First Church of Christ, Scientist

[shawnw]

This beautiful building on Robinson downtown is finally getting taken care of. Article still behind paywall but wanted to get a thread started.

https://newsok.com/article/5604898/a...midtown-church

[mugofbeer]

Dang, what a tornado proof house should look like!

[YeahIKnow]

I'm so glad someone is finally doing something with this location. I drive by it every day to and from work, and it's one of my favorite buildings in OKC. Someone in the Midtown thread linked https://www.kadewe.de/en/ awhile back and I was hoping someone would do a miniature version of that at this location. However, great news!

[CS_Mike]

I had secretly hoped that a museum would relocate to this building, but I'm just glad it's going to be occupied again.

[Pete]

It's always been a tough building because there is only a bit of parking on the north side.

Really glad it will be preserved. Took this a few nights ago:

[bchris02]

I was really hoping this would be turned into the OKC branch of the church of Scientology.



Just kidding...this is great news and am glad this will be preserved!

[shawnw]

Steve posted this video on Twitter:

https://youtu.be/qEmfQi3Vuso

[Sooner.Arch]

Just was thinking about what this building could have been and I had his idea of it becoming part of an expensive restaurant called The Monument.

[OKCRT]

A Turkish Bath House?

[shawnw]

I guess this is kinda dead?

https://twitter.com/OKCArchitecture/...69775746125825

[bombermwc]

Anyone know what the disputes were?

Like every other project, the details are what always seem to be what kill the project. I wonder at what point we should allow some changes to historic structures so they can be maintained rather than continue to fall into disrepair making them even more expensive to rehab....or go so far they have to be dozed. Is the fight worth risking it coming down to a dozer if we're arguing over what type of window can go in? I'm not saying that's the issue here, just get really disappointed with all the false starts from people excited to try to save something, only to be killed by the historic credits. There has to be some balance in there some where.

[Pete]

I guess this is kinda dead?

https://twitter.com/OKCArchitecture/...69775746125825

This link isn't working.... What was the gist?

[Dob Hooligan]

There is some dispute with the State office that handles interpretation of the federal historic tax credit laws, and they are at enough of an impasse that do not want to have their previously scheduled party

[Dob Hooligan]

Anyone know what the disputes were?

Like every other project, the details are what always seem to be what kill the project. I wonder at what point we should allow some changes to historic structures so they can be maintained rather than continue to fall into disrepair making them even more expensive to rehab....or go so far they have to be dozed. Is the fight worth risking it coming down to a dozer if we're arguing over what type of window can go in? I'm not saying that's the issue here, just get really disappointed with all the false starts from people excited to try to save something, only to be killed by the historic credits. There has to be some balance in there some where.

There was a story on the font page of the Oklahoman within the last couple weeks about how local developers are having disagreements with the State Historical Commission (or whatever the official title is) office in charge of managing federal tax credits for historical designated properties. It is under the overall direction of Bob Blackburn, and developers think a new hire is making the process more difficult.

[Pete]

There was a story on the font page of the Oklahoman within the last couple weeks about how local developers are having disagreements with the State Historical Commission (or whatever the official title is) office in charge of managing federal tax credits for historical designated properties. It is under the overall direction of Bob Blackburn, and developers think a new hire is making the process more difficult.

Developers have been grumbling about this for a while but there are heavy strings attached to these big subsidies, and the parameters are set on a national level.

Of course developers want incentives but that doesn't make them always right.

[shawnw]

This link isn't working.... What was the gist?

well crud, guess they deleted the tweet, I should have screen-capped

bottom line is they were supposed to have an anniversary celebration of some kind on Saturday morning at the building site and were supposed to give an update about the future, but they abruptly canceled it because they said there was an issue and the project would not be moving forward.

[bombermwc]

I believe the anniversary was the 100 year anniversary of the building. The tax guy, in his video, mentioned the covered cornerstone dating to 1920 (and why would someone cover the cornerstone...weird). So his hope was to spend 9 months on his portion and then open and have a celebration. Of course, if he's not going to proceed with the project, then the celebration wouldn't make sense. Would be weird to celebrate at a boarded up peeling, crumbing building.

But that's my point. Is it really better to let it continue to deteriorate? I understand to get the tax credits, you really have to up your game. Maybe i should be hating on the developers more so they do it on their dime, but we all know that it's EXTREMELY difficult to get someone to do this the full "right" way (whatever that is) on their own dime because it's so incredibly cost prohibitive to rehab an old structure. So many of them really need to be gutted, but you'd lose so much in the credits. Electrical wasn't designed for modern requirements, HVAC, etc. And how about planning for what the building will need in 100 years from now that we have no idea what it will be?

I just feel like there needs to be a little compromise so that rather than being such sticklers on it being perfect, we are able to get someone on board that can save it. The Skirvin fell fast and hard and the city had to be part of it to get it to work. FNC is seeing some MAJOR changes to make it work....good thing it had some ugly unimportant sections that didnt need credits so the project would work financially, FCC-OKC is going to be TBA for years. The longer we let them sit, the more expensive it gets to fix them, and the more likely they are to NOT get someone to fix them.

[Pete]

^

FNC had to radically alter their plans to get the historic tax credits, which they did.

If you want government handouts, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, you can pretty much do what you want as long as it passes local design review.

[bombermwc]

^

FNC had to radically alter their plans to get the historic tax credits, which they did.

If you want government handouts, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, you can pretty much do what you want as long as it passes local design review.

Well that completely steamrolled over the whole point of my question there.....

[Dob Hooligan]

Well that completely steamrolled over the whole point of my question there.....

I totally understand your question, but, the stories I have read lately all say that federal rules govern the tax incentives for these historic projects. The developers are saying that the state of Oklahoma employee that is in charge of the tax credit program as liaison between the feds and developers is being too strict in interpretation of the rules, and the State says that the developers are playing fast and loose with the rules.

While we all understand compromise and agree with the concept. The question becomes what is cooperative effort and what is "good old boy network", local level corruption?

[bombermwc]

I would need to do a LOT of research to decide where I would sit on some of these questions, but there are some that immediately come to mind on potential alternatives to the current method.

1 - Should it continue to be an individual that decides or should it be a board?
2 - Should that individual or board be appointed or elected?
2a - If elected, for how long?
2b - How large of a board?
2c - Should it be districted or just open pool? Meaning, intending to cover a varied portion of the city or is it ok if they are all from one area?
3 - We have to also consider if there should be a push to re-evaluate the federal guidelines.
3a - Should the age of the structure be classified into groupings? 150+ y/o, 100-150 y/o, etc. Meaning should there be different standards for different ages? younger=less stringent/older=more?
4 - Should the current state of the structure be considered as part of the decision on what will qualify?
5 - Should the potential outlook for development and continued dilapidation of the structure be considered?
6 - Can we tier the credits? If you do things in X manner, you get 100%, if you do things in Y manner you get 50%?

So those are the kinds of things that i think are worth re-examining and working with the state/feds to try to reform the program. I'm a broken record at this point, but my concern is the structures will continue to deteriorate until they can't be saved. At that point, IMO, preservation has failed because it caused what it was trying to avoid. If i can use modern windows that aren't 100% historically accurate but it means the building stops leaking water damage, let's work together on what those new windows look like so there's a balance between the look and the expense.

Anything else anyone might add to the list?

[Dob Hooligan]

I would need to do a LOT of research to decide where I would sit on some of these questions, but there are some that immediately come to mind on potential alternatives to the current method.

1 - Should it continue to be an individual that decides or should it be a board?
2 - Should that individual or board be appointed or elected?
2a - If elected, for how long?
2b - How large of a board?
2c - Should it be districted or just open pool? Meaning, intending to cover a varied portion of the city or is it ok if they are all from one area?
3 - We have to also consider if there should be a push to re-evaluate the federal guidelines.
3a - Should the age of the structure be classified into groupings? 150+ y/o, 100-150 y/o, etc. Meaning should there be different standards for different ages? younger=less stringent/older=more?
4 - Should the current state of the structure be considered as part of the decision on what will qualify?
5 - Should the potential outlook for development and continued dilapidation of the structure be considered?
6 - Can we tier the credits? If you do things in X manner, you get 100%, if you do things in Y manner you get 50%?

So those are the kinds of things that i think are worth re-examining and working with the state/feds to try to reform the program. I'm a broken record at this point, but my concern is the structures will continue to deteriorate until they can't be saved. At that point, IMO, preservation has failed because it caused what it was trying to avoid. If i can use modern windows that aren't 100% historically accurate but it means the building stops leaking water damage, let's work together on what those new windows look like so there's a balance between the look and the expense.

Anything else anyone might add to the list?

I don't mean to sound cynical, but this is a federal program that has worked pretty well for many years, IIRC. The issue I read of from the government side is that the number of people trying to engage in it has exploded in the last decade, and they can face a stiff learning curve.

I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told me in the 1990s. He had some rental property in Heritage Hills East and decided to take a "Section 8" renter. He called the federal government in order to line up payment and told them "My rent is due on the 1st of the month".
They replied "We pay on the 8th."
"But, you don't understand. My tenants pay on the 1st. That is how my business works. Rent is due on the 1st."
"We pay on the 8th."
I asked him what finally happened?
"They pay me on the 8th."

[bombermwc]

OK, i get that it's federal, my question still stands on if others think that we should be pushing to re-evaluate these guidelines. Just because its federal doesn't mean that they have to stay the same forever.

[Dob Hooligan]

OK, i get that it's federal, my question still stands on if others think that we should be pushing to re-evaluate these guidelines. Just because its federal doesn't mean that they have to stay the same forever.

I agree. I'm guessing we should find out if the issues are isolated to Oklahoma, or if there are larger regional or national markets experiencing the same.

[Swake]

It's always been a tough building because there is only a bit of parking on the north side.

Really glad it will be preserved. Took this a few nights ago:

Looks almost identical to Tulsa's First Church of Christ, Scientist