City Jail

[shawnw]

Two hundred year old buildings were approved to be torn down just in the last few weeks... aren't too many of those left around here....

[Dob Hooligan]

^^^^
I don’t really agree that we are more careless than any other city. I think we are such a 20th century city that we were plowing down 40 to 50 year old commercial buildings. Happens all the time everywhere. Except that was all we had in our new city. Las Vegas has the same reputation, but they align closely with OKC in regards to age and growth (until around 2000).

[Ross MacLochness]

^^^must not have been to other cities where they have, like, old buildings and stuff?

[Colbafone]

^^^must not have been to other cities where they have, like, old buildings and stuff?

HAHA GOT 'UM



But for real. Seeing as we have so few older buildings left. I do really wish we could stop, you know, tearing all of them down.

[Dob Hooligan]

^^^must not have been to other cities where they have, like, old buildings and stuff?

So, let's look a that:
Let me suggest most cities of any size are older than 1889. OKC was nothing before then. The first wave of development takes about 25 years (which also aligns with the start of WW1), and is primarily 3 story, unremarkable commercial buildings. After WW1 we have the roaring twenties, and some development during the decade. But the great depression interrupts that activity and building didn't pick back up in a meaningful manner until after WW2. 1946. Postwar development went away from downtowns and toward suburbs.
So, now we are 20 years after the end of WW2 and OKC has an oversized, small town, low rise downtown area. A bunch of 2 and 3 story buildings and not much else covering a lot of space. Our civic leaders decide to raze and start over. We did lose a handful of larger and nicer buildings, but the vast majority weren't, IMO.

I wonder how many cities of our size came from zero as recently as 1889 to where we are today? Again, I bring up Las Vegas, or maybe Phoenix (due to explosive growth from a smaller town during the same era). Dallas, KC, Memphis and so many other cities are at least 50 years older, which gives them a couple more building generations before the postwar development cycle that has driven so much of America.

[Ross MacLochness]

^^^That's a really bad argument.

1. Many cities with much much much older architecture have managed to not tear down their buildings. I think this is your point, but I don't think it supports your argument that old buildings shouldn't be saved. It just proves that we as a culture don't value historical architecture like other places. Maybe your argument is that only the most significant buildings were saved and that over time, a city was left intact with a dense network of only the best historical buildings left un-demolished throughout the ages. This point is somewhat true, but misleading in that most places didn't tear down entire city blocks at a time like we did. Also, most places won't tear down functioning buildings unless there is an absolute need to upzone.

2. It's not about when most of our historic buildings were built, but when and why they were torn down, and how many. It's a fact that OKC was one of the worst when it came to urban renewal. A very very high percentage (above 90%) of our historic architecture was wiped within a span of 20ish years. No, not all was "larger and nicer buildings", but that's not the criteria that necessarily makes them worth saving. Once they are gone, they aren't coming back. We are sensitive to this, and the other seemingly "insignificant" buildings coming down, because almost everything else was destroyed. Look at a photo of downtown from 1970. It looks like Dresden.

[CS_Mike]

So, now we are 20 years after the end of WW2 and OKC has an oversized, small town, low rise downtown area. A bunch of 2 and 3 story buildings and not much else covering a lot of space.

This seems like a wildly inaccurate way to describe pre-1967 Oklahoma City.

[rezman]

I'll submit that while a lot of buildings may not have been considered "taller or nicer" back when they were torn down, most would be considered gems today. And, the methods, materials and finishes used in their construction are all gone as well, never to be replaced.

Now we have a couple 100 year old buildings slated for demolition that are considered to be too dilapidated and unsecure to do anything with. How long have they been sitting in decline amongst all the activity in Bricktown now?. Only to be replaced by a parking lot. … What's that phrase? … demolition by neglect? …. These could have been saved.

[Dob Hooligan]

This is a 100% snark free and honest question; What did we tear down during Urban Renewal over 50 years ago?

I freely admit many buildings would be considered gems today, but back then they were 50-60 year old buildings. At that time, those buildings would be considered bad because they had knob & tube wiring, black iron plumbing and drafty wood windows. Along with small room sizes and no space for AC ducting.
Now, let me use the 50 year old Biltmore at I-40 & Meridian as an example-I'm gonna suggest we would look at it and say it has inadequate wiring, old plumbing, inefficient aluminum windows, an old fashioned layout, and just an unattractive design that would never be appealing again.

I'm just suggesting we put Urban Renewal in the context of when it happened, and not project today's sensibilities on it.

[GoGators]

Some seem to think there is a group of people who want to see these "old" buildings saved just just because they are old. The actual reason most of these older structures need to be saved is because nothing could be built in today's time that would be of same quality or design standard. Sure there is the the occasional new high rise that impresses, but for the most part these old buildings can never be replaced.

For example, look at the many historic churches in OKC and how the design, thoughtfulness, and layout brings pride and is a pillar for the communities they serve. Compare to the mega churches built today that look and function more like a super target than an asset to the community.

Banks aren't building unique gems like gold dome and Founders anymore. Look no further than the corner of Western ave and Avondale Dr. in Nichols Hills to see what we can expect as replacements for Founders Bank.

Its not as if The old city jail is the greatest piece of architecture we have ever seen in OKC. its not the most important. But we do know that a building like this can never be duplicated in Oklahoma City ever again. Tearing it down for a new building is a debate, tearing this down for a surface parking lot is a travesty.

[CS_Mike]

This is a 100% snark free and honest question; What did we tear down during Urban Renewal over 50 years ago?

This is a good place to start to get an idea of the buildings that existed during this time period. Some may find it depressing though.

https://www.okhistory.org/research/hmresults.php?mobi

[Dob Hooligan]

I did click on the link and went through it. What I particularly noticed is that over half the buildings shown are still standing. And many of the others were torn down before 1960.

Regarding banks and churches: both industries have customer bases that feel their money can be better spent on items other that opulent buildings. Occasionally an expensive looking bank or church goes up, like the Mid First Bank at Western and Grand, or the Mormon temple in Surry Hills.

[dankrutka]

Lol. “Over half the buildings are still standing.” Half is pathetic.

My bigger point is not that cities don’t tear down buildings, but that Oklahoma City has not learned to quit doing it.

[HangryHippo]

I'm just suggesting we put Urban Renewal in the context of when it happened, and not project today's sensibilities on it.

With all due respect, that's ignorant. Context is important, but we have the benefit of hindsight. It was a mistake that we should be working diligently to not repeat.

[Rover]

We have destroyed way too many buildings over the years. That said, I entertained guests from southern California, Wichita, and some other cities a couple of months ago. We ate at Packards and had drinks at the rooftop. Several of my guests were talking about their surprise to see so many old buildings being used still. Guess it is a matter of perspective.

[GoGators]

I did click on the link and went through it. What I particularly noticed is that over half the buildings shown are still standing. And many of the others were torn down before 1960.

Regarding banks and churches: both industries have customer bases that feel their money can be better spent on items other that opulent buildings. Occasionally an expensive looking bank or church goes up, like the Mid First Bank at Western and Grand, or the Mormon temple in Surry Hills.

It has nothing to do with opulence or being "expensive looking" it has everything to do with context. If anything, i'm arguing against the "expensive looking" facade style that is the norm today.

[Dob Hooligan]

I proposed a use and trade last month on this thread. I think it is the only idea I have read regarding actually doing something with this building generated by readers. I hope somebody else can come up with a good use for the building. I think it looks good from the outside and can be a positive for the city.

However, this is a very challenging project. The location just about demands a law enforcement use. The low ceilings and asbestos are very problematic. I think the denial of the police unions attempt to build a parking garage in the area may have placed this building in the position of being a political pawn, as the need for parking has become elevated and is agitating for a solution.

30 years ago I bought a 1905 house in a challenged block that had only 2 houses left. With a wife and 2 sons under age 3 I put all my energies and little money into saving it. 7 years we worked on it. wife washed the dishes in the bathtub for 3 months while we tried to build a kitchen. We saved the house. It is the only house left on the block now. There are other buildings, but they are commercial, as is the house now. Sold it 10 years to the day after we bought it for $50,000 more than we paid. Did the math and I did not make 50 cents an hour for my labor.
I love old buildings. I have put in the effort to save one. I also understand the opposition, disappointment, heartache, money and hours to do it. It is very difficult on a good day.

Hopefully someone can come up with a solution for this jail building.

[Pete]

The demolition approval was deferred in today's council meeting.

The city is going back to Marva Ellard for one last try at renovation.

[Swanky]

This is a 100% snark free and honest question; What did we tear down during Urban Renewal over 50 years ago?

I freely admit many buildings would be considered gems today, but back then they were 50-60 year old buildings. At that time, those buildings would be considered bad because ...

I just wanted to add that right now, buildings 50-60 years old are facing this problem and we're losing them in the same way. Even some that are attractive and appealing. I don't know that we've really changed. We don't seem to recognize potential in buildings that haven't become quite historic enough just yet.

[Dob Hooligan]

I just wanted to add that right now, buildings 50-60 years old are facing this problem and we're losing them in the same way. Even some that are attractive and appealing. I don't know that we've really changed. We don't seem to recognize potential in buildings that haven't become quite historic enough just yet.

Totally agree. The most at risk period, IMO is when something is old enough to be "old", but not old enough to be "retro". I drive by the intersection of NW36th & Portland and as I look at the tilt up concrete and pebble building on the SW corner I notice they are covering it all up with a more modern façade. In 10-15 years we will be lamenting the loss of that classic 1970s design and materials.

[Pete]

Yes, right now 1970's architecture is most at risk. I raised that very issue with BancFirst Tower.

Until recently, who would have thought that pink bathrooms and mid-century kitsch would come back around to being highly valued and popular?

That day will come for the 1970's too, but as is always the way, much of it will have already been lost.

[Laramie]

Sure there are legitimate concerns about tearing down the historic city jail, it didn't bode well for other projects we could have saved (crying over spilled milk now) like: Baum Building, Criterion Theater, Mercantile Building, Hales Building, and finally the 600 room, 26 story Biltmore Hotel would have added another 500 to 550 rooms (expensive redo) to our downtown hotel room count--saved a land mark skyscraper. Man, you're talking about bringing in some top tier 2 and tier 1 type conventions.

That's why I do agree with some posters about the Omni not being at least 735 rooms or larger; in time you could attract some future landmark conventions to our city.

[TheTravellers]

Totally agree. The most at risk period, IMO is when something is old enough to be "old", but not old enough to be "retro". I drive by the intersection of NW36th & Portland and as I look at the tilt up concrete and pebble building on the SW corner I notice they are covering it all up with a more modern façade. In 10-15 years we will be lamenting the loss of that classic 1970s design and materials.

Really? That's just a one-story strip mall, I'm not sure anybody anywhere would mourn the loss of that facade (or building if it was demo-ed). If it was anything else besides a strip mall, maybe... And yes, I know size doesn't always matter, but that building has no distinguishing characteristics at all, IMO.

[Dob Hooligan]

^^^^
Yep. totally forgettable. And that is why it, and all like it, will be covered up or removed. Then we will miss them.

Kinda like in modern movies set back in the 50s-60s, seems like they have too many red Corvettes and Thunderbirds, plus some Cadillacs. Much harder to find many brown Nova 4 doors or commercial vehicles and vans.

[TheTravellers]

^^^^
Yep. totally forgettable. And that is why it, and all like it, will be covered up or removed. Then we will miss them.

Kinda like in modern movies set back in the 50s-60s, seems like they have too many red Corvettes and Thunderbirds, plus some Cadillacs. Much harder to find many brown Nova 4 doors or commercial vehicles and vans.

I seriously doubt anybody at all will miss these kinds of things, it's like saying that 50 years from now we'll miss all the strip centers that were built in the last 20 years (and still ongoing), which I don't think *anybody* will say. Sure, the old strip centers add some ambiance and slightly retro background imagery, but they're not important or historic by any stretch of the imagination, unlike many other buildings here that have been re-faced or demo-ed.

And about those movies - all the ones I've seen that are set way back when always have a mix of every kind of car/van/truck imaginable, so maybe you're seeing different movies than I am, so to me that argument isn't really pertinent. We're just going to disagree on this, I suspect.

Anyway, back on topic, interesting that the jail's been given one more chance to be renovated, didn't know they could/would do that.