That was in a different era. If the Biltmore had survived until 2011, there is no chance it would have been imploded, Sandridge or not.

Well, it was. So you're trying to say that today we only implode dozens of little historic buildings? The problem with that argument is that they're getting bigger and bolder.

Hate to harp, but every time I think of Sandridge de-constructing the India Temple Building from the inside out it makes my skin crawl. They have created such a huge amount of bad feelings among many people and, in corporate terms, missed out on huge amounts of good will had they preserved it and made it an overall part of their re-development plans. However, the past is past and there is little to do about it now except sell all of your Sandridge shares and be as vigilant as the Inquisition for new attempts at the wholesale destruction of Oklahoma's history.

Back to the FNC though........ what was the question again?

Oh yes, it was a question of who is prepared to chain ourselves bodily to the building once it is declared too insignificant to put an ounce of thought or a moment of patience into saving.

Hate to harp, but every time I think of Sandridge de-constructing the India Temple Building from the inside out it makes my skin crawl. They have created such a huge amount of bad feelings among many people and, in corporate terms, missed out on huge amounts of good will had they preserved it and made it an overall part of their re-development plans. However, the past is past and there is little to do about it now except sell all of your Sandridge shares and be as vigilant as the Inquisition for new attempts at the wholesale destruction of Oklahoma's history.

Back to the FNC though........ what was the question again?

Oh yes, it was a question of who is prepared to chain ourselves bodily to the building once it is declared too insignificant to put an ounce of thought or a moment of patience into saving.

Wow... you need help

Hate to harp, but every time I think of Sandridge de-constructing the India Temple Building from the inside out it makes my skin crawl. They have created such a huge amount of bad feelings among many people and, in corporate terms, missed out on huge amounts of good will had they preserved it and made it an overall part of their re-development plans. However, the past is past and there is little to do about it now except sell all of your Sandridge shares and be as vigilant as the Inquisition for new attempts at the wholesale destruction of Oklahoma's history.

Back to the FNC though........ what was the question again?

Oh yes, it was a question of who is prepared to chain ourselves bodily to the building once it is declared too insignificant to put an ounce of thought or a moment of patience into saving.

Perhaps everyone with the passion you exhibit should, instead of chaining yourselves to the building, should use the same determination to find and convince an investor that it has the same commercial value you and others believe it has. Without a white knight it will continue to fall more and more into disrepair and be vulnerable to the possibility of destruction or of becoming a blight in the center of the core.

Well, it was. So you're trying to say that today we only implode dozens of little historic buildings? The problem with that argument is that they're getting bigger and bolder.

I don't think they are getting bigger and bolder - many of the problems and gaps in the core are the result of "big and bold" actions of 4 decades ago. The glass half full view is that there is more private money being invested in downtown OKC than at any time in its history. We finally have a few leaders willing to make investments, both as corporations and as individuals. There is more discussion on the construction of OKC than at any time in its history. Yes, there are differences of opinion, but there is far less apathy than we have seen in 50 years.

The glass half full view is that there is more private money being invested in downtown OKC than at any time in its history.

The funny thing about this is that it means nothing if all of that money is spent in ways that don't necessarily improve downtown. It's undeniable that we're still waiting for thousands of housing units to be proposed any time now... just waiting and waiting, lol. To me it would be even more disappointing to get bad results by spending a LOT than to get bad results but not really spending a lot anyway. So that definitely doesn't make it "feel" any better.

But I think that we can find common ground on my previous statement anyway. It's hard to deny that the proposals to destroy historic buildings are getting bolder and bigger. SandRidge took down two worthy historic buildings, which they got away with by packaging them with ones that we would all love to see gone. Keep in mind that this is a saga that first started with anger over some buildings on the north side of downtown and in Bricktown being demolished without a whole lot of prior warning.

Now everything between Main Street and 2nd Street was briefly under attack by the Skirvin until today. That was a proposal that very nonchalantly recommended the destruction of at least 7 historic buildings at once, off the top of my head.

Could the Stage Center have a target on it? What about the Preftakes block, if rumors are true? Oh and we also just destroyed (I'd say demolished, but there was the matter of the suspicious fire, on a bldg that was proposed for demolition already) the last historic storefront in the Asian District..

What about C2S? Very few historic buildings down there, but there are still a few, esp. on Robinson and on SW 3rd. Currently the plan is to see all of these wiped away, because there's not enough vacant land down there, apparently.

And this is by no means a comprehensive list, but already it seems like we've demolished more buildings in the last 2 years than we have saved. I'm not sure what an "ideal" ratio of preserved-to-demolished historic buildings would be, but I imagine our ratio is not it. This is just a list of issues that are still fresh in my mind when I think of how annoyed I am by the general apathy toward historic preservation.

So, what is the measurable criteria which would designate a building of historic or cultural significance? There has to be a set of measurements that doesn't always come down to opinion. And then, the properties, if truly valuable to our city, need to be kept from falling into extreme disrepair in the first place. This is what opens the door to destructionists. There has to be a way to assign VALUE to properties and to identify to WHOM the value rests with.

Well, I think if something has potential to be a good renovation project, it should be kept. The point is we are slowly losing a very special type of building stock that can be adapted to fit the type of space needed for lofts and certain kinds of bars, galleries, offices, etc. It's a special "look" that you can't recreate with new construction, only with renovated historic buildings.

If we're saving buildings only because of cultural significance, then we must not take urban design too seriously. I think when the "creative class" becomes more of a force here, and we are seeing thousands of young grads living downtown, which will surely happen eventually (they can't keep 'em out forever), these will be the most cherished spaces in downtown. That's what's important.

It's not preservation just for the sake of a nice, big word.

Well, it was. So you're trying to say that today we only implode dozens of little historic buildings? The problem with that argument is that they're getting bigger and bolder.

Absolutely not what I said, Spartan.

So, what is the measurable criteria which would designate a building of historic or cultural significance? There has to be a set of measurements that doesn't always come down to opinion. And then, the properties, if truly valuable to our city, need to be kept from falling into extreme disrepair in the first place. This is what opens the door to destructionists. There has to be a way to assign VALUE to properties and to identify to WHOM the value rests with.

I agree. That's part of the inherent problem. Appears each is taken on a case-by-case basis. And it probably should be as not every building that is X years old is necessarily of value/importance. Once it is brought to light that a building does have a "historic significance" (as in the case of the India Temple, it served as the home for the State Legislature for a couple of years) or has cultural significance (as the Little Flower Church in the C2S area). Any and all plans to destroy should be abandoned IMMEDIATELY. The ordinances that exist should be followed/enforced (or why bother having them at all). This was the case with the decision to allow the destruction of the India Temple (ordinance wasn't followed). If an ordinance is overly broad or vague and open to significant interpretation/opinion, the ordinance needs to be corrected so it doesn't happen again.

I agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to fall into disrepair or apparent abandonment to begin with. I suspect the City is limited in what it can do to prevent it from happening. Their only recourse seems to be after it has happened and in some cases beyond repair. Can the City force an owner to occupy the building etc? If so, why didn't they do so with the previous owners of the building? I again suspect they can't otherwise buildings along the Canal wouldn't have remained unoccupied for all of these years.

The problem with the way it stands now, is the owner gets to determine if there is any value to the property. If they are inclined to sell or renovate, they assign value to it. There were parties interested in doing so and a buyer was ready to complete the deal, then before it could be completed, the company changed hands and the deal fell through. Even if people came forward wanting to buy/renovate the building, SandRidge had absolutely no interest in selling it. They stated they wanted it gone to improve the sight lines to their tower. If they sold the building and it remained, they couldn't achieve that goal. If they want to destroy it, they say it has zero value (not unlike the arguments made by both sides concerning the Sonics relocation).

And back to FNC instead of turning this into another Sandridge thread....

I've said it time and time again.....FNC has to correct it's infrastructure problems before ANYTHING is viable there. There is sooooo much wrong with that place in terms of the building's guts. Suites can be torn out and rebuilt, but that doesn't corrent fundamental issues with the services of the building. It's a picture of how things were built in it's time....those methods aren't adequate for today's needs, nor should we have expected anyone at that time to be able to forsee the future's requirements. The computer hadn't even been invented yet when the place was built!

Some major issues to correct - HVAC, Drop Ceilings, Fire Suppression, Electrical, DataComm access, etc. Something else to consider is if you ever want a company of any size to call that tower its home, then there has to be somewhere for a small data center to go. Currently there's aboslutely no way to adequately provide those needs.

does anybody have any pictures of the INSIDE of FNC?

We have seen LOTS of pics of the outside and some of the Great Banking Hall, but what about the inside the office space. Pics of the office space in the tower and 'podium'/additions so we can see the differences and challenges; pics of the bathrooms; pics of the typical office floor and ceiling; pics of the Beacon Club space, pics of the retail locations.

I think, if we could see what's inside - maybe it could help people understand the challenges and just see what it looks like. Especially greatful would be this Expat! Thanks much.

I'd love to do something like this but...I'm just another nobody doing amateur video. Maybe if it was something more "official" looking. They might not want anyone seeing the ugly side of it, but it's like any bad news it's better to see it plainly than to hide it. Anyone who was serious about using space in FNC would have to be shown the ugly details anyway. I wouldn't know how to go about doing the insides of the other buildings either. Perhaps RetroMetroOKC can work something out.

Valuing a landmark: Court hears testimony on First National Center’s worth
By Brianna Bailey
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2847
Posted: 09:22 PM Wednesday, May 18, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge on Wednesday heard dueling testimony on how much downtown’s historic but troubled First National Center is worth and whether the property’s owners can successfully emerge from Chapter 11.

The mortgage holder for the landmark property at 120 N. Robinson Ave. said the three buildings that make up the downtown office and retail center are worth only about $6.7 million – significantly less than the $21 million balance of the note on the property.

Lender Capmark Bank is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Niles Jackson to allow it to continue its foreclosure on the property through the state court system on the grounds that the buildings’ owners have no equity in the property and will not be able to reorganize in bankruptcy court.

Real estate appraiser Darin Dalbom of Integra Realty Resources testified on Wednesday that he appraised First National Center twice in 2010 at Capmark’s request. Each time he arrived at the same conclusion – that the three downtown buildings were worth only about $6.7 million, about $20 million less than the buildings were appraised at only three years earlier.

First National Center suffers from small, irregular floor plates and low ceilings that make the space difficult to lease, Dalbom testified. At least one entire floor of the 33-story art deco First National tower is completely unmarketable to tenants because there is no heating, air conditioning or electricity, he said.

“Some of the space still has shag carpeting and hasn’t been leased since the 1970s,” Dalbom testified.

Capmark Bank also said the buildings’ owners will be unable to emerge from bankruptcy because First National’s largest tenant, Devon Energy Corp., plans to move out when construction is completed on its new 50-story world headquarters a few blocks away.

Devon leases about 41 percent of the occupied space in the First National Center and accounts for about 50 percent of the monthly rental revenue on the property.

First National’s owners won’t even be able to make the annual $1.5 million in debt service on the buildings once Devon moves out, testified Keith Armstrong, a vice president for Capmark.

The partnerships First National Building I and First National Building II, both associated with Los Angeles-based Milbank Real Estate, bought the First National Center in 2006 for $21 million.

First National’s owners said two separate appraisals of the property done in 2007 and 2008 put the center’s value between $25 million and $26 million. The owners have spent more than $8.5 million improving the property over the past five years, including extensive asbestos removal, they said.

James Hoyt, an independent real estate appraiser that First National’s owners called on as a witness, gave an optimistic view of First National’s value.

“I grew up in Oklahoma City and the First National property has always been what we would refer to in the appraisal and real estate business as the No. 1 corner,” Hoyt testified.

Three large independent energy companies are building or moving into new corporate headquarters downtown, bringing more office tenants to the area, he said.

“I believe all of the oil markets coming to downtown Oklahoma City will have a positive impact and attract more tenants to the area,” Hoyt said.

James Hoyt, an independent real estate appraiser that First National’s owners called on as a witness, gave an optimistic view of First National’s value.

“I grew up in Oklahoma City and the First National property has always been what we would refer to in the appraisal and real estate business as the No. 1 corner,” Hoyt testified.

Three large independent energy companies are building or moving into new corporate headquarters downtown, bringing more office tenants to the area, he said.

“I believe all of the oil markets coming to downtown Oklahoma City will have a positive impact and attract more tenants to the area,” Hoyt said.

That part is true, but they are going to move into class A space that is being vacated first. FNC will never be used as an office building again. It is residential or wrecking ball.

I can't see anyone getting away with destroying the First National. But maybe I shouldn't be so optimistic about our standards. Lol.

I can't see anyone getting away with destroying the First National. But maybe I shouldn't be so optimistic about our standards. Lol.

What would the alternative be? Museum of Urban Decay.

Didn't you just answer that yourself? I would guess residential, however unlikely that may be. But honestly, that place is such a landmark, I'd bet it WOULD become the "Museum of Urban Decay" before it was ever destroyed. Good joke though.

Didn't you just answer that yourself? I would guess residential, however unlikely that may be. But honestly, that place is such a landmark, I'd bet it WOULD become the "Museum of Urban Decay" before it was ever destroyed. Good joke though.

Well, now that the Museum of Urban Decay in the Indian Temple Building had to close I guess it is looking for a new home. I wish someone with big bucks would turn FNC into residential instead of trying time after time to keep it as office space.

If the value is less than $10 million then perhaps it can get into the hands of someone who could then afford to make some fundamental changes that weren't possible when the initial investment has to be $25 Million.

I think to convert it to residential would be uber-expensive. A complete mechanical infrastructure would have to be installed.

That part is true, but they are going to move into class A space that is being vacated first. FNC will never be used as an office building again. It is residential or wrecking ball.

There are opportunities other than just residential, but I agree, it isn't going to work in the future as office. Whatever it is, it will need a total renovation. Why keep it as office space in that case?

Rover, that's exactly what I was thinking about the appraisal, but does the bankruptcy court get to set its value at whatever it decides the value is? How does that work? As for the mechanical infrastructure, are you saying that if you keep the building as office, you DON'T have to update the building systems? It seems like the upper floors will have to be completely gutted no matter what. If there is more of a market for hotel rooms or residential than office, why not?

Remember guys, the tower is not quite half the square footage of that complex. There are two other buildings have bigger more open floorplates and aren't saddled with weird restroom configuration. It's true they are ugly! But they could easily converted to Class A or B space, especially since it seems most the asbestos has been removed. And most the retail/arcade space is pretty well leased throughout.

The tower is the space that is problematic but if they could convert the Colcord and parts of City Place to hotels and condos, why not the FNC Tower? With the Great Banking Hall as a lobby, you already have a great amenity that would require very little work.


Rover's point is a good one: if a new investor can acquire the property for a reasonable sum, then they can put more into renovation and still be able to make some money.

If the lender takes it back, they'll eventually sell to the highest bidder and you can be darn sure they aren't going to get $20 million, even with the improvements made by Milbank. You've got to think that is somebody got it for less than $10 million, they could still make some money even after renovation expenses. The downtown market is only going to get better for landlords/investors.

I still think mixed use for some small office tenants, hotel and residential. I wish somebody like Magnolia Hotels (http://www.magnoliahotels.com/brand.aspx) could get a hold of it, they have done some nice conversions of older office towers in Denver, Dallas and Houston.

What would the alternative be? Museum of Urban Decay.
Urban Decay and the FNC it could happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYF_Sn0cyJE&feature=related

Urban Decay and the FNC it could happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYF_Sn0cyJE&feature=related

That video makes me sad but that is what happens when you abandond the inner city in favor of urban sprawl. Of course, I am guilty of this myself but now that I know the cost of suburbia I will not make the same mistake again.

but Kerry, at least you will live in the inner city when you return to OKC so we'll give you a pass on adding to Jax's sprawl. .... :)

but Kerry, at least you will live in the inner city when you return to OKC so we'll give you a pass on adding to Jax's sprawl. .... :)

Even here in Jax I live inside the loop, it is just that the interstate loop around Jax is huge. I still have to drive everywhere I want go although I do ride my bike the 3 miles to get gas for the lawnmower.

Owners of OKC-based First National Center propose payment plan
by Brianna Bailey
7/6/11

The owners of downtown's troubled First National Center hope to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and retain control of the 33- story art deco tower with a $1 million injection of new capital.

The funds, provided by Los Angeles-based First National managers Aaron Yashouafar and Simon Barlava, would be used to pay off creditors and reduce the principal of a restructured $19 million mortgage on the property, according to court documents.

In a reorganization plan filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court this week, First National's owners propose giving its creditor Capmark Bank two installments of $250,000 to pay down the principal on its mortgage on the property.

First National's owners would also make regular monthly payments on the restructured mortgage.

Another $500,000 would be used to pay First National's tax obligations and other creditors.

A call to Yashouafar's office in Los Angeles was not immediately returned on Wednesday. First National's creditors must vote to approve the plan and the court has until Sept. 13 to approve the reorganization.

Capmark Bank has been locked in a legal battle for the past year with First National's owners in an attempt to take over First National Center.

The bank was in the process of foreclosing on First National and an Oklahoma County judge was about to appoint a receiver to take over day-to-day operations at the property when the center's owners filed for bankruptcy in October.

A call to Oklahoma City attorney Rob Robertson, who is representing Capmark in the case, was not immediately returned on Wednesday.

The partnerships First National Building I and First National Building II, both linked with Los Angeles-based Milbank Real Estate, bought the First National Center in 2006 for $21 million.

Los Angeles attorney Juliet Oh, who is representing First National's owners in the bankruptcy, could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday.

The Office of the United States Trustee last week withdrew its motion to dismiss First National's bankruptcy case or have it converted into a Chapter 7, or liquidation, case.

The federal agency, which is charged with monitoring financial reporting in Chapter 11 cases, asked the court in June to toss out First National's bankruptcy filing because the buildings' owners had failed to provide its creditors and the trustee with adequate financial information.

The trustee's office withdrew the motion last week after First National provided the requested documents, according to court records.

Copyright 2011 Dolan Media Newswires

I don't understand why Yashouafar wants to keep this property as he seems to owe much more than it's worth and they are getting ready to lose their largest tenant (Devon).

But this is exactly what he's done with the Roosevelt Lofts in downtown L.A. and with a high-rise project in Las Vegas: strings things out for years through bankruptcy and legal wranglings.

The real travesty for OKC is that FNC seems to be losing all it's retail tenants, most recently the office supply place that has been there forever.

It will be interesting to see if the courts accept their payment plan; we'll find out by September.

That's exactly what I was thinking, Pete. His proposal is obviously advantageous to his interests but not so much for the building and OKC.

The real travesty for OKC is that FNC seems to be losing all it's retail tenants, most recently the office supply place that has been there forever.


No kidding? I am saddened to hear that. That was the last "old fashioned" office supply store in town (that I know of). And you're right - they've been there back to the late sixties - at least.

Knowing that its days as prime office space are almost over, would this owner be planning to eventually convert to hotel/apartments?

Yashouafar is embroiled in foreclosures (including his Sunset Blvd. mansion) and lawsuits with virtually every property he owns and his pattern is to tie them up for years then ultimately lose them. I'm sure this is why the lender (Capmark) is fighting so hard to take control, as they know they are going to end up with the property anyway and are trying to get their hands on it sooner rather than later.

The only small ray of hope -- probably naive at this point -- is that he was recently forced to sell the Roosevelt in L.A. so that will at least remove that financial burden. But he's fighting fires all over the country and when he can't even hang on to his own house, it's hard to have any confidence.

OMG. Meet the person who owns our historic FNC.

http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/beverly-hills-bandit-meet-massoud-aaron-yashouafar/

Looks like:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/07/mohammed_wideweb__470x332,0.jpg

OMG. Meet the person who owns our historic FNC.

http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/beverly-hills-bandit-meet-massoud-aaron-yashouafar/

Looks like:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/07/mohammed_wideweb__470x332,0.jpg

Wow. That's just plain sad if even 1/10 of that is true. You would think there would be enough mortgage fraud to someway get FNC back in respectable hands.

Well obviously the picture in the link is a bad photoshop job, so come on.

But how is this guy different from the last 5 people that have owned it? I still maintain that the only way we're going to end up saving the place is to have the city move in like they did the Skirvin. The place is going to have to be gutted just like the Skirvin. Until that happens, we're going to see the same crap happen over and over.

And don't talk to me about residential. We've already got more high end crap downtown than we need.

And don't talk to me about residential. We've already got more high end crap downtown than we need.

So about 100 units between Block 42, the Hill, The Brownstones, The Centennial (maybe high end?), and a couple of penthouses on top of City Place is more than we need? Because everything else is not high end. It would be great to have residences in the top half of First National, above a hotel.

And don't talk to me about residential. We've already got more high end crap downtown than we need.

You just don't even come off sounding like you want to have a reasonable discussion about it. If not residential, what do you think it should be? What's wrong with residential?

What's wrong with residential?

Answer, there is no way to convert it to an affordable high-rise trailer park.



ooops... I stand corrected.

http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/redneck-mansion-high-rise-trailer-park.jpg

... http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/redneck-mansion-high-rise-trailer-park.jpg

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.

Answer, there is no way to convert it to an affordable high-rise trailer park.



ooops... I stand corrected.

http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/redneck-mansion-high-rise-trailer-park.jpg

Actually I think that is in better condition than the current state of the FNC..

Why can't it be converted to a high rise hotel for the CC? Too far away? Too costly?
I know it would have to be a total renovation to do this but if the city is going to fork over at LEAST 50 mil. for a new CC hotel why not invest that money in the FNC and own the whole thing?

Why can't it be converted to a high rise hotel for the CC? Too far away? Too costly?
I know it would have to be a total renovation to do this but if the city is going to fork over at LEAST 50 mil. for a new CC hotel why not invest that money in the FNC and own the whole thing?

All the above, too small, to costly and too far away. Have you been to a real convention hotel?

It needs to be converted into a boutique hotel like The Magnolia Hotels in Denver, Dallas, Houston and Omaha which were converted office buildings.

All the above, too small, to costly and too far away. Have you been to a real convention hotel?

It's 1 block, and actually this idea has been considered at a few levels for the convention center hotel, and it's not a bad option as far as I hear. I think it would be too small though.

I am with bluedog though, I think that boutique hotel is the best way to go, but it's almost too big for that. Boutique hotel with a mixture of condos might be a really good way to do that project though. Always be skeptical of condos, but I think you could do some decent condo sales in the FNC and with a Park Avenue address.

The Magnolia Hotels in Houston, Dallas and Denver are larger than what most would call boutique hotels but since they are renovated office towers they have that feel even for their size.

Houston: 314 rooms
Dallas: 329 rooms
Denver: 246 rooms


Magnolia Hotel - Houston (http://www.magnoliahotelhouston.com/houston.aspx)
Originally the corporate office for Shell Oil Company and later the home for the Houston Post Dispatch newspaper, the boutique Magnolia Hotel in downtown Houston, TX opened in March 2003 after extensive renovation. Hailed as one of the most impressive office buildings in Texas, Magnolia’s restoration has re-established the 1926 historic landmark as one of Houston’s most distinct properties.

Recently rated one of the top 15 cool hotels for business in the U.S., the Houston Magnolia Hotel is centrally located in downtown near most major corporate headquarters, Minute Maid Ballpark, the Houston Opera, George R. Brown Convention Center, The Toyota Center, Bayou Place, Houston Aquarium, and the Houston theater and entertainment district.

Glamour at its finest, the swank Houston Magnolia Hotel features unique offerings including Houston's only rooftop pool and Jacuzzi, with stunning views of downtown. The 22-story hotel features 314 spacious guestrooms and suites, including the Ross Sterling Presidential Suite.


Magnolia Hotel - Dallas (http://www.magnoliahoteldallas.com/dallas.aspx)
Upscale, modern meets historic, urban architecture at the Magnolia Hotel Dallas, one of the city’s most recognized buildings. "Pegasus - The Flying Red Horse," is illuminated at night and shines brightly as the icon of Dallas from atop this beautiful boutique hotel.

Once the headquarters of the Magnolia Petroleum Company, the Magnolia Hotel Dallas is located in the historic downtown district of Dallas, Texas. Within one block is the flagship Neiman Marcus department store and Main Street. The Beaux Arts building is located within four blocks of the Kennedy Memorial and The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. The hotel stands adjacent to Pegasus Park, where concerts and movies are held seasonally.


Magnolia Hotel - Denver (http://www.magnoliahotels.com/magnolia-the-hotels-denver.aspx?menupos=1)
Old world charm meets modern Magnolia style in our downtown Denver, Colorado hotel, formerly the American National Bank Building. Restored to reflect its original appearance, terra cotta details and a replicated corner clock adorn this 13-story landmark edifice built in 1910. Opened in 1995, this hotel in Denver, CO has 246 guest rooms and 10,000 square feet of corporate meeting rooms.

Spartan - I've gone over that a million times in previous posts in this thread...so I just didn't feel like hauling out the dead horse again. I think a hotel is probably the best way to go....botique. It doesn't have to be associated with the CC...heck nothing really is right now. The small footprint of each floor doesn't really lend itself to much. Office space obviously isn't working for it, and if you make it residential, that's a pretty small place...and in a class c structure. You might as well call it the projects.

But if you hotel it up, then gutting would have to be done in order to repurpose, replump, bring it all up to code, etc. So it sounds like a perfect solution to me. Problem with this...finding a brand and an investor willing to do it (shock and awe huh). At least the Skirvin had it's history as a hotel to go for it, and they made additions (ballroom) to make it meet current needs. Can you just imagine the lobby in FNC serving as the ballroom for a wedding reception....wow!

It's 1 block, and actually this idea has been considered at a few levels for the convention center hotel, and it's not a bad option as far as I hear. I think it would be too small though.

I am with bluedog though, I think that boutique hotel is the best way to go, but it's almost too big for that. Boutique hotel with a mixture of condos might be a really good way to do that project though. Always be skeptical of condos, but I think you could do some decent condo sales in the FNC and with a Park Avenue address.

I respectfully disagree. It's closer to two blocks, not sure if it's big enough, and frankly, don't think it would work. It wouldn't be able to directly tie into the convention center. Don't give the "Underground" solution. That's not a solution, and it also takes away from the purpose of what we are trying to do, create streetlife. What substanitive proof do we have that it was considered as the convention hotel. I too want to see it restored as condo's/boutique hotel though.

The small footprint of each floor doesn't really lend itself to much. Office space obviously isn't working for it, and if you make it residential, that's a pretty small place...and in a class c structure.

But if you hotel it up, then gutting would have to be done in order to repurpose, replump, bring it all up to code, etc. So it sounds like a perfect solution to me.

Yeah. I so don't get your argument AT ALL. If you converted to residential, would it also not be gutted to repurpose, replump, and bring up to code? If done, then it obviously wouldn't be a Class-C OFFICE tower anymore would it? I'm not really sure what you're thinking in terms of residential, but I don't see how it isn't anymore plausible than a boutique hotel.

I respectfully disagree. It's closer to two blocks, not sure if it's big enough, and frankly, don't think it would work. It wouldn't be able to directly tie into the convention center. Don't give the "Underground" solution. That's not a solution, and it also takes away from the purpose of what we are trying to do, create streetlife. What substanitive proof do we have that it was considered as the convention hotel. I too want to see it restored as condo's/boutique hotel though.

Well, I don't think there is anything substantial that I can reference to what may have been remarked about it behind closed doors, other than the point that I generally have a good hunch about things. It might have been discussed in a subcommittee meeting though. I agree that the underground isn't a solution, and you're right it is 2 blocks, I was thinking of the old convention center...

Two of those pesky SUPERblocks, actually...

Architect - go back and read the previous 15 pages of posts I've put about it then. Like I told Spartan, i'm not going to copy/paste it all here again.

There are MAJOR difference between hotel/residential. There's actually a lot more involved in being a hotel, but at the same time, standards aren't as high. Go take some examples from code enforemence and see what the different requirements are. Some people here believe that if it goes residential, that you don't have to gut it. I don't agree with that....i think it has to no matter what...for ANYTHING.

Yeah, I have no interest in looking back 15 pages for something you posted. Anyways... apparently we agree on the gutting part. Which was my main point, because for some reason you were mentioning that if residential conversion were to occur, that the building would still be Class C and that it'd only work for Section 8. But OBVIOUSLY, for residential to even work, you'd need to GUT the FNC just like you would hotel.

Architect - go back and read the previous 15 pages of posts I've put about it then. Like I told Spartan, i'm not going to copy/paste it all here again.

There are MAJOR difference between hotel/residential. There's actually a lot more involved in being a hotel, but at the same time, standards aren't as high. Go take some examples from code enforemence and see what the different requirements are. Some people here believe that if it goes residential, that you don't have to gut it. I don't agree with that....i think it has to no matter what...for ANYTHING.

Since you are so well apprised of the last 15 pages of this thread, has anyone in the last 15 pages actually suggested that you wouldn't have to rebuild the interior spaces for a residential conversion?

What we've had in the last 15 pages, is people saying that they don't think it has to convert to residential and that it's viable as-is in it's current state for commerical. Which is something that I totally 100% disagree with. So yes, I actually did pay attention as I commented on the other 15 pages. And no, gutting isn't something that many people have said here, and when I said it had to be done, i received comments that the building didn't need it.

You still haven't provided who actually said that it is viable in it's current state of disrepair for commercial. I would seriously hope no one has actually said that.

But you are basing your entire case against a residential conversion on the idea that "some people" (who I suppose remain nameless) don't think it needs to be gutted for that. That is what you call a straw man.

I still think the tower should be converted to a boutique hotel ala the Colcord with perhaps some condos on the top floors. The Great Banking Hall is perfect for a lobby with cocktail lounge.

Then, the buildings to the east could be updated for office use, as they have decent sized floorplates and don't suffer from the weird bathroom layout.


Once the complex is ultimately wrested from the current owner, I hope the city gets involved to help find the right developer(s) and grants/funding.

Pete,

I totally agree, but I think the entire building should be a hotel with luxury suites on the upper floors with a bar on the top floor.

The building has a lot of potential! The bank area on the second floor could be an upscale restaurant. It has a lot of room for many uses.

I stayed here a few years ago and it reminded me a lot of First National:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1723

Here is the lobby from the Westin Minneapolis -- this was only converted in 2007, so pretty recently. Sure looks familiar!

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/westinminn1.jpg