I don't think it will get passed either way. Too tall apparently. I just learned of a similar proposal that the same Area Commission rejected and forced to downsize:

http://www.columbusunderground.com/archives/ibiza01.jpg

This was built instead (parking garage in the back is lined with skinny townhomes):
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51f9b2cce4b0f0372669e0e7/537b9140e4b0f5318f943570/537b91b6e4b0fc008f039732/1400607170668/The+Hub_002.jpg

http://okchomesellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/OklahomaCityMainStreet1957.jpg

I just came across this photo of West Main in 1957. Can you believe this used to be Main Street? Every single thing in the above picture is demolished. Soon the 420 W Main Building will be the only remaining historic structure on OKC's Main Street.

This is one of the most incredible urban renewal transformations.

Yeah I found that and had posted it on Twitter. I have other postcards in that collection.

https://twitter.com/unfrsakn/status/599280748076539905

https://twitter.com/unfrsakn/status/599209599137255424

https://twitter.com/unfrsakn/status/599228420380237824

https://twitter.com/unfrsakn/status/599229467123318786

I just came across this photo of West Main in 1957. Can you believe this used to be Main Street? Every single thing in the above picture is demolished. Soon the 420 W Main Building will be the only remaining historic structure on OKC's Main Street.

This is one of the most incredible urban renewal transformations.

I wouldn't call that a positive transformation either. It's amazing what OKC used to be and what it could still be if TPTB had a little more foresight.

To see that picture and compare to now is painful. What a disastrous implementation of supposed renewal

I honestly don't even know what I'm looking at when I see that picture. I can't place orientation at all. If that was still on OKC I don't think there is any doubt it would be the most vibrant place in the entire city.

Double post, please delete

http://okchomesellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/OklahomaCityMainStreet1957.jpg

I just came across this photo of West Main in 1957. Can you believe this used to be Main Street? Every single thing in the above picture is demolished. Soon the 420 W Main Building will be the only remaining historic structure on OKC's Main Street.

This is one of the most incredible urban renewal transformations.

This is the StreetView location. The Oil & Gas building on the right is the only existing structure besides the Hightower way off in the distance. You can barely see the 420 S Main building also.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.467698,-97.51617,3a,75y,273.42h,97.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJuj_GsD2U7_YzeJIN52wVw!2e0?hl= en

I could post and compare this whole intersection of Main and Robinson looking north, south, east, and west but it would take this way off topic. Just click the Twitter links in the previous page.

Back on topic, I heard your typical rumor from someone who heard from a person "in the know" that this building would end up being 32 stories instead of 27. Is there any credibility to this that anyone knows?

Back on topic, I heard your typical rumor from someone who heard from a person "in the know" that this building would end up being 32 stories instead of 27. Is there any credibility to this that anyone knows?

Hopefully that is true. A more impactful building would make the loss of these historic structures easier to swallow.

Maybe they've decided to build this building on top of the parking ?

This is one of the most incredible urban renewal transformations.

It's odd. In the '60s and '70s, the term urban renewal had a positive conotation and sounded like a hopeful, new outlook. Now days urban renewal is a dirty word. I guess they never would've guessed that future generations would long for the urban history that met its demise with the wrekcing ball.

Maybe they've decided to build this building on top of the parking ?

One can only hope.

This is the StreetView location. The Oil & Gas building on the right is the only existing structure besides the Hightower way off in the distance. You can barely see the 420 S Main building also.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.467698,-97.51617,3a,75y,273.42h,97.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJuj_GsD2U7_YzeJIN52wVw!2e0?hl= en


I am trying to place the Oil and Gas Building. Where is it and what is it now? Thanks

This building, on the right side in the original StreetView link.

http://bit.ly/1HmEEzr

This is what it looked like originally.

http://bit.ly/1K96amS

It's odd. In the '60s and '70s, the term urban renewal had a positive conotation and sounded like a hopeful, new outlook. Now days urban renewal is a dirty word. I guess they never would've guessed that future generations would long for the urban history that met its demise with the wrekcing ball.

Just to build on what you said, I don't think it was any one generation that had different values or something like that. People are people. I think that generally there is reverence for older history, but we always disregard more modern history like that of our parents. Cities are very cyclical.

OKC does legitimately have a higher disregard for urban history compared to most other cities, but every city has a few that have to come down on rare occasions. The difference with OKC is that we don't have a few..we have a few every year. We aren't demo'ing 2000 structures like early OCURA did, but that's largely because we don't have that much left.

OKC is at a fork where it can either hold tightly onto everything it has left, and end up making the most out of its opportunities, or it can say screw it and just take out the rest because we had might as well. It's one thing for the replacement to pale in comparison to the original we demolished, but it's another thing when we completely demolish the opportunity to build onto the city we already had.

The problem when you are recklessly unsophisticated in your ways is that you lack the ability to express yourself in terms of "Yes and..." This manifests itself in people's actions, the way that the city debates these issues, the way the city sees itself, and the real estate projects local developers deliver. You don't have to choose between this or that; this person's worth, or that person's worth; the past, or the future; traditional marriage, or gay marriage; this mode of transit, or that mode; and so on...

Just to be clear, I'm not calling OKC, OKC Talk, or you the reader unsophisticated, so calm down. I'm just saying that I feel as if OKC's demo behavior stems from a cultural trait that is prevalent in OKC. It exists in other cities, but manifests itself differently. OKC has evolved on transit, for instance, leaving some cities behind. I wish it would evolve on historic preservation. There is wrong and right to this issue, it isn't "a conundrum."

This building, on the right side in the original StreetView link.

http://bit.ly/1HmEEzr

This is what it looked like originally.

http://bit.ly/1K96amS

Never would have figured that one out. Thanks. Anybody know if was rebricked or just painted? I see they added arches to bottom window also.

Never would have figured that one out. Thanks. Anybody know if was rebricked or just painted? I see they added arches to bottom window also.

I'm pretty sure this little building got an overhaul in the oil boom of the early eighties.

It did. This is one of the reasons that I am constantly harping in the need to do good HP, for instance retaining historic windows, or correct treatment of brick, ghost signs, etc.

What happens is that someone comes in and wants to do a renovation that brings a building "up to current standards," when what they really mean is that they want to disguise the fact that it is an old building. Once that is done, the building has lost so much historic integrity that when someone comes along 20 years later and wants to tear it down, there is no grounds to protect it based on intact history. "Well, the building has been altered so much that it's not really historic anymore...", and then BAM. Demolished.

Much better for an old building to be upgraded in a way that doesn't harm its overall historic character.

I wouldn't call that a positive transformation either. It's amazing what OKC used to be and what it could still be if TPTB had a little more foresight.

There appears to be a force that wants there to be a great city where OKC is. We endured a combination of bad leadership and tragedies from 1960 to the early 1990s. If not for those obstacles we should at least be where Charlotte and Austin are.

Ed Shadid had designs completed showing how to save the Union Station by changing the site plan: Shadid prepares for bus station hearing with new design concepts | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/shadid-prepares-bus-station-hearing-new-design-concepts)

http://www.reddirtreport.com/sites/default/files/uploads/John%20Munn%20Design_Page_02_0.jpg

http://www.reddirtreport.com/sites/default/files/uploads/John%20Munn%20Design_Page_04_0.jpg

Say what you will about Shadid, but he paid this architect (and for this whole case) out of his own pocket.

And these plans are completely workable.

In fact, even though this would involve some added development expense, this is a place where funds from TIF #2 could be used.

I like it. Not only saving the bus station but aligning the new tower to the street. This isn't perfect but it fixes a lot of what is wrong with the 499 Sheridan development. Hopefully he is able to get it done. Question is, the entire reason for this debacle in the first places is money. Ideally all buildings could be saved with parking built underneath the tower or underground, but that would cost a lot more to do. Would it be more expensive to the developer to do this?

The only thing in dispute now is the bus station. For whatever reason, it was the only building the city's planning department recommended saving, so that's where this pending case is focusing.

It will be more expensive to build the office tower above a parking garage, but TIF money could be used to at least partially offset that.

In effect, you are shifting everything down and trading a useless corporate plaza that also violates every tenet of responsible urban planning for saving the bus station.

The only thing in dispute now is the bus station. For whatever reason, it was the only building the city's planning department recommended saving, so that's where this pending case is focusing.

It will be more expensive to build the office tower above a parking garage, but TIF money could be used to at least partially offset that.

In effect, you are shifting everything down and trading a useless corporate plaza that also violates every tenet of responsible urban planning for saving the bus station.

Hopefully these changes pass. Is Devon set on having that corporate plaza? Why is it even necessary with the MBG across the street?

Plus, wouldn't a revitalized bus station generate more revenue for the developer than a sterile corporate plaza? It seems like a no brainier to me.

Just to be clear, it's not a matter of the proposed changes being passed.

The only issue is whether the court will stop Hines from demolishing the bus station.

These designs are just concepts of how it could be save while they still accomplish their goals.

These changes are not up for debate in any way.

From a few attorneys I have spoken to (for those attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me).

All the court is deciding is if the DDRC (downtown design review committee). And the the BOA (board of appeals) had the right to make the decision they did within the city ordinances. That is all period.

For shadid to win the judge would have to rule that the DDRC can't agree with the demo of "historic" buildings.

The judge is not going to approve a different plan. In any way.


From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

What a great idea but Shadid to have an architect show what could be done with a an idea(save the buss station) and make it work in a booming downtown that needs to show it cares about urban design. I know the original architects just put out what devon told them they wanted but this design is better in every aspect. It would be the perfect spot to use TIF funds and heck even set up a new TIF for it, clayco and the CC to show that preserving buildings, adding residential, and elminating useless corporate plazas can and will be rewarded.
I couldn't zoom in enough to see the total parking sports but it looked roughly the same. That said it will be hard pressed to get the court to change any decision but I hope this just shows that doing above the bare minimum on designs is possible.

From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

It was always a long shot but these plans show what is possible and also calls out Hines/Devon for not even trying to come up with a creative compromise.

There is no doubt in my mind that will give developers pause for any future projects, knowing they'll face a similar PR battle.

What should also be pointed out is that Devon/Hines are not really the defendants. The city of Okc is. So shadid is causing the city to spend money defending this lawsuit.

The City doesn't have to defend the lawsuit; that is merely their choice.

What I don't understand is why is good urbanism opposed by anyone?

These changes are not up for debate in any way.

From a few attorneys I have spoken to (for those attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me).

All the court is deciding is if the DDRC (downtown design review committee). And the the BOA (board of appeals) had the right to make the decision they did within the city ordinances. That is all period.

For shadid to win the judge would have to rule that the DDRC can't agree with the demo of "historic" buildings.

The judge is not going to approve a different plan. In any way.


From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

The judge will assess the evidence presented to the DDRC which the DDRC used to base their decision on. Hines/Pickard-Chilton repeatedly claimed to the DDRC and the BOA that there was simply no other feasible alternative in the space available to achieve their aims. If an architect with extensive experience in high rise development nationally and internationally illustrates that such a contention was false then the Judge would have to take into consideration that the DDRC made a decision based on incorrect information. The architect seems to have shown that one could build the office building and all the parking of the Hines proposal while adding a residential/restaurant/retail component which would activate the northwest corner of the critically important Sheridan/Walker intersection rather than placing two monolithic parking garages across from each other on both sides of Walker.

The judge will decide if the DDRC has the power to approve demos. Period. What is being built has nothing to do with the demo. They are separate things.

Amazing what Shadid's architects were able to design in a matter of weeks compared to what was probably months/years of planning by Hines. Munn's design clearly showcases a much more functional urban use of this corner and by no means is it outlandish.

What I don't understand is why is good urbanism opposed by anyone?

It costs the company more and these are businesses....

It costs the company more and these are businesses....

Are you sure it would cost the company more? Last week the OKC Council approved $3million in TIF funds to help with financing of a parking garage for the Journal Record building and there are numerous examples of other projects where TIF funds were used to help a development with parking garage costs. In fact, the OKC Council has never turned down a proposal for an allocation of TIF funds for a parking garage and in all likelihood, Devon Energy could ask for a very sizeable TIF allocation and the OKC Council would almost certainly say yes. This is in addition to historic tax credits, CDBG backed loans etc... that the company would also have at its disposal. The residential component would add revenue to the development as would the restaurant and retail. If you had residential wrapped around the bus station and Clayco high-rise residential across the street you in all likelihood could support businesses renting from you on that corner which would now serve as a conduit to film row.

And to be clear, Hines has never even looked into TIF funds or other assistance options.

They claimed the Bus Station was economically unfeasible yet never explored the option exercised by many other historic rehabs with great success: Working with the Alliance for Economic Development and seeing how they could help make it happen.

And to be clear, Hines has never even looked into TIF funds or other assistance options.

They claimed the Bus Station was economically unfeasible yet never explored the option exercised by many other historic rehabs with great success: Working with the Alliance for Economic Development and seeing how they could help make it happen.

Which is another issue for the Judge to assess. Nick Preftakes told the DDRC and the BOA that adaptive reuse of the bus station was not economically viable EVEN WITH TIF FUNDS and other public funding but did not disclose to the boards that he had NEVER even asked about the availability of TIF funds or other public funding from the City's economic development staff.

I believe Cathy O'Connor was deposed as a part of this lawsuit to confirm Preftakes/Hines/Devon never approached the City to explore their options.

I believe Cathy O'Connor was deposed as a part of this lawsuit to confirm Preftakes/Hines/Devon never approached the City to explore their options.

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

But it is relevant to this discussion.

Asking or not asking for tif funds is not relevant to this case

That is clearly not the opinion of the attorney for the plaintiff.

Hines and PC did what they were told and nothing else. Period.

Now, it will be up to the judge to determine if OKC violated their charter in determining to demolish historic buildings vs. a better use of the block. It is very clear that OKC sat on their blank-blanks and let this slide through, similar to the Stage Center, in the name of business first. But by law, the city has to put the citizens and taxpayers of OKC first and if you are deciding historic value then you'd better not just slush proposals through.

I'd argue that the city should have sought competing proposal or at least architect(s) to come up with ideas for the block then bounce them against Hines/PC. See which is better from all pov then make a decision. Apparently, that didn't happen here and like Pete said - now they're being called out on it.

Hines and PC did what they were told and nothing else. Period.

Now, it will be up to the judge to determine if OKC violated their charter in determining to demolish historic buildings vs. a better use of the block. It is very clear that OKC sat on their blank-blanks and let this slide through, similar to the Stage Center, in the name of business first. But by law, the city has to put the citizens and taxpayers of OKC first and if you are deciding historic value then you'd better not just slush proposals through.

I'd argue that the city should have sought competing proposal or at least architect(s) to come up with ideas for the block then bounce them against Hines/PC. See which is better from all pov then make a decision. Apparently, that didn't happen here and like Pete said - now they're being called out on it.

The properties in question are not held by the city of OKC, so how does a city seek competing proposals for something they don't even own? Also, per above comments. It seems the city was never approached for monetary assistance or input on how the design addresses the block and historic structures.

because the city was considering a request to demolish historic properties AND most of those said properties were fully functioning businesses within the last year or two. As stewards for the public, the city should have done more to determine the feasibility argument by Hines/Preftakes. The above should have come up along with the FACT that there is unused space the development could be built in. If the city itself didn't want to perform the analysis then they could have AT LEAST required it of Preftakes or whoever is the developer.

We have alternative analyses all the time here in Seattle, where a big billboard poster goes up on a property and parties are required to submit their desired plans AND alternates. The city then vets and determines the best use. This is also done in Vancouver, not sure why OKC has the rubber stamp approach but it is now being exposed and people are likely demanding the city step up and do a better job.

Perhaps things would change if Shadid wasn't the only council member fighting for good urbanism. Everyone else either doesn't care or is already owned by big business.

It costs the company more and these are businesses....

How is it cheaper to build a plaza, than to not build the plaza?
How is it cheaper to build a skywalk, than to not build a skywalk?

How is it cheaper to build a plaza, than to not build the plaza?

The added expense would come from building the office tower above structured parking and renovating the bus station.

There would be additional revenue from the bus station property, though.

Well, if we had good urbanism they wouldn't need a parking garage (or at least one near as big). Also, if they got rid of wasted space they could sell it to someone else. Alas, if we didn't subsidize bad urbanism, we wouldn't need to subsidize good urbanism because good urbanism would win-out naturally. I guess in the end we get what we pay for.

^^^^^^^^
Repeated for the 1000th time. JTF, your point was.made long ago. When there is a demand for urbanism in OKC, the market will respond and those open spaces will fill in.

You can't fill-in a 50' corporate plaza setback. Granted, a skywalk can be removed, and OKC did remove one several years ago, and hopefully FNC removes another and closes a tunnel.

You know, I'm starting to like Ed Shadid again. I'm sure in like two weeks he'll decide to try and scuttle something I like, but right now he's on my good side.

You know, I'm starting to like Ed Shadid again. I'm sure in like two weeks he'll decide to try and scuttle something I like, but right now he's on my good side.

Lol - he is a hard guy to stay mad at.

Shadid is not afraid to confront and shake things up.

Even though you might not agree with him on some subjects, in general that is exactly what more on the City Council should be doing and because they won't, Shadid is often seemingly the lone public voice, although he often gets more behind the scenes support than many realize.

It's best not to make this personal and just judge the issues he raises on their own merits. It's completely wise and prudent to view them all separately rather than writing something off because he opposed something you favored in the past.


I certainly don't agree with him on everything and have told him that more than once. But he stands up and literally puts his money where his mouth is, and I have great respect for that.

I'm sure he's going to end up paying close to $100K just for this lawsuit alone and also completely underwrites some of the town hall meetings.

Hines and PC did what they were told and nothing else. Period.

Now, it will be up to the judge to determine if OKC violated their charter in determining to demolish historic buildings vs. a better use of the block. It is very clear that OKC sat on their blank-blanks and let this slide through, similar to the Stage Center, in the name of business first. But by law, the city has to put the citizens and taxpayers of OKC first and if you are deciding historic value then you'd better not just slush proposals through.

I'd argue that the city should have sought competing proposal or at least architect(s) to come up with ideas for the block then bounce them against Hines/PC. See which is better from all pov then make a decision. Apparently, that didn't happen here and like Pete said - now they're being called out on it.

A judge is not deciding any of this. They are going to decide is the DDRC and board of appeals followed city regulations. And if those regulation are valid. That's all.

Why would the city seek a different proposal for property it doesn't own. Property rights actually matter. And a committee of smart citizens that followed policy and made a decision on the demo. Which is their mandate

Ed Shadid had designs completed showing how to save the Union Station by changing the site plan: Shadid prepares for bus station hearing with new design concepts | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/shadid-prepares-bus-station-hearing-new-design-concepts)

http://www.reddirtreport.com/sites/default/files/uploads/John%20Munn%20Design_Page_02_0.jpg

http://www.reddirtreport.com/sites/default/files/uploads/John%20Munn%20Design_Page_04_0.jpg

I like this. Shadid is taking initiative once again.

It drives me crazy when people keep throwin some shade on Shadid. It's immature and counter productive. I can handle when someone I like disagrees with me on one issue (the streetcar). Urban Pioneer is the only poster on here who has any good reason to dislike Ed. The rest of us, time to move on and make amends.

These changes are not up for debate in any way.

From a few attorneys I have spoken to (for those attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me).

All the court is deciding is if the DDRC (downtown design review committee). And the the BOA (board of appeals) had the right to make the decision they did within the city ordinances. That is all period.

For shadid to win the judge would have to rule that the DDRC can't agree with the demo of "historic" buildings.

The judge is not going to approve a different plan. In any way.


From those I have talked to the alt drawings presentation shadid intends is a total waste of time and money. And this is in every way a losing case

I agree with your assessment of what e judge can rule on, but hopefully the lawsuit isn't the point. Ed has bought a little bit of time to put this together and get this out there. Hopefully an amicable resolution can be reached between Devon/Hines and the community. I know that even though Devon is facing financial constraints this time around, they still want to do the best thing.

Is doesn't cost Devon anymore and gives them a more unique, memorable block. I still would prefer to save the hotel and Auto Hotel but this is something, and Ed has contributed something that can't be ignored.

I like this. Shadid is taking initiative once again.

It drives me crazy when people keep throwin some shade on Shadid. It's immature and counter productive. I can handle when someone I like disagrees with me on one issue (the streetcar). Urban Pioneer is the only poster on here who has any good reason to dislike Ed. The rest of us, time to move on and make amends.

but I would be willing to bet that despite the dislike UP likely applauds and supports Shadid's efforts here. That's class and like others have said I AM glad Shadid is on the council and do weigh his contributions based on merit not prejudice.