If this was a real and unusual event how come I don't see any of this on any national media? I would think MSNBC would be all over this 24/7 wall to wall commercial free.

The crazy thing about all this is that most of you acting like it was grave sin for the Skirvin to deny President Obama would probably be supporting the hotel's decision if this happened to George W. Bush.

We really need to stop putting political leaders on pedestals in this country. The King is coming to town. You peasants be gone we must prepare the rooms...... PLEASE.

In my book they are people just like the rest of that should be wooing us instead of us wooing them. A couple of years from now a presidential visit is not going to make a real difference for any hotel. Sure they can put some pictures up and wall plaques to honor the event but, most people really don't care about that.

Wife: Hey look honey, President Obama stayed here back in 2013.
Husband: Well how about that.
Kids: Do they have a pool? Do they have Wi-Fi?
Husband: Yes, let's go get check in.

In the end, it matters about as much as Garth Brooks name on Cemetery Road or Toby Keith's name on the old Smile America water tower in Moore. (I miss that by the way.)

I am not Pro Obama or Bush. I am just looking at the fact that the argument is crying over spilt milk. In the end you pay the price for either decision. Deny the president a stay during his visit. or Ship a regular customer over to the Motel 6. (That's all that is available because all the other high end hotels are booked.) One will cost you grief from local media and local political supporters in the short term. or Lose a big money client who comes in and books every couple of months and spends a lot of money in the hotel.

Nope.

Oh how I long for the days when folks argued whether the place was haunted or not.

MODS — Since this discussion has devolved into a political one, perhaps the relevant politically slanted posts can be moved to a separate thread residing in the Politics section. Thank you.

Only read page 8 and it was making me mad that you're going to deny the POTUS, regardless of who it is BUT it sounds like they had no choice. To take a whole floor of rooms is a pretty big deal and I wouldn't want to displace my current customers or cancel future guest accommodations for other guests. Then again, if this were a planned trip by the POTUS this should never have happened. Basketball teams can stay anywhere. Maybe for the once in a lifetime pleasure of hosting a President, the Skirvin should work in accord with another downtown hotel to accommodate those future displacements when someone as important as The President comes into town on a planned trip.



Pretty sure two terms is the limit for Presidents.

he WAS here for fundraising, his first visit to Seattle since being re-elected. He attended two dinners (so the news said) where funds were raised for the Democratic Party. He stayed overnight (at the Westin Hotel, Seattle) and then flew to SF for a luncheon and speech about Immigration before ending in LA for more fundraising.

Interesting point that he stayed at the Westin which is NOT our best hotel. Really, most dignitaries and wealth stay at the Fairmont Olympic or perhaps the Sorrento Hotel (both near 5 star properties), Westin Seattle is not too much better than the Sheraton OKC imo. My opinion, even Sheraton Seattle is better than Westin Seattle. Sorry for my thinking aloud but - Maybe the President is trying to save a little bit of money by staying at 4 star and 3.5 star properties; and maybe we/I made to much of a fuss about him not staying at the Skirvin after all.?

The White House informed the governers office 3 days before

Is three the new two?

he WAS here for fundraising, his first visit to Seattle since being re-elected. He attended two dinners (so the news said) where funds were raised for the Democratic Party. He stayed overnight (at the Westin Hotel, Seattle) and then flew to SF for a luncheon and speech about Immigration before ending in LA for more fundraising.

Interesting point that he stayed at the Westin which is NOT our best hotel. Really, most dignitaries and wealth stay at the Fairmont Olympic or perhaps the Sorrento Hotel (both near 5 star properties), Westin Seattle is not too much better than the Sheraton OKC imo. My opinion, even Sheraton Seattle is better than Westin Seattle. Sorry for my thinking aloud but - Maybe the President is trying to save a little bit of money by staying at 4 star and 3.5 star properties; and maybe we/I made to much of a fuss about him not staying at the Skirvin after all.?
It must have been because the Fairmont and/or Sorrento are racist.

Cute

Oh, a little Internet search uncovers the truth. Sorry, BoulderSooner, your "couple of days notice" canard is upended. The following archived link shows the White House announced its visit to Oklahoma on March 16, 2012, and the president arrived in OKC on March 22. That's almost a full week's notice. I guess we can't expect a hotel to move that quickly to accommodate the leader of the free world.

President Obama to Travel to Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Ohio to Highlight American Made Energy | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/president-obama-travel-nevada-new-mexico-oklahoma-and-ohio-highlight-ame)

Oh, a little Internet search uncovers the truth. Sorry, BoulderSooner, your "couple of days notice" canard is upended. The following archived link shows the White House announced its visit to Oklahoma on March 16, 2012, and the president arrived in OKC on March 22. That's almost a full week's notice. I guess we can't expect a hotel to move that quickly to accommodate the leader of the free world.

President Obama to Travel to Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Ohio to Highlight American Made Energy | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/president-obama-travel-nevada-new-mexico-oklahoma-and-ohio-highlight-ame)

again .. i don't really care how long beforehand that trip was planned the skirvin was full and it is not a bad thing that they put their customers first .. ...

I would bet money that it was something more mundane than politics or racism (the latter I think is particularly laughable). It's entirely possible that they were for whatever reason concerned that they couldn't pull it off properly. It might have had to do with personnel issues, or management upheaval, or any number of things that might have seemed insurmountable to them at the time.

About the only thing I could imagine worse from a hotel's standpoint than having to turn down a Presidential stay would be embarrassing your property by providing a President with a BAD stay AND inconveniencing other guests in the bargain. I have no idea what the reasons were, but I would suspect that they were fairly innocuous. I'm guessing it wasn't an easy decision, and that it wasn't taken lightly. I'm also guessing that it is a fairly common occurrence in Presidential travel...as evidenced by the post regarding the recent visit to Seattle.

again .. i don't really care how long beforehand that trip was planned the skirvin was full and it is not a bad thing that they put their customers first .. ...

How [church lady voice] C-O-N-V-E-N-I-E-N-T [/church lady voice].

;)

I am not sure why this is still being discussed. There are several people on here (myself included) who don't think it's a big deal that the Skirvin didn't go out of their way (meaning cancelling multiple rooms and relocating dozens of people) on a weeks notice to house the President. There are others who think it is absolutely disgusting that the Skirvin didn't go out of their way to cancel multiple rooms and relocate dozens of people to house the President. None of you are going to convince me you are right. I am not going to convince any of you that you are right. Why don't we all just move along?

Has anyone stayed at the Skirvin? How's the breakfast?

How [church lady voice] C-O-N-V-E-N-I-E-N-T [/church lady voice].

;)

Not that it matters but the 3 days White House notice comes from Governor on vacation during President Obama's visit - FOX23 News (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Governor-on-vacation-during-President-Obamas-visit/vHssx-JALEmqIcSuOvVa4g.cspx)

Not that it matters but the 3 days White House notice comes from Governor on vacation during President Obama's visit - FOX23 News (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Governor-on-vacation-during-President-Obamas-visit/vHssx-JALEmqIcSuOvVa4g.cspx)

Poor Mary. She doesn't have access to nationally published AP articles. And she had to be in Puerto Rico. It's tough.

Sooner keeps trying to make this a racist thing, but he can't back it up with anything other than inference.

The facts known to us are few, but the most relevant is that the Skirvin decided not to accommodate the presidential party which stayed elsewhere. I am with most others who have said they'd accommodate the party if it didn't mean cancelling reservations of arriving guests and moving guests who were already in place.

As with other discussions which apply limited information to criticize business owners for their decisions, this one at 400+ posts has run its course.

This argument is beyond old......please move on.

Sooner keeps trying to make this a racist thing, but he can't back it up with anything other than inference.

The facts known to us are few, but the most relevant is that the Skirvin decided not to accommodate the presidential party which stayed elsewhere. I am with most others who have said they'd accommodate the party if it didn't mean cancelling reservations of arriving guests and moving guests who were already in place.

As with other discussions which apply limited information to criticize business owners for their decisions, this one at 400+ posts has run its course.

WTF are you talking about? I have never said or implied it's racist. Can you read?

I have said it's disappointing. I have said we have no idea why they didn't accommodate the president. Again, learn to read.

Sooner, in your post 343 you included text from a previous post and introduced the subject of race: "Yes and in a hotel with a history of racism." As I wrote in 345 all hotels that age are guilty of what we now consider racist acts. Nevertheless, you bring it up in this thread which has nothing to do with racism, and pin it on the Skirvin.

Instead of my learning to read, you might remember what you've written.

Agreed.

Sooner, in your post 343 you included text from a previous post and introduced the subject of race: "Yes and in a hotel with a history of racism." As I wrote in 345 all hotels that age are guilty of what we now consider racist acts. Nevertheless, you bring it up in this thread which has nothing to do with racism, and pin it on the Skirvin.

Instead of my learning to read, you might remember what you've written.

The hotel's racist past is well documented. You'll note I also said several times I have no idea why the president wasn't accommodated.

To add, I seriously doubt it was racism. I think it was probably stupidity -- but possibly also politics. The "history of racism" was brought up by Steve, and it's true. As Steve pointed out, hosting the nation's first black president would be a way to confront the history straight on. Conversely, denying the president does not aid in rewriting that history. Is this too complicated for you to understand, or do you just wish to pick a fight? Do you work for the Skirvin? Are you buddies with the departed management?

Perhaps you are the one who thinks the hotel is racist, because you keep trying to inject that into the conversation, when I have said repeatedly that I have no idea why the president wasn't accommodated.

Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I think, again, that it was most likely that they just weren't prepared to host such a visit and didn't want to display it to everyone. The fact that there has been a bit of leadership turmoil over the past several years demonstrates that they haven't been hitting on all cylinders over that period organizationally, though I am unaware of any significant customer service issues. I also think the absence of quality nearby properties on the Hilton reservation system and/or ownership group. Are you going to relocate the upscale/NBA/special occasion guests that typically stay at the Skirvin to the Hampton Inn? I love the Hampton, but if I was expecting the Skirvin, I'm not sure I would love it as much. Or perhaps move them to NW Expressway or NW 63rd and Penn? Maybe those properties were full? Where to next? I strongly suspect it was strictly a(n easily-to-criticize) business decision, which is the simplest and most likely explanation, especially in light of the fact that it apparently happens from time to time in other cities, too. Seriously, seems like a dead horse.

Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I think, again, that it was most likely that they just weren't prepared to host such a visit and didn't want to display it to everyone. The fact that there has been a bit of leadership turmoil over the past several years demonstrates that they haven't been hitting on all cylinders over that period organizationally, though I am unaware of any significant customer service issues. I also think the absence of quality nearby properties on the Hilton reservation system and/or ownership group. Are you going to relocate the upscale/NBA/special occasion guests that typically stay at the Skirvin to the Hampton Inn? I love the Hampton, but if I was expecting the Skirvin, I'm not sure I would love it as much. Or perhaps move them to NW Expressway or NW 63rd and Penn? Maybe those properties were full? Where to next? I strongly suspect it was strictly a(n easily-to-criticize) business decision, which is the simplest and most likely explanation, especially in light of the fact that it apparently happens from time to time in other cities, too. Seriously, seems like a dead horse.

Yeah, seriously. It happened over a year ago.... Get over it. They couldn't or didn't want to host the president, their loss, nothing more.

Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I think, again, that it was most likely that they just weren't prepared to host such a visit and didn't want to display it to everyone. The fact that there has been a bit of leadership turmoil over the past several years demonstrates that they haven't been hitting on all cylinders over that period organizationally, though I am unaware of any significant customer service issues. I also think the absence of quality nearby properties on the Hilton reservation system and/or ownership group. Are you going to relocate the upscale/NBA/special occasion guests that typically stay at the Skirvin to the Hampton Inn? I love the Hampton, but if I was expecting the Skirvin, I'm not sure I would love it as much. Or perhaps move them to NW Expressway or NW 63rd and Penn? Maybe those properties were full? Where to next? I strongly suspect it was strictly a(n easily-to-criticize) business decision, which is the simplest and most likely explanation, especially in light of the fact that it apparently happens from time to time in other cities, too. Seriously, seems like a dead horse.

You are probably right.

Yeah, seriously. It happened over a year ago.... Get over it. They couldn't or didn't want to host the president, their loss, nothing more.

Thank you, but I'll get over it at the time of my choosing.

Thank you, but I'll get over it at the time of my choosing.

If it bothers you that much, you need to find a hobby.

I'm going to agree with soonerguru. It's embarrassing for OKC's premier hotel to not host the President. I doubt it's race-related, since NBA teams have a surfeit of melanin. But they were either unable to host the President, or they were unwilling. If they were unable, then it is a problem because that's something every hotel should dream of. It's like being unable to perform in bed with a supermodel. "I'm sorry, this has never happened before." Get your act together, man. If they were unwilling, then that's a whole different issue and is even worse. It is a negative reflection on OKC at that point, and I say this as a person who voted against Obama twice.

I'm going to agree with soonerguru. It's embarrassing for OKC's premier hotel to not host the President. I doubt it's race-related, since NBA teams have a surfeit of melanin. But they were either unable to host the President, or they were unwilling. If they were unable, then it is a problem because that's something every hotel should dream of. It's like being unable to perform in bed with a supermodel. "I'm sorry, this has never happened before." Get your act together, man. If they were unwilling, then that's a whole different issue and is even worse. It is a negative reflection on OKC at that point, and I say this as a person who voted against Obama twice.

I too doubt it is race related, but I think it may be related to his politics. The owners should have taken the hotel's history and the city's history into account and used the event to make a statement that times have changed but they chose not to for whatever reason. OKC has the outside perception of being a city of right wing extremists and unfriendly to anybody left of the extreme right, and the fact the Skirvin denied the President simply re-enforces that perception. If Bush would have been denied a room in San Francisco's premier hotel during his presidency, I would immediately think the reason would have to be political due to the extreme nature of the politics in that city. This is important because if OKC is to ever become a boomtown like most of us want to see, it has to shake the national perception that you must be a hard-core social conservative to survive here, and our premier hotel denying the President is not a very good start.

P.S. I voted against Obama both times.

Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I think, again, that it was most likely that they just weren't prepared to host such a visit and didn't want to display it to everyone. The fact that there has been a bit of leadership turmoil over the past several years demonstrates that they haven't been hitting on all cylinders over that period organizationally, though I am unaware of any significant customer service issues. I also think the absence of quality nearby properties on the Hilton reservation system and/or ownership group. Are you going to relocate the upscale/NBA/special occasion guests that typically stay at the Skirvin to the Hampton Inn? I love the Hampton, but if I was expecting the Skirvin, I'm not sure I would love it as much. Or perhaps move them to NW Expressway or NW 63rd and Penn? Maybe those properties were full? Where to next? I strongly suspect it was strictly a(n easily-to-criticize) business decision, which is the simplest and most likely explanation, especially in light of the fact that it apparently happens from time to time in other cities, too. Seriously, seems like a dead horse.

I guess Napoleon was ahead of his time: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I think this is the right thread to post this.

Looks like the Skirvin Hilton's owners are planning to replace the original tile in the lobby. Steve has a story today but I can't read it because I don't have premium access.

Coincidentally, I was in the Skirvin yesterday and the first thing I noticed was the cracked, unsightly tile in the entry way. I know it's original but it looks pretty bad.

The article just says they can't find replacements and therefore they are looking at replacing it entirely.

It seems they've done all they could do but most people would never know it was historic, just that it looks lousy.

Bronze marker that calls attention to the tile (and other building elements) as historic, and explains why they have been retained. Problem solved, and for a fraction of the price. :D

Haven't read Steve's piece yet, but I recall that the reason W.B. Skirvin installed that tile rather than the rich carpets typical of the era was that he wanted ranchers and oilmen to not feel self-conscious when they entered his hotel with mud on their boots. I think that is an interesting and compelling story related to OKC's formative years, and it would be shame to see that history ripped out.

I should have taken a picture because it really is pretty bad. Like I said, it hit me the moment I stepped in yesterday.


The worse part is that it is just plan white tile that looks out of place completely independent of its condition.

I'm quite sure that when/if it's ripped out, they will go with something completely different.

Strategic blighting of their own historic property that now they have to rip out? Never heard of that happening downtown before.

Just something else to consider as they rankle for more public subsidy.

There's a lot of water under the bridge, so other than that, who cares about one single historic feature in OKC...

Skirvin Hilton in Oklahoma City to remove original tiles in lobby | News OK (http://newsok.com/skirvin-hilton-in-oklahoma-city-to-remove-original-tiles-in-lobby/article/5413657)

I've been wanting this to happen for some time. Appreciate the effort to restore the original tiles, but they always detracted from the lobby. This will be a welcome improvement.

11037

Saw this was what skirvin was suppose to be like. Not sure if it has been posted here before but I had never seen it

^
that's not the skirvin hotel, it's the skirvin tower.

this is what it looked like when built:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5148Di0bboL.jpg

this is what it looks like today:
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtown/62.jpg

^

That is actually for the building directly west of the Skrivin, first known as Skirvin Tower and now named 101 Park Avenue.

It was originally designed to be much taller, then in the 80's the owners proposed building it to that height, but it never happened.

Sometime in the 70's they covered the facade with the reflective glass.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/101park1.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/1682d1337358071-101-park-avenue-101park6.jpg

Can they go back to that? :)

So that's the building with BC Clark in it right?

That is actually for the building directly west of the Skrivin, first known as Skirvin Tower and now named 101 Park Avenue.

It was originally designed to be much taller, then in the 80's the owners proposed building it to that height, but it never happened.

What did happen though is they added another elevator shaft to the building to extend to the additional 14 floors to be added. But that's as far as the expansion went.

Is the original facade still under the glass? Would it be possible to restore it?

I would also love it if somehow the original Hotel Skirvin sign could be restored on top of the hotel and lit up. If they could restore the sign at Midtown Plaza Court, they could restore this.

http://www.skirvinhilton.com/images-oklahoma-city/headers/historic-downtown-hotel.jpg

Pretty sure that sign was not original; just early.

https://photos-1.dropbox.com/t/2/AABInSvGAW1NP959plQeMwU2fwBu83RpaPrkjUK1zuVViw/12/9322497/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/SkirvinTower.jpg/CIGAuQQgASACIAMgBCAFIAYgBygB/g9FBg3GOWCVVrSfnIPlE0crMZLuL5dq3c1lLb-FB1zU?size=1280x960&size_mode=2

^

That is actually for the building directly west of the Skrivin, first known as Skirvin Tower and now named 101 Park Avenue.

It was originally designed to be much taller, then in the 80's the owners proposed building it to that height, but it never happened.

Sometime in the 70's they covered the facade with the reflective glass.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/101park1.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/1682d1337358071-101-park-avenue-101park6.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/CourtHFidelity.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/renewall-62.jpg~original

So that's a big fat "no" on "can they put it back"

It took some incredible cultural arrogance to make a change like that.

It took some incredible cultural arrogance to make a change like that.

What do you mean? It looks so much better now.........................

It took some incredible cultural arrogance to make a change like that.

I thought this was the Skirvin thread. Discussion of current development projects should be posted elsewhere.

I thought this was the Skirvin thread. Discussion of current development projects should be posted elsewhere.

Ouch. 499 just got burned.

Sorry officer.

What do you mean? It looks so much better now.........................

I actually like the newer look better myself, but it did have elements that would have been nice to keep. It was one of the sacrifices made to bring what (at the time) made the building look "old", into the "modern" era (of that time)....all happening before that "old" look was old enough to be historic.

It's funny people gripe about this though because we hear the same people on this forum say that they want the Cotter Ranch Tower to re-façade like the similar structure in Indianapolis did. But I bet you in another 20-30 years, we'll be looking at the CRT as an icon of the International Style. You can definitely say this for OKC, we have a pretty mix of styles from varying eras....far more than a city of our size should....and that's a GREAT thing!

I've personally never said Cotter Ranch Tower should be re-skinned. I think a building should be representative of the time in which it was built. I'm very consistent in this regard. I don't believe any true HP advocates would support re-skinning CRT, either. Spare us your generalities.

It is interesting to see the different takes on architecture. I prefer vernacular architecture that conforms to 'place' instead of 'time'.

I've personally never said Cotter Ranch Tower should be re-skinned. I think a building should be representative of the time in which it was built. I'm very consistent in this regard. I don't believe any true HP advocates would support re-skinning CRT, either. Spare us your generalities.

I personally don't think Cotter Ranch Tower should be re-skined. That style is very representative of what was considered "big city" in the 1970s and 1980s. I really wish they would fix the half-working illumination or just turn it off because right now its an embarrassment.

It is interesting to see the different takes on architecture. I prefer vernacular architecture that conforms to 'place' instead of 'time'.

You use the term wrong. If OKC employed vernacular architecture the buildings would all be made of bison skins, plowed and stacked sod, or MAYBE red clay brick.

In previous posts, you've indicated a predilection for Art Deco. It's apparently the style with which you feel most comfortable. However, just because a lot of the buildings in the history of downtown OKC happened to be Art Deco doesn't mean that is an architectural language specific to OKC. It just means a lot of building was going on here during the Deco period. That is a dialogue with a specific time in OKC. But it is not an OKC-specific style; nor does it speak to materials or traditions native to this area. Similar buildings went up all over the U.S.

Simply put, you do indeed prefer architecture that speaks to a particular time - NOT to a place - but your taste is just stuck in the 1920s and 1930s.

This will be a substantial remodel:

OKCTalk - Skirvin to get major refresh (http://www.okctalk.com/content/200-skirvin-get-major-refresh.html)

Hope they have the bar remodel done before the playoffs or they could take a big $$ hit.