just be filler space. They needed the land to put parking on, and so they purchased that lot. They didn't need the whole thing for parking, so they let the architect use it for a "thing".

As far as federal fortresses go, it really is a more interesting design than could have been made. It's less "office-y" feeling than the old one, which was the entire point of the project. Make it more substantial without it looking like a bomb shelter. I feel like they did accomplish the goals they were after with the building. It's still a bit too contemporary for me, but i'm not much of a modernism fan so what are you gonna do.

One fact people rarely discuss is the orientation. The building faces away from the memorial. It could have just as easily been rotated to face the other way, but they put conscious effort into making it face away. And i believe most of the windows do not have a view of the memorial on the two sides either....either because of structures or elevation differences.

I don't think it has to do with security because that empty space is no closer to the building than any of the streets surrounding it or any of the surrounding buildings.

I could see where it may be for future expansion but I've never seen that mentioned anywhere.

As it is, this is just a big, empty hole and as a park it's a complete failure.

I think it is a case of trying too hard. I have only been there one time, but I think the entrance with the stone waterfall/fountain on the west side of the walkway is nice. The "park" across the closed street was pretty deserted.

I don't think it has to do with security because that empty space is no closer to the building than any of the streets surrounding it or any of the surrounding buildings.

I could see where it may be for future expansion but I've never seen that mentioned anywhere.

As it is, this is just a big, empty hole and as a park it's a complete failure.

the south east and west were build to a much higher security level than the north side ... it is the side with the windows and the security is provided by the space

Yet, there are other buildings and parking very close to the north side of the building.

Yet, there are other buildings and parking very close to the north side of the building.

the north side has only controlled parking ... and no building directly north for a block

I think it's an attempt at public art. When the building first opened, many federal employees were very upset with the design because they said the wedge taken out of the middle of the building and the strangely ringed park to the north reminded them far too much of what the original federal building looked like minutes after the attack. I don't know if that was a deliberate homage or just a terrible coincidence.

This facility met my "one of OKC's most ugly buildings"!

The north face of the building is not less secure. If you do some research about the way the glass is made and installed, you'll find that its very secure. Not to mention that it only covers the lobby area, not the full face. So the actual office space is really two totally seperate buildings with a cap over the gap between.

I sort of feel like this building is a throw back to the 50's as much as "modern".

I think it's an attempt at public art. When the building first opened, many federal employees were very upset with the design because they said the wedge taken out of the middle of the building and the strangely ringed park to the north reminded them far too much of what the original federal building looked like minutes after the attack. I don't know if that was a deliberate homage or just a terrible coincidence.

Looking at that aerial view that Pete posted the other day, that's the first thing I thought about. I just didn't want to say it. But I think you're right and I can't imagine it being an homage of any kind. Using the blast zone in the new building? It seems very odd. I don't blame those workers for feeling angry about that.

See Dennis Wells' thread suggesting that NW 7th be reconnected... who wants to bet not a single new argument will be brought up here. The claim that the new federal building absolutely must have a security buffer has been debunked, the new building is blast-proof. The thing even looks like it was just plopped there from Israel.

As for using the blast zone as a means of inspiration, I don't know if the architect was that perceptive, but I think if so it's a beautiful way to use architecture to commemorate lives lost on the worst day in our city's history. Look at what you see in the inlet - signs of nature, things growing, a rock garden, water flowing - it's peaceful and life has taken over what may be intended to illustrate the blast zone.

The Survivor Tree is an incredible symbol of our city's resilient spirit - yet the workers in the new building never said it offended them, despite that it can only remind someone of one event...

the idea that the north side needs a security buffer .... has been anything but "debunked"

the idea that the north side needs a security buffer .... has been anything but "debunked"

As someone who thinks appropriate security measures are a requirement for a federal government building in today's world, I think it is reasonable to question the need for 7th St to be closed. The reason given doesn't make obvious sense in light of the southern wall of the building being street side. I have no idea what was done to harden the structure but it must have been extensive.

I hadn't thought about the north entry being reminiscent of the damaged Murrah building until I read it here. I think the waterfall is very nice and would like to someday see it from the lower level vantage point. I think there is likely sufficient standoff to the entry and bollards lining the sidewalk that is about as secure as it can be short of blast walls ringing the entire complex. But given the circumstances, I doubt any changes are in the near future.

At least it makes for a good spot to sit and eat during H&8 once a month.

the idea that the north side needs a security buffer .... has been anything but "debunked"

The fact that the building was designed for the street to be open debunks the security angle. How many people who work in this building now worked in the old federal building? It's been 17 years.

I've not be able to find anything that discusses the reasons for this particular design and the security angle makes some sense, even if the execution seems somewhat strange.

I will add though that this is a very bad use of a key parcel (as is a 3 or 4level building, for that matter), especially since it really doesn't work as a park either.

The fact that the building was designed for the street to be open debunks the security angle. How many people who work in this building now worked in the old federal building? It's been 17 years.

what makes you think the street was designed to be open

what makes you think the street was designed to be open

What I recall, and this may be totally off base, is that only half of the site was built. What is basically the green area outside of the ellipse in the north half was supposed to be building, too, similar to the south half. Cost over-runs and the realization that some of the office space would not be necessary due to agencies refusing to move back downtown led to this decision. The central area was supposed to be open while the outside was fortified. The central ellipse was aligned with the city center. I think the GSA guidelines for this type of building were brand new and they didn't have a good feel on the per SF costs. I think some of the few buildings that have been built to these standards are foreign Embassies. I may be way wrong, though.

what makes you think the street was designed to be open
The street was always designed to be open, the "color patterns" in the paving were meant to be different materials that made different sounds as you drove over them. I can't remember what tune it was supposed to be. Homeland Security has been a bit overzealous in perimeter protection at many facilities, I think that led to 7th being closed.


What I recall, and this may be totally off base, is that only half of the site was built. What is basically the green area outside of the ellipse in the north half was supposed to be building, too, similar to the south half. Cost over-runs and the realization that some of the office space would not be necessary due to agencies refusing to move back downtown led to this decision. The central area was supposed to be open while the outside was fortified. The central ellipse was aligned with the city center. I think the GSA guidelines for this type of building were brand new and they didn't have a good feel on the per SF costs. I think some of the few buildings that have been built to these standards are foreign Embassies. I may be way wrong, though.
There was supposed to be another building on that site, eventually, there was no firm time table for it. When we did the current building that was the plan although I think the GSA thought it would have been built by now. At first they had a hard time trying to get agencies to move back downtown after they had already established locations outside of downtown. One of the first interior plans had Social Security in the building but they were adamant about staying at Shepherd Mall.

It did cost more than the original budget and much of the force protection features were derived from the USAF Force Protection Guidelines which was about the only standards in existence at the time of design and typically were not office building type of buildings. The glazing in the ellipse is all laminated, blast resistant glazing. The bulk of my work on the project was detailing the glazing, force protection and interiors.

The concept of the grooves/materials in the street playing a tune as you drive over them is a really cool one. Never really heard of that before.