Very strange that there is little/no opposition to these demolitions from Preservation Oklahoma or the media.

Also, this is a ridiculous statement. There are still tons of surface lots and non-historic small buildings all over downtown, not to mention plenty of buildings that could easily be renovated or upgraded.

Downtown in this reference refers to existing building stock, not land, as shown in the overall context of the column.

I don't know if they need that much parking, but they could add a few floors to the west garage, and have the office space rest atop of the garage and that would bump the building up to 30+ stories. Then add a couple levels to the north garage. This should accommodate for the spaces they are losing with the garage modifications. By doing this, they could at least save the Union Bus Station, and convert it into a plaza/restaurant space for the public and employees of the tower.

I don't know if they need that much parking, but they could add a few floors to the west garage, and have the office space rest atop of the garage and that would bump the building up to 30+ stories. Then add a couple levels to the north garage. This should accommodate for the spaces they are losing with the garage modifications. By doing this, they could at least save the Union Bus Station, and convert it into a plaza/restaurant space for the public and employees of the tower.

Again, not sure if they are using this as a crutch or not, but security concerns could be influencing the decision.

I don't know if they need that much parking, but they could add a few floors to the west garage, and have the office space rest atop of the garage and that would bump the building up to 30+ stories. Then add a couple levels to the north garage. This should accommodate for the spaces they are losing with the garage modifications. By doing this, they could at least save the Union Bus Station, and convert it into a plaza/restaurant space for the public and employees of the tower.

And that would address the specific concern of the DDRC regarding the elementary school being surrounded by parking garages... at least on one corner.

Again, not sure if they are using this as a crutch or not, but security concerns could be influencing the decision.

What concerns are those?

Pickard/Hines have a lot of experience, and have developed many office projects, so I am sure they will make modifications to address some issues but not all, but again, you can't please everybody.

I don't know about that...I'm seeing a lot of info being posted on their FB page about saving them.

https://www.facebook.com/preservationok/posts/10152589832280745:0


Preservation Oklahoma has long been concerned over the proposed demolition of numerous historic buildings for the proposed development known as 499 Sheridan. We have demonstrated this concern by including the block on our 2014 list of Oklahoma’s Most Endangered Historic Places. While we applaud the continued economic development of downtown Oklahoma City, we strongly believe the proposed location will result in the irreversible loss of an important part of Oklahoma City’s history.

The block has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district for its significance to early Oklahoma City commercial development. Most of the buildings proposed for demolition would be considered contributing resources to the district and the Union Bus Station has been determined eligible for individual listing on the National Register.

Preservation Oklahoma respectfully requests that the DDRC deny the application to demolish these important and irreplacable markers of Oklahoma City's past.

https://www.change.org/p/oklahoma-city-downtown-design-review-committee-preserve-oklahoma-city-s-history

Preservation Oklahoma posted some things on Facebook but attended the meeting last week and didn't even speak.

They don't seem to pursuing their opposition very vigorously.

Can't be biting the hands that feed you...

After how thoroughly they got smacked down over their objections to the Sandridge demolitions, I'm not surprised they're keeping their heads down when Devon itself is the company looking to take down a few buildings.

After how thoroughly they got smacked down over their objections to the Sandridge demolitions, I'm not surprised they're keeping their heads down when Devon itself is the company looking to take down a few buildings.

Preservation Group Fighting SandRidge Renovation Plans to Demolish Buildings - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://bit.ly/1whXD7X)

I just spoke with the Executive Director of Preservation Oklahoma.

They are planning a vigorous defense of the entire block. I'll post more later.

That is good to hear. Hopefully them not speaking at the meeting was them forming their defense and not giving away to much of their hand to soon. I'm glad you reached out to them Pete.

I just spoke with the Executive Director of Preservation Oklahoma.

They are planning a vigorous defense of the entire block. I'll post more later.

In the least it will provide another viewpoint of the ways this block could be better developed to integrate current structures.

That is good to hear. Hopefully them not speaking at the meeting was them forming their defense and not giving away to much of their hand to soon. I'm glad you reached out to them Pete.

Like everyone else, they only knew about the meeting and their general plans a few days before.

Also, at the time of that meeting, Hines had yet to formally submit their application.


I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they chose to do this over the holidays and thus minimize the amount of time and exposure around the demolitions. This goes to a vote on Jan. 15.

Very different than the SandRidge and Stage Center situations where there were months of lead time.

On a lot of projects that I don't like I usually come around to some degree later. The longer I see the proposal for this project the worse I think it is. There really is no reason that ALL the buildings on this block need to be demolished and the parking garage craters are ridiculous. Every city in the U.S. has security concerns, but they still place parking garages in the lower floor of their towers. That's what needs to happen here. Otherwise OKC will just continue the mistakes it's always made and it should be known as the city with no history.

it should be known as the city with no history.

There'll still be some history, it'll just look like city was founded in 1989 instead of 1889.

There'll still be some history, it'll just look like city was founded in 1989 instead of 1889.

Like the comment....dislike the thought

I just spoke with the Executive Director of Preservation Oklahoma.

They are planning a vigorous defense of the entire block. I'll post more later.

Planning a vigorous defense? A vigorous defense of what exactly? Properties that they do not have any financial investment in? With the same logic applied that because a thing is old, it shouldn't necessarily be discarded; the fact being that because these buildings are old they shouldn't necessarily be preserved. Because they are old they automatically have some special historical significance? And if they have some sort of historical significance they should be preserved? Tee-pees and sod houses have historical significance to Oklahoma but we didn't keep them everywhere. The buildings on this block along Main, east of the 420 Main street are an early 20th century example of a strip mall. They have been mostly vacant and crumbling for years. Twice while walking through the alley to get to the parking garage at Sheridan I have seen bricks falling into the alley floor. They fall off all the time either from the Motor Hotel or the backside of the buildings on main. They're public safety hazards. The Motor Hotel and the 1 North Hudson buildings are brick boxes; about as architecturally significant and interesting as the glass boxes I see some individuals complain about every time some developer proposes a new building.

It seems like the historical preservation movement is more interested in getting a "win" than pragmatically focusing their efforts. I get the frustration....there have been some good battles fought and lost apparently through the years in OKC. But the standard for blocking the development of private property in the cause of historical preservation should be very, very high. The Stage Center building, might have just met the minimum threshold for such a standard. Little on this block, in my opinion, comes close to meeting that standard. And I have yet to hear a substantive argument otherwise outside the fact the buildings are old, relative to the age of Oklahoma City.

I'm not originally from Oklahoma, but I have read much about the history and am sympathetic to some of the things that have been lost. But it seems to me as an outsider, that unless you pick your battles in this regard wisely, you lose credibility. It is kind of like the groups wanting to have a national public discussion about Law Enforcement use of force issues, and focusing their efforts on cases that were probably not the best ones focus on. Ferguson versus Albuquerque for example.

Anyway, just one opinion, not a popular one here I know. But I really do like OKCTALK, honest!

The cox will be almost 50 years old when the time for demo comes. Maybe we should save it?

This fight is already over. The votes are there for demo

Hey, well color me surprised. I wonder how long before POK is hit with the same funding threats as last time (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=SandRidge%20Center%20Commons&page=36#post347892).

The cox will be almost 50 years old when the time for demo comes. Maybe we should save it?

This fight is already over. The votes are there for demo

I'd fight to save it if they wanted to replace it with parking garages. But since it's OKC, it's probably still there mainly because of its parking garage.

But don't worry, it's over 20 years old in a disposable city, so it won't have any issues.

Hey, well color me surprised. I wonder how long before POK is hit with the same funding threats as last time (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=SandRidge%20Center%20Commons&page=36#post347892).

No doubt that the OKC Plutocrats will turn to North Korea style tactics the way they did with Sandridge. I wonder if Devon will also threaten to move out of OKC.

Planning a vigorous defense? A vigorous defense of what exactly? Properties that they do not have any financial investment in? With the same logic applied that because a thing is old, it shouldn't necessarily be discarded; the fact being that because these buildings are old they shouldn't necessarily be preserved. Because they are old they automatically have some special historical significance? And if they have some sort of historical significance they should be preserved? Tee-pees and sod houses have historical significance to Oklahoma but we didn't keep them everywhere. The buildings on this block along Main, east of the 420 Main street are an early 20th century example of a strip mall. They have been mostly vacant and crumbling for years. Twice while walking through the alley to get to the parking garage at Sheridan I have seen bricks falling into the alley floor. They fall off all the time either from the Motor Hotel or the backside of the buildings on main. They're public safety hazards. The Motor Hotel and the 1 North Hudson buildings are brick boxes; about as architecturally significant and interesting as the glass boxes I see some individuals complain about every time some developer proposes a new building.

It seems like the historical preservation movement is more interested in getting a "win" than pragmatically focusing their efforts. I get the frustration....there have been some good battles fought and lost apparently through the years in OKC. But the standard for blocking the development of private property in the cause of historical preservation should be very, very high. The Stage Center building, might have just met the minimum threshold for such a standard. Little on this block, in my opinion, comes close to meeting that standard. And I have yet to hear a substantive argument otherwise outside the fact the buildings are old, relative to the age of Oklahoma City.

I'm not originally from Oklahoma, but I have read much about the history and am sympathetic to some of the things that have been lost. But it seems to me as an outsider, that unless you pick your battles in this regard wisely, you lose credibility. It is kind of like the groups wanting to have a national public discussion about Law Enforcement use of force issues, and focusing their efforts on cases that were probably not the best ones focus on. Ferguson versus Albuquerque for example.

Anyway, just one opinion, not a popular one here I know. But I really do like OKCTALK, honest!

It's not a popular opinion because it's dumb.

I'd fight to save it if they wanted to replace it with parking garages. But since it's OKC, it's probably still there mainly because of its parking garage.

But don't worry, it's over 20 years old in a disposable city, so it won't have any issues.

So where do they plan to put parking for the four proposed buildings south of the 499 building? Don't tell me underground.

So where do they plan to put parking for the four proposed buildings south of the 499 building? Don't tell me underground.

Sid just posted great examples on how to deal with the parking issue.

But it seems to me as an outsider, that unless you pick your battles in this regard wisely, you lose credibility.

I think at this point, the battles have been picked for them. There's relatively not much left of Oklahoma City's past in downtown. So, they kind of have to fight for the last few historic buildings or lose relevancy.

There's a great three volume set (yes three) that is comprised of pictures and postcards of buildings Oklahoma City has torn down called The Vanished Splendor. Oklahoma City had a great downtown for decades and there's little of it remaining today. This block, especially the Bus Station contains some elements that are especially rare.

It's funny to say pick your battles, because if 15 years ago I were to have picked 3 things in the core that are worth saving as significant architectural representations of Oklahoma City's past, all three of them will be torn down when this project us finished.

So where do they plan to put parking for the four proposed buildings south of the 499 building? Don't tell me underground.

Nope. It will dominate the block(s) too. But they seemed to have made an effort to mitigate the negative effect at least along walked and to the north and the south. The east side may be a blank block though.

Wonder what group is buying the land just to west of Walker at the 500 block, Will this be for future parking? Not trying to get off topic but wondering if 499 is going to lease some of their parking to the Clayco group?

Maybe they should just let the hole block sit like it is for another 5-10 years. Then people would be begging for them to build what they have proposed.

I think at this point, the battles have been picked for them. There's relatively not much left of Oklahoma City's past in downtown. So, they kind of have to fight for the last few historic buildings or lose relevancy.

There's a great three volume set (yes three) that is comprised of pictures and postcards of buildings Oklahoma City has torn down called The Vanished Splendor. Oklahoma City had a great downtown for decades and there's little of it remaining today. This block, especially the Bus Station contains some elements that are especially rare.

It's funny to say pick your battles, because if 15 years ago I were to have picked 3 things in the core that are worth saving as significant architectural representations of Oklahoma City's past, all three of them will be torn down when this project us finished.

Well, I guess outside the Union Bus Station, I am not seeing it. I have read some things about the Hotel Black and the American Motor Hotel that had some unique architectural ornamentation with in the structures. I did a quick search on the The Vanished Splendor, and at 107 to 176 dollars on Amazon, I think I'll check out the library. I'd love to see the Union Bus Station reinvented as a diner or some other use and integrated into a new development. The rest of the block; I'm not seeing it. Again, I have read about and seen the buildings that have been lost and get the significance of those losses. I think your point about there not relatively be much left does hits home, but again buildings like those on Main east of 420 West Main are not comparable.

I'm just spit-balling here, but I think for private development to be blocked in the name of preservation of an existing structure, the reasons and standards need to be substantial. The building preserved should:

1. Not present a public safety hazard, and,
2. Be economically viable for occupancy, and,
3. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, historical significance to the local community, or,
4. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, architectural significance to the local community.

I'm sure the standards are well defined somewhere, and when I get more time, perhaps I do better research on what those standards may be. But, this dialog is mostly opinion based it seems, and that is where I am looking at this topic at the moment.

For some, or me at least, I am more than okay with demolition for a better or higher use and if they were proposing this tower on just the carpenter square area or heck even on the hotel black corner but it had parking built into it base then it would be a whole different story. Yet, how can anyone say this is what we want our downtown to turn into. Parking garages taking up almost half of every block doesn't promote growth or a fun walkable environment. For me, its more that Hines and Pickard are willing to say the block has to be this way because those building don't fit into their plans and that should settle any debate. Especially when there are projects all around the country that prove this to be false. Every block needs to have a purpose and in 5 years who wants to look at this block and conclude that its purpose was large parking garages.
Also, when Preftake is quoted as " I won't raze the buss station" you kinda expect there to be at least some more original plans than a large parking garage with some blue "deco" tiles on it honoring the structure. I keep waiting for Steve to have a comment from him on his current involvement in the block but it seems he and Rainey Williams are holed up in Vast or somewhere plotting their next blocks to monopolize.

Besides all the buildings being functional (even if needing upgrades, which is nothing surprising for older buildings), particular to historical periods that are barely present in OKC, and the new design being a terrible use of space due to the angle and parking garages, there's also a case to be made that "Older and smaller buildings and a wide range in building age offer real economic and social benefits for neighborhoods and urban centers...": Jane Jacobs was right | Better! Cities & Towns Online (http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/robert-steuteville/21383/jane-jacobs-was-right)

For some, or me at least, I am more than okay with demolition for a better or higher use and if they were proposing this tower on just the carpenter square area or heck even on the hotel black corner but it had parking built into it base then it would be a whole different story. Yet, how can anyone say this is what we want our downtown to turn into. Parking garages taking up almost half of every block doesn't promote growth or a fun walkable environment. For me, its more that Hines and Pickard are willing to say the block has to be this way because those building don't fit into their plans and that should settle any debate. Especially when there are projects all around the country that prove this to be false. Every block needs to have a purpose and in 5 years who wants to look at this block and conclude that its purpose was large parking garages.
Also, when Preftake is quoted as " I won't raze the buss station" you kinda expect there to be at least some more original plans than a large parking garage with some blue "deco" tiles on it honoring the structure. I keep waiting for Steve to have a comment from him on his current involvement in the block but it seems he and Rainey Williams are holed up in Vast or somewhere plotting their next blocks to monopolize.

Agreed. I wouldn't be as upset about what we are losing if we were gaining something worthy of the demolition. the actual building footprint is small and could easily fit without losing all those structures. however parking garages with 20ft deep "retail" spaces is what we are getting. I don't think you would hear nearly as much chatter on this if we indeed were getting a better building with integrated parking and not a block of garages.

^^ Exactly. Especially on a street the streetcar is going to go in front of. It is already going to be fighting an uphill battle in a very car centric city. Yet, when you realize who is truly behind this project Devon; Larry Nicholos) it is no wonder the Myriad garden is the focal point and planning for an 100 million investment is on the back burner.

I'm just spit-balling here, but I think for private development to be blocked in the name of preservation of an existing structure, the reasons and standards need to be substantial. The building preserved should:

1. Not present a public safety hazard, and,
2. Be economically viable for occupancy, and,
3. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, historical significance to the local community, or,
4. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, architectural significance to the local community.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Could be easily argued for a yes.
4. Could be easily argued for a yes.

For some, or me at least, I am more than okay with demolition for a better or higher use and if they were proposing this tower on just the carpenter square area or heck even on the hotel black corner but it had parking built into it base then it would be a whole different story. Yet, how can anyone say this is what we want our downtown to turn into. Parking garages taking up almost half of every block doesn't promote growth or a fun walkable environment. For me, its more that Hines and Pickard are willing to say the block has to be this way because those building don't fit into their plans and that should settle any debate. Especially when there are projects all around the country that prove this to be false. Every block needs to have a purpose and in 5 years who wants to look at this block and conclude that its purpose was large parking garages.
Also, when Preftake is quoted as " I won't raze the buss station" you kinda expect there to be at least some more original plans than a large parking garage with some blue "deco" tiles on it honoring the structure. I keep waiting for Steve to have a comment from him on his current involvement in the block but it seems he and Rainey Williams are holed up in Vast or somewhere plotting their next blocks to monopolize.

I think this is more the issue with most people. Its less of demolition of historic structures and more of whats replacing them, giant, unappealing, cold, concrete parking garages. This block doesnt necessarily need the old bus station or carpenter square to make a pleasant urban area, but it most definitely doesnt get to a pleasant urban area with mountains of parking garages with little to no retail space.

This could be posted in any number of threads, but I feel its best served and discussed here due to the ongoing discussion of cars and parking garages
5 signs America is falling in love with public transit - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/travel/public-transportation-ridership-increasing/?cid=homepage-ob-gc&iref=obnetwork)

There is the problem jccouger - OKC is so late to the urbanization party they missed the part where they are planning a city for a society that won't exist in the near future. These parking garages are 30 years too late but OKC civic leaders are so far behind the times our mass transit system will also be 30 years too late. I am reminded of the line in the Starsky and Hutch movie when Huggie Bear asks why do all that chasing and running around when you can just go straight to the finish line. In other words, plan for the world we are entering, not the one we are leaving.

better late than never.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Could be easily argued for a yes.
4. Could be easily argued for a yes.

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

These particular buildings were built with methods that will never be used again. They were built well. They are not ground breaking architecture. As has been repeated before, downtown Oklahoma City has a glutton of undeveloped space. Why tear down functionally non-obsolete buildings when a better solution can be had. These buildings became vacant because they were purchased and not available to the market. My biggest complaint is that the west side of the Core Business District might soon be known as the Core Garage District.

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

That could be an impressive block if the historical architecture was restored and revitalized. Picture the Bus Station as a 24-hour diner and One North Hudson and Motor Hotel as loft apartments. Then picture new, 2-3 story development on the surface parking with some retail/restaurants on the first floor and maybe more apartments above that. That would be a nice, urban block. However, razing it and building a tower as proposed would be better than just leaving it as is. The problem for preservationists especially in OKC is finding a deep pocketed developer to revitalize some of these old properties. It seems like these properties always end up either in the hands of a national developer who doesn't care and is content just sitting on them, or a local developer who has ambition but lacks the funds to realize that ambition. We all know how difficult it has been securing a deal at First National for crying out loud, let alone these smaller, lesser known properties.

Not to mention the State Capitol of our state is crumbling and now has been discovered to have cracks in the "new" dome that was installed in 2002. Pieces literally falling down through the ceiling into people's offices. It even was a debate to find money to allocate to this.

Adding a few more floors to this box will not make it too costly. Adding a few more creative looks on the "skin" will not be too costly. Making the crown into a creative statement, will not be too costly. So why not have a 600 ft tower that makes a statement too ? ...the cost of having too many garages and not enough TOWER, is the real $ ? There is a reason why the other cities have large towers, that is when they reach the ROI point. ...more tenants to pay it back.

Why the name change soondoc?

Why the name change soondoc?

I thought DocThunder's post sounded a lot like soondoc.

Like I said before, I fear our old enemy has returned under a new name. Let's combine old and new screen names into one. No one will notice.

Maybe they should just let the hole block sit like it is for another 5-10 years. Then people would be begging for them to build what they have proposed.

It's only been sitting like it is because the buyer got rid of the tenants.

Of course, when this is built most of the block will be a "hole" in the urban fabric.

Having a large development is great. I'm for it. I saw this and like some of their ideas at street level and the incorporation of the existing structures.

Bustler: JAHN-Designed Japan Post Tower to Open in Tokyo (http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/jahn-designed_japan_post_tower_to_open_in_tokyo)

I think your point about there not relatively be much left does hits home, but again buildings like those on Main east of 420 West Main are not comparable.

Well, yeah, if you take a look at what we have torn down, it does not compare. We're kind of getting down to the last remnants. But even more so than individual buildings, the most striking thing that was lost was a vibrant urban center as a whole. The case could easily be made that this block is historically significant because, when taken as a whole, it is a mostly intact block that represents downtown Oklahoma City's past as an functioning urban center. From a macro view, the motivation for saving the block is more like saving the corner stone of a grand building that is being torn down. We're probably never going to fully realize that fully integrated and vibrant downtown that developed organically we once had, especially when whole blocks are still developed in this way, but we might be able to have a real reminder of what Oklahoma City once was without having to check some books out at a library.


I'm just spit-balling here, but I think for private development to be blocked in the name of preservation of an existing structure, the reasons and standards need to be substantial. The building preserved should:

1. Not present a public safety hazard, and,
2. Be economically viable for occupancy, and,
3. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, historical significance to the local community, or,
4. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, architectural significance to the local community.

I'm sure the standards are well defined somewhere, and when I get more time, perhaps I do better research on what those standards may be. But, this dialog is mostly opinion based it seems, and that is where I am looking at this topic at the moment.

I agree, this is largely based on opinion. There are many people whose opinion is formed more by what downtown looks like from the freeway than what it's actually like to spend time there. There are many that focus on the short term perspective and believe that building something, anything, is always the best course of action with no consideration for opportunity costs. Clearly those that have the money to buy and develop entire blocks of the city have a different opinion of what Oklahoma City could be than I do. And really, I'm even uncomfortable with forcing them to restore buildings or change their plans after they've already invested in it. If anything, I just try and voice my opinions about developments as they happen more so to express what I think should be done in the future when the next super block is proposed or maybe to inspire future policies that guide development before the design process ever begins.

In general, I tend to try and consider downtown as a cumulative development project, like most would view their neighborhood. Most would be concerned about what is built in their neighborhood and how it affects the overall quality of life, property value, and aesthetic of where they live. To me, this is kind of the same thing on a larger scale. Most would not want to see 5 homes torn down in their neighborhood, so that one large house could be built on 2 of the lots and the other three lots be used for a 10 car garage. Then, if this were being done in an older neighborhood with 70-100 year old houses like Crown Heights or Heritage Hills and the houses were occupied before the buyer purchased them, it would probably draw the attention of people outside of the community as well. This is more or less what's happening here, but on a larger scale, in my opinion.

Still, so many garages.

The cox will be almost 50 years old when the time for demo comes. Maybe we should save it?

This fight is already over. The votes are there for demo

The interesting thing about the cox center as an example is that the same development philosophy that led to the building of that "not-worthy-of-saving" monolith is very much at work with this development.

These particular buildings were built with methods that will never be used again. They were built well. They are not ground breaking architecture. As has been repeated before, downtown Oklahoma City has a glutton of undeveloped space. Why tear down functionally non-obsolete buildings when a better solution can be had. These buildings became vacant because they were purchased and not available to the market. My biggest complaint is that the west side of the Core Business District might soon be known as the Core Garage District.

That would be a cool guerrilla urbanism thing. Put up bogus wayfinding signs to the "Garage District" or "Parking District". Not that I would do this or encourage it. But if it happened, I would giggle.

Yes and if they don't build this project it will prob. be sitting some more.

I agree there needs to be more to this project but if I have to make a choice of what is just sitting there now or their project I think I would take what they are offering. Why? Because it's better than a bunch of building sitting there rotting away.

and if we have to say "Fine build your garages" which I am sure is the pill we have to swallow.. then why can't the bottom actually be useable space for lease. as it is they are trying to pass it off as that but clearly that is now what is being built.. something more like the Main street garage with actual useable for lease space and then ACTUALLY lease it!

I want this project, my desire is for them to make a couple of easy up-grades. :Smiley199

I'd be happy with this project if parking took up floors 2-13 or so of the tower, the angle was fixed, and one (just one) historic building is saved. This all is very doable.

I'd be happy with this project if parking took up floors 2-13 or so of the tower, the angle was fixed, and one (just one) historic building is saved. This all is very doable.

Amen. I wish it could be that simple. But, in today's world, I guess, nothing can be simple.

Keep in mind the more these types of projects are allowed/approved, the less likely anything is ever going to change.

We've already seen this happen with the demolitions... Once the SandRidge thing was approved, on what grounds can the deny the same type of request from Hines or anyone else?