In spite of protests that downtown is being still being torn down at an "astonishing rate" (are you listening Spartan?), Steve's article paints a different picture.

Building redevelopment downtown shows preservationists winning the war to save OKC's past | News OK (http://newsok.com/building-redevelopment-downtown-shows-preservationists-winning-the-war-to-save-okcs-past/article/3930192)


Not every old building can or should be saved. But Oklahoma City, still a relatively young community at 125 years old, has finally realized the value of its history. Preservationists may not win every battle, but the war to save the city’s past is being won.

This is a weird argument.

This is a weird argument.

Agree; this is a poor argument by Steve.
My take is the city(council and city management) destroy our cultural monuments and leave crumbs which are then picked up by the preservationists.
And that is a win? Ha! please.

This list of HP rehabs should be proof of the economic development value of old buildings and an argument why we shouldn't let another redeemable bldg fall. Looking at the Preftakes block.

Projects long considered virtually undoable are getting done.

It's always blown my mind how many people have used the "undoable" excuse over the years when it happens all the time. I've always wondered what made buildings in Oklahoma City so different than anywhere else.

I do agree with Steve though that the attitude has changed among some developers, which has resulted in less destruction this time around. However, I think most local real estate kingpins and city leaders are still indifferent at best and obtuse at worst when it comes to the power of renovations to restore and increase value to a district in a much more sustainable way than some new construction.


Drive around downtown Oklahoma City and the scarcity of historic old buildings is noticable.

This combined with the amount of under developed land, is what pretty much makes any demolition downtown astonishing, imo.

In spite of protests that downtown is being still being torn down at an "astonishing rate" (are you listening Spartan?), Steve's article paints a different picture.

Building redevelopment downtown shows preservationists winning the war to save OKC's past | News OK (http://newsok.com/building-redevelopment-downtown-shows-preservationists-winning-the-war-to-save-okcs-past/article/3930192)

Preservationists may be "winning" in terms of more buildings are being reused than being demolished. But we are still far, far away from any overall victory. There may be more structures being saved than are being wiped out, but there are still viable structures being wiped out.

Preservationists may be "winning" in terms of more buildings are being reused than being demolished. But we are still far, far away from any overall victory. There may be more structures being saved than are being wiped out, but there are still viable structures being wiped out.

That's true, but just because a building is a viable structure doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be replaced. I suspect that many buildings we call viable structures may have replaced previous viable structures.

This is a weird argument.

I don't see this as an argument at all. It's a presentation of facts.

That's true, but just because a building is a viable structure doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be replaced. I suspect that many buildings we call viable structures may have replaced previous viable structures.

Most preservationists will accept clear-cut higher and better use. For instance, there was little or no complaint when the Finley Building was demolished to make way for Aloft, despite the Finley Building's status in Deep Deuce.

Anti-preservationists (I really do believe that there are people who flatly think new > old regardless of circumstance or worse that old = bad) believe that HP advocates want every old-ish building saved regardless of condition, use, or replacement, and that simply is not the case.

I don't see this as an argument at all. It's a presentation of facts.

I always present facts.

I always present facts.

So what is your point? That has nothing to do with what I posted.