I don't object but it seems like they're trying too hard to make it trendy...

I"m sure the ADA requirements are the reason for the change to the front.

It doesn't really add much space for I'm sure it was forced upon them.

I"m sure the ADA requirements are the reason for the change to the front.

It doesn't really add much space for I'm sure it was forced upon them.

If they just retained the Georgian columns, brick, and lentils on a single side this could work... but they should NOT just sweep away a fully-intact Georgian facade. Those are rare in the days of urban school closings and demo everywhere across the Midwest.

Steve's article about the demolition.

Oklahoma City firm takes down front of historic Deep Deuce building without proper permit | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-firm-takes-down-front-of-historic-deep-deuce-building-without-proper-permit/article/5400884)


The steps to the 94-year-old building at 400 N Walnut Ave. in Deep Deuce were torn out recently despite the contractor not having a required permit for the work. The city is preparing to cite the contractor and is recommending the Downtown Design Review Committee reject a plan to replace the building’s historic facade.

Oops.

That is a shame. Maybe OKC can put the process on hold for about 6-12 months as an example.

I'm pretty sure those steps and planter thing were not original to the building.

This is ridiculous that we have gotten to this point in our downtown. Good last-ditch administrative action here, but not so across the street when the historic gas station accidentally vanished..

OKC has a HP crisis, and there is no way to realistically tone that down (as much as we all love toned-down things).

Seriously…how hard would it be to just move the front addition North about 20 feet so that the current entrance isn't hindered?

This is ridiculous that we have gotten to this point in our downtown. Good last-ditch administrative action here, but not so across the street when the historic gas station accidentally vanished..

OKC has a HP crisis, and there is no way to realistically tone that down (as much as we all love toned-down things).

Sorry to have to ask, but I've seen "HP" abbreviated several times and as I'm a noob about development (but have become a junkie since finding this site!), I have to ask what it means. I'm guessing Historic Preservation based on context, but not sure.

^

Correct.

Yeah, sorry about the jargon. Can be used interchangeably with #histpres

Hope this doesn't get approved.

I'm pretty sure those steps and planter thing were not original to the building.

Does that matter?

Does that matter?

Yes because that would mean there is little chance they'll get in any real trouble over this.

They could be made to build them back otherwise,

I hate to say it but that seems extreme and unlikely... that kind of exaction would end up in courts probably.

All that remains to be seen are the plans going forward. It is extremely reasonable to force them to change their plans to retain key Georgian features. There has to be an essential nexus between exaction and public policy.

This is make or break time for whether or not OKC has any proactive standing left on HP. We used to have a grade of about C+, so not totally failing... (I just made that up to illustrate how we were doing until lately)

AGREE
We can find What they planned in their design in most burbs. They can work around the front.

By the way, a friend of mine serves on a neighborhood commission in Columbus and was quoted in the media with the most awesome HP verdict ever: "We said there’s no way they can can rip down that old historic building, because it’s super cool and in good shape,” said Sudy

Italian Village Retail Proposal Gets Lukewarm Reception | ColumbusUnderground.com (http://www.columbusunderground.com/italian-village-retail-proposal-gets-lukewarm-reception)

HP is a matter of people serving on boards being passionate about their community and their role in it. We have sheeple who don't dare challenge the Junta or demand a stronger vision for the community, or at least A vision, in most part because that's the deliberate reason they were chosen for their roles. Notice what happens when someone like Anthony McDermid, who personally tried redeveloping the KerMac and India Temple, gets to vote on tearing it down. Was it Gigi Faulkner that they totally replaced? Who was the other architect that Cornett chose to not reappoint?

The point I'm making is that the politics of these things are more open than we realize. Citizens standing up to be heard and demand a civic vision can give these board members the cover they need to do the same, at least in subtle ways. The board members, whether it be DDRC, BOA, BUD, whatever - they all really do want to do the right thing for the most part, but it's really hard. They know they will be sacked if they go out on a limb.

By the way, a friend of mine serves on a neighborhood commission in Columbus and was quoted in the media with the most awesome HP verdict ever: "We said there’s no way they can can rip down that old historic building, because it’s super cool and in good shape,” said Sudy

Italian Village Retail Proposal Gets Lukewarm Reception | ColumbusUnderground.com (http://www.columbusunderground.com/italian-village-retail-proposal-gets-lukewarm-reception)

HP is a matter of people serving on boards being passionate about their community and their role in it. We have sheeple who don't dare challenge the Junta or demand a stronger vision for the community, or at least A vision, in most part because that's the deliberate reason they were chosen for their roles. Notice what happens when someone like Anthony McDermid, who personally tried redeveloping the KerMac and India Temple, gets to vote on tearing it down. Was it Gigi Faulkner that they totally replaced? Who was the other architect that Cornett chose to not reappoint?

The point I'm making is that the politics of these things are more open than we realize. Citizens standing up to be heard and demand a civic vision can give these board members the cover they need to do the same, at least in subtle ways. The board members, whether it be DDRC, BOA, BUD, whatever - they all really do want to do the right thing for the most part, but it's really hard. They know they will be sacked if they go out on a limb.nice!

Good lord, what they're doing to this is going to be an abomination.

I was just thinking - Ron Bradshaw tore down those buildings across the street from this. Did he have permission? Maybe these developers thought there was precedence.

Yeah. I was wondering about the car wash too. Supposedly it was supposed to be incorporated into the new building plan.

Also, to note... The OIC that owned the building of discussion in this thread also owned 2-3 empty lots accross the street just to the south on 3rd.

Learned a lot more about this project...

First of all, the steps and weird planter thing were tacked onto the front of the west structure sometime in the 50's and thus not historic. Still, it was a mistake to remove them without the proper permits but at the same time, shouldn't have any bearing on the DDRC's decisions this Thursday.

The existing structures are actually two separate buildings, with the one on the east side being tacked on later. In the current configuration, it's all a bit of a mess which is why the entire property has been under-utilized for decades.

The architect is Martin Goldstein who is the chair of Denver's Landmark Preservation Commission and also did the design work for the award-winning Harding Shelton space in Bricktown:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hardingshelton1.jpg

The living units will initially be for rent but may be converted to condominiums later. They will be very upscale and unique.

Although no office space leases have been signed, they already have much interest.

There is the possibility of a Phase II on the east end of the large lot.

I'm clearly in the minority, but I love this design. Mixed use and a good blend of old and new, and we need for sale units in Deep Deuce desperately.

I do wonder about the long term longevity of the wood paneling. It's becoming en vouge now but I can't help to think a few Oklahoma summers will fry it to a crisp.

Yes because that would mean there is little chance they'll get in any real trouble over this.

They could be made to build them back otherwise,

It looks like that might not be true.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5402945&headline=Apology%20issued%20for%20unpermitted%20de molition%20in%20Deep%20Deuce%20section%20of%20Okla homa%20City


Thursday, Johnson was immediately challenged on the demolition before he was allowed to start the presentation on the proposed changes to the building.

“I would love to know why the applicant feels like they could make such significant changes to the building without applying to do so,” asked Betsy Brunsteter, chair of the committee.

“We stopped as soon as we saw it, and it was stopped,” Johnson answered. “An apology is what we have to offer.”

Committee members quickly warned they would reject the application because it would eliminate the current entrance, which features Georgian-style columns and a classical building entrance.

I hope it's rejected because I'm not a fan. The front facade is very charming and shouldn't be altered.

It looks like that might not be true.


They are talking about the entrance with the columns, not the steps that were removed.

Their current plans show that facade giving way to the new structure that will be built around it. That's the issue.


BTW, your constant attempts to prove me wrong on something -- anything -- is getting really old.

^

They are talking about the entrance with the columns, not the steps that were removed.

Their current plans show that facade giving way to the new structure that will be built around it.


BTW, your constant attempts to prove me wrong on something -- anything -- is getting really old.

That's not how I interpret it, Pete, but I'm not going to get into an argument with you. The steps that were removed lead up to the entrance with the columns and they were trying to change that and it did cause a problem for them. If you want to ban me for disagreeing with you, that's certainly up to you. None of us is always right and that means both us of.

It's amazing what happens when you make a threat to shut down the project, you even get an apology.
Bravo to the BOARD.
:Smiley031

Keep the current main building and add a wing on each side coming out to the sidewalk; effectivley making a big U. They can keep the facade, get rid of the large setback, and get a couple of more units in the same amount space. Problem solved. Next.

Spoke with a member of the development team today and he said they haven't yet decided if they will completely rework their plans or try and press forward pretty much as is.

They are very displeased because City planning staff had applied all the various design standards and merely made some small recommendations regarding some of the materials.

But the DDRC basically ignored all of that, so now the owners aren't sure which way to turn.

There are specific reasons the general layout was chosen, mainly to deal with the odd front which is essentially a 2nd level entrance which presents a big challenge in terms of modern ADA compliance.

In any event, the only outside demolition was on the non-historic steps that were going away regardless any redevelopment. Removing them without permit was a mistake which they apologized for but beyond that, it's pretty much a non-issue when it comes to the future of this property.

Hope this works out but there is at least some chance this project will stop altogether.

Apology issued for unpermitted demolition in Deep Deuce section of Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/article/5402945?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NIC-Facebook)

The article can now be read. Looks like they pissed off the review committee by demoing the steps without approval. Good. Those columns don't need to go anywhere, I hate the modern design they are trying to force on this building.

so is the real takeaway here that whatever the city planners decide to suggest, the board goes a different direction? Or maybe I've just had too much caffeine flowing in my system today.

The point is that a demo permit for the non original steps would have been admin approved. It should be a total non issue

Does ADA compliance override historic designs? If so, it sounds as though the stairs were not original and would need to be removed to make the structure ADA compliant anyway; so they were destined for removal.

Although the historic qualities of this building are notable, requiring their preservation shouldn't disqualify the proposed adaptive reuse. This design should be rejected solely on its offensiveness to the senses... it would embarrass every space within view.

That said, accessibility requirements and preservation "requirements" and program functionality requirements can all be satisfied with good design. All that's needed is a different configuration plus an artistic application of form and materials. Venture Architecture needs to go back the drawing board.

This design should be rejected solely on its offensiveness to the senses

This^

This project is set to go back to the Downtown Design Review Committee on April 16th.

They made some slight revisions to the exterior materials based on the feedback they received from City planning staff.

Also, they will keep the columns and front facade, although it will still be wrapped in a new front entrance.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/400nwalnut040715a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/400nwalnut040715b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/400nwalnut040715c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/400nwalnut040715d.jpg

This project seems to fall completely within the established guidelines.

The only real departure was with some of the materials, which is what they changed.

I don't think the committee has any grounds to deny this application.

It seems to me that keeping the colonnades and columns yet covering them up is just adhering to the letter but not the intent of historical preservation, which would be to keep it externally close to the same but remodeling or re-purposing it internally. The only way this seems to be better than the prior plans is that the colonnades and columns would be there waiting for sometime in the future when someone might take back down all the additions in front and restore the building to how it looked before.

I really like the design. And the reuse of a very forgettable building

This project seems to fall completely within the established guidelines.

The only real departure was with some of the materials, which is what they changed.

I don't think the committee has any grounds to deny this application.

I'm confused. You mean that a design review committee doesn't have any grounds to deny an application based on design? BZA maybe not, but the design review committee is a legislative function and not judicial, which is supposed to give deference to legislative action.

I'm confused. You mean that a design review committee doesn't have any grounds to deny an application based on design? BZA maybe not, but the design review committee is a legislative function and not judicial, which is supposed to give deference to legislative action.

They are there to apply the established guidelines, not make arbitrary judgments about what they like and don't like.

They are there to apply the established guidelines, not make arbitrary judgments about what they like and don't like.

Like. Actually immensely like.

What specifically is so terrible about this project? I'm not saying it isn't...and I'm easily swayed by the people of OKCTalk...but I actually think it looks kind of neat and fits in with the rest of the neighborhood just fine.

I don't like the additions. It looks like an Air Force Base hospital from the '80s or early '90s. I do like the historic structure and I think something more appealing could have been done.

They are there to apply the established guidelines, not make arbitrary judgments about what they like and don't like.

Are you saying that anyone who has a problem with this project is being arbitrary?

You shouldn't be allowed to cover up Georgian columns and pediment with some kind of stucco annex. This has been done before:

http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Projects/Downtown/Broadway/101_W2nd_1.jpg

You can add 400 N. Walnut to OKC's architectural graveyard. Nothing is safe, not even state capital buildings.

Are you saying that anyone who has a problem with this project is being arbitrary?

No, I'm saying any judgment that does not follow the established guidelines is arbitrary.

With the proposed changes, the City Planning Department reviewed against those guidelines -- and explained in great detail -- and then recommended the committee approve the application.

I really like the design. And the reuse of a very forgettable building

I like the fact that the design pegs the needle on the fugly meter.

To each their own.

Does this project involve any public money?

Does this project involve any public money?

No.

No, I'm saying any judgment that does not follow the established guidelines is arbitrary.

With the proposed changes, the City Planning Department reviewed against those guidelines -- and explained in great detail -- and then recommended the committee approve the application.

I'm confused by the back-tracking here. Why have a design review district that does not have design standards? You're saying that design judgments are arbitrary. I'm saying this is the smaller issue, the single instance, and the existence of said design review is the bigger issue, the broader framework. The very nature of a design review process is to make design judgments.

It sounds like what you are really debating is whether the code allows for or should yield a design review committee to begin with. The only problem with these otherwise solid points you're making is that we already have the design review committee, it just doesn't feel empowered to review design. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, you can't square this circle no matter how hard OKC is trying.

We used to practice design review and historic preservation, and the city had a line in the sand which created a level of expectation. In municipal law circles this is referred to as "investment-backed expectations," which derives its judicial precedent from Penn Station. The design standards created an environment in which people interested in urban revitalization felt comfortable investing their own money. Then we had a series of challenges to our design standards from the corporate community, the design standards were not upheld, and ever since we have lost control of the situation and the ship has sailed on substantive design standards. That's the bigger picture that regardless of whether you're pro-standards or anti-standards, we all know to be true.

Is the role of the design committee to ensure the developers meet the guidelines set forth, such as acceptable materials, setbacks, height, preservation of historical elements, or does the design committee act as critics of the aesthetics of the design? The building must have met the overall requirements set forth by the committee, but should it also be pleasing to their eyes?

Is the role of the design committee to ensure the developers meet the guidelines set forth, such as acceptable materials, setbacks, height, preservation of historical elements, or does the design committee act as critics of the aesthetics of the design? The building must have met the overall requirements set forth by the committee, but should it also be pleasing to their eyes?
That's a slippery slope. The guidelines should be very well-crafted and as specific is possible. It is the job of the review committees to enforce the guidelines to the greatest extent possible, but NOT to make up new rules as they go along. If design guidelines don't anticipate something, that is a failure of the guidelines themselves, and that failure should be addressed with revisions (to the guidelines). There is SOME room for interpretation, but committee members are NOT selected to be legislative bodies, and definitely not to be taste-makers. Fiefdoms are very dangerous.

Thanks. I would not want the government defining tastes for private development, but is there a guideline that says a developer should adhere to the "look and feel" of a historic structure? If so, these guys failed that for sure. I am assuming that is the reason behind many of the opinions here; it kept the columns but hid them in a way it doesn't matter if they are there or not.

It sounds like what you are really debating is whether the code allows for or should yield a design review committee to begin with. The only problem with these otherwise solid points you're making is that we already have the design review committee, it just doesn't feel empowered to review design. But if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, you can't square this circle no matter how hard OKC is trying.

I'm not debating anything, I'm explaining the way this works.

The committee's charter is not to make judgment calls about aesthetics; it's to apply the established guidelines.

If they withhold approval just for personal taste, the City risks legal action for not following their own published rules.


The City is in the process of reworking and rewording the various guidelines and framework used by the various design review committees.

I'm not debating anything, I'm explaining the way this works.

The committee's charter is not to make judgment calls about aesthetics; it's to apply the established guidelines.

If they withhold approval just for personal taste, the City risks legal action for not following their own published rules.


The City is in the process of reworking and rewording the various guidelines and framework used by the various design review committees.

I think we're talking past each other, and not with each other. I don't think you realize that I'm explaining the way planning works. I clearly distinguish my points that are debatable.

You can say I'm wrong, but I also understand that you have a need to placate information sources. That's why I generally don't direct my comments toward you, and put you in debates that are lose-lose propositions given the service you provide of getting information.

You're right about the overarching point that the city risks legal action if they act outside of the boundaries of city code or precedent. I'm just saying they used to have that precedent, and consistently enforce standards that they no longer do. The issue in OKC is not that we don't have standards or even know what standards are.

This is an unfortunate, ugly design. This could have been an interesting adaptive reuse project.

I wonder if the historic colonnade which is being "preserved" will be remembered in 20 years or so when this dung pile is relegated to being nothing more than dozen bait.

We should find the architect who designed this crap pile and socially shame him and his children. Perhaps if we ostracize them enough they'll go hide and not complete their rape of this building. Where's the hysterical social media when you need it?