I just about threw up this morning on my drive in. Can't believe they did this, and snuck it in over holiday. Boooo!

I guess I was originally confused. I thought the plan all along was to demolish these and rebuild. Look at the renderings from Page 1. It looks like they will just rebuild them to look like the pre-existing structures. Maybe use some of the old materials for exterior?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/4409d1379348815-maywood-apartments-phase-ii-maywood91313b.jpg

"Existing structures to remain"

To clarify, they originally planned to keep the two structures and build around them.

Then just a few weeks ago, received approval to disassemble them and then reassemble with the original materials.

It's possible that they ultimately received approval to completely demolish and the application just hasn't been uploaded to system as of yet. Won't know for sure until next month's meeting where they also list the administrative approvals that were given over the previous period.

I don't understand why everybody is so upset about these two small buildings. Is it just because they are old?

I don't understand why everybody is so upset about these two small buildings.

Character, charm, history, unique nod to neighborhood's roots.

Both the Maywood Apt complexes are blah, though this one might be better. These buildings would have a least brought some character to this one.

I see nothing charming or unique about those two buildings. I am all for preserving character and uniqueness but this is an instance when I would side with those who say just because its old doesn't mean its worth preserving.

I see nothing charming or unique about those two buildings. I am all for preserving character and uniqueness but this is an instance when I would side with those who say just because its old doesn't mean its worth preserving.

I'm not saying it's just because they're old. These buildings certainly had more character than what will replace them and it would have made the complex more unique compared to the other newer developments in the district.

I see nothing charming or unique about those two buildings. I am all for preserving character and uniqueness but this is an instance when I would side with those who say just because its old doesn't mean its worth preserving.

Honestly, I'm with Chris on these two buildings. They've always looked out of place on that lot to me.

They've always looked out of place on that lot to me.

That's because of everything that was torn down a long time ago.

Those buildings were a peice of crap anyways. They were just shacks, wtffff.

Those buildings were a peice of crap anyways. They were just shacks, wtffff.

Sort of like this place?

http://www.roadarch.com/10/9/morts2.jpg

Or this one?

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-3c9e4c134a3b1becd1bdac6790cbd55f.jpg

But seriously, if you want to talk about a **** place that should be torn down, I nominate this one...it's terrible. No future whatsoever for a place like this:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/restaurants-bars/4751d1382114747-pump-bar-pumpbar4.jpg

Sort of like this place?

http://www.roadarch.com/10/9/morts2.jpg

Great example. Mort's was one of my favorite bars in Wichita. Very similar building. Those little buildings would have provided so much character to the apartments and area. Huge failure and pretty shady.

Mort's is an old Phillips 66, and this one was a Conoco, but EXTREMELY similar.

Cool. Those two smaller buildings are insignificant and I don't see any reason to keep them. I'm sure if someone was proposing a giant residential development the block where the Rise and Pump Bar currently are, there would be a completely different tone. But there isn't. I love The Rise and I love the Pump Bar; I'm glad they weren't torn down. But those have absolutely nothing to do with the two tiny ass buildings in Deep Deuce that no one will even remember in a couple years from now.

For anyone who is about try and use the Preftakes block against me you can forgot about it because those buildings are much larger and much more significant than these two shacks that were torn down. Sorry, but I don't see what the big deal is about two small buildings me and I promise you plenty of other people probably didn't even know were there to begin with. I get that preservation can add charm to an area, but these were two small, tiny shack that didn't even take up 10% of the property.

With The Pump Bar, Pizza Gusto, The rise, and the other buildings on that lot, they already had multiple buildings to renovate. If that gas station was the only thing on that lot and the Rise, Pizza Gusto, and the rest of the buildings weren't there and literally, the only building on that lot was the gas station, we probably be looking at an entirely different scenario.

Buildings that small probably wouldn't be very difficult or expensive to rebuild.

My guess is once they started doing the work they found out there was just no possible way they could integrate them into their plan. PluPan is right. Many people probably didn't even know those buildings where there to begin with and I doubt anybody will be lamenting their loss a year from now.

^
Thank you.

This guy said he was going to do one thing and did another. That means he is LYING. Why anyone is okay with this is beyond me.

Of course maybe we are all just jumping to conclusions, that they really are going to reassemble these with the bricks they smashed to pieces. Maybe that have a team assembled at the dump supergluing everything back together right now!

Why are there so many accusations on this board without anyone really knowing the truth behind the scenes? Just a question.

Kevin, I was just about to way that. Do we even know yet why they were torn down? It very well could have been a mistake. How about we wait and see why they were torn down.

9916

It looks like the backhoe may have hit a waterline. *Pure speculation* The water is no longer spraying like this.

That's what you get when you use a backhoe for a delicate dismantling operation... destroyed buildings and busted water lines... another reason we shouldn't cut corners... :-P

Cool. Those two smaller buildings are insignificant and I don't see any reason to keep them.

Significance in not predicated on size. Those two buildings were almost exactly like what you just said you were happy to see saved. They had every bit as much potential to add character to the area (or really, represent the character that used to be there) as those other buildings have done. Why they suddenly become insignificant and lose all potential of contributing, just because a large rather unimaginative apartment complex is being built behind them, I have no idea.

I think that's been the most fascinating thing about discussing demolition with some on the board. You can show examples of the exact same thing done somewhere else, even in the very same city, and they will tell you it's different. I've seen Star Wars. That stuff doesn't work on me.

The funny thing is that, in this case, it's not like those buildings prevented the development in any way. It was even designed with them there. This was just some bizarre bait and switch, that probably didn't even need to happen in the first place. It's almost as if he wants to give the neighborhood the bird on purpose.

More info from Steve:

Promises, Demolition and First National Center | News OK (http://newsok.com/promises-demolition-and-first-national-center/article/5380331)


Promises also were made to preserve the 1920s era former Conoco station at NE 3 and Walnut, and to even incorporate the buildings into the second phase of the Maywood Apartments. But the developer who made the promise, Ron Bradshaw, is no longer involved in the project, and the lead developer is now NE Construction, a Texas company led by Charlie Nicholas that built the first Maywood complex and also The Edge apartments in Midtown.

The developer went to Downtown Design Review Committee recently and got approval for "disassembling" the buildings and rebuilding the facades with the salvaged materials. And what followed was a curious Christmas Day demolition.

I spoke to Luke Harry with NE and he promises any salvaged materials that can be re-used will be used in the reconstruction. But in talking with him, I got the impression even this is uncertain.

"The plan was to keep them," Harry said. "We resubmitted the application and they gave us permission to take it down and reuse what could be used in the reconstruction of the buildings. That's the best we could do with the shape the buildings were in. They were in pretty bad shape. Inside, they were just a shell."



This was the letter from the head of the development company as part of their application, which received approval:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/nedev123014.jpg

If they can call that keeping the existing structure, so can Hines for using the bus station bricks and such.

Pretty sure they busted a pipe today. There was water going everywhere.

Significance in not predicated on size. Those two buildings were almost exactly like what you just said you were happy to see saved. They had every bit as much potential to add character to the area (or really, represent the character that used to be there) as those other buildings have done. Why they suddenly become insignificant and lose all potential of contributing, just because a large rather unimaginative apartment complex is being built behind them, I have no idea.

I think that's been the most fascinating thing about discussing demolition with some on the board. You can show examples of the exact same thing done somewhere else, even in the very same city, and they will tell you it's different. I've seen Star Wars. That stuff doesn't work on me.

The funny thing is that, in this case, it's not like those buildings prevented the development in any way. It was even designed with them there. This was just some bizarre bait and switch, that probably didn't even need to happen in the first place. It's almost as if he wants to give the neighborhood the bird on purpose.I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding how two very small buildings could impact the area to a point that would warrant the outcry on this thread about them being demo'd. I get what you're saying, but these two buildings took up an extremely small portion of the lot and they wouldn't have even been noticed a midst this much larger structure; I will say I do like small details though.

I would just like to know why they were torn down though when the developer said he was going to keep them. I wonder if it was a mistake or what.

Clearly this is going to end up like Hines is doing with the parking garages: include a few materials in the new structure and call it good.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding how two very small buildings could impact the area to a point that would warrant the outcry on this thread about them being demo'd.

I know. Examples were posted. Probably no other way to show it, and if you don't see it, then so be it. No one is exaggerating the impact of the buildings. Just trying to show how they could be a very cool aesthetic element to the area and be a small shout out to what the district once was. The funny thing is that you said people will forget the two buildings in a couple of years (even though you can find pictures of deep deuce buildings torn down a long time ago around town), the thing is that tearing them down makes the development itself more forgettable.

It just would have been really cool. That's all. It was going to be a great nod to the old neighborhood. As it is, someone either effed up or someone pulled a fast one. But what they did is not what was approved.

I understand that.

I would really be interested to see why they were demo'd. Please keep this updated if anyone finds out why.

The part that stuck out to me more than anything in that article is that Bradshaw is no longer a part of the project? When did this happen?

Those buildings were a peice of crap anyways. They were just shacks, wtffff.

You will realize in a few years the error in your judgment. I too used to wield a growth machine sort of view.

There are nuances, small and huge. The huge nuances aren't really nuances, which is way some of us go crazy upon realization.

I understand that.

I would really be interested to see why they were demo'd. Please keep this updated if anyone finds out why.

There is no reason. Things are senseless. These buildings were demo'd bc the developers could. The Brewers used to do this, too. The city even does it. Welcome to the Big Friendly.

Looks like the "dismantling and storage" is complete:

9924

Such a historic accomplishment!

The funny thing is that, in this case, it's not like those buildings prevented the development in any way. It was even designed with them there. This was just some bizarre bait and switch, that probably didn't even need to happen in the first place. It's almost as if he wants to give the neighborhood the bird on purpose.

Ya think? The neighborhood association blocked several substandard plans Ron Bradshaw had for some of the land he owned in the neighborhood. I don't think he likes his "neighbors" very well.

My daughter went to school in Winston-Salem, NC and one of our favorite stores was comprised of two old gas stations connected by a glass breezeway. It was a lovely little store and likely looked very much like these two buildings pre-remodel.

Some interesting old pics found by Steve. From looking at the cars, it was probably in the latter part of the 50's.

What Could Have Been | News OK (http://newsok.com/what-could-have-been/article/5384102)

Some interesting old pics found by Steve. From looking at the cars, it was probably in the latter part of the 50's.

What Could Have Been | News OK (http://newsok.com/what-could-have-been/article/5384102)

Aaaaaaand someone's going to say you're acting like these buildings are the Skirvin in 3... 2... 1...

Some interesting old pics found by Steve. From looking at the cars, it was probably in the latter part of the 50's.

What Could Have Been | News OK (http://newsok.com/what-could-have-been/article/5384102)wow, two tiny buildings were torn down. An old picture of what could have been. So sad. Moving on to bigger and better things now.

Walnut is reopened, but the "repaving" they did of the spots they tore up, are horrible. Very uneven.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/10055d1422292253-maywood-apartments-phase-ii-maywoodphase2.jpg

^^makin' progress!

Ugh

Seems like that's as deep as they're digging. Looks like 1-2 stories of underground parking, not 3. I may be off on height.

Seems like that's as deep as they're digging. Looks like 1-2 stories of underground parking, not 3. I may be off on height.

Well if that truck backed up to the street the top would be at street level…so that looks like 1 level underground to me.

Great job on them putting up a jersey barrier to preserve the sidewalk on 4th. :Smiley077

Great job on them putting up a jersey barrier to preserve the sidewalk on 4th. :Smiley077

The original intention probably wasn't for pedestrians. It was probably for keeping cars from going down...

This reminds me of the first project I was on in Beijing years ago. It was a high rise with bamboo curtaining surrounding it and scaffolding. I asked the construction manager at the site if it was for safety. I was told, no. They weren't as concerned about workers falling as they were of losing tools that might fall. LOL.

Some video of construction from yesterday:

kc0bmhC_JIA&feature=youtu.be

10361

It's a much deeper hole now, enough for the 3 stories of underground parking I suspect.

3/15/2015

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03093_zpsq0zyuv8u.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03093_zpsq0zyuv8u.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03095_zpsmaemezzo.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03095_zpsmaemezzo.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03094_zpsv5f1yznq.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/CAM03094_zpsv5f1yznq.jpg.html)

That's a lot of red dirt. Thanks for the update Kerry.

That hole is a lot deeper than it looks.

That hole is a lot deeper than it looks.

Did you count how many people were there using it? ;)

Lol - 3.

Is this location so much higher topographically than ClayCo, OG&E or the Convention Center that it's smart to build underground parking here, but not the others?

I don't know if it matters but elevation difference is probably 50 feet or more. However, I think they are building underground parking to get around building codes that would require concrete instead of stick built. Taller than 4 or 5 stories they have to use concrete, but if they put parking underground they can build with wood.

Is this location so much higher topographically than ClayCo, OG&E or the Convention Center that it's smart to build underground parking here, but not the others?

Yes. The difference in elevation is considerable. The other projects you mention are river bottom, and the water table is about 15-20' below the surface at a maximum. For example, the lake at MBG is essentially ground water. This is what you would have to contend with when going underground there; not only during construction but also AFTER construction, using continuous pumping for the life of the building. Go check out the Devon Tower thread and see how quickly they ran into the water table, and note that they installed pumps that will effectively run forever.

Deep Deuce, OTOH, is perched on a hill overlooking downtown. It's hard to detect or notice unless you are looking for it.