OG&E Tower

[betts]

Gah, wish I weren't such a terrible public speaker. Committee minds likely made up before the meeting. This project looks like another weak excuse for a giant parking garage. And then they'll find they don't have the money for that "garden roof" and we'll look like fools again.

[Urbanized]

Last post I will make on this topic today (which I'm sure will be good news for The Screamers): the decision was made to demolish Stage Center and its fate was sealed, not in this meeting or any other recent event, but when there was no attempt made to incorporate its renovation and activation into the redesign of Myriad Botanical Gardens and construction of Devon Tower.

R.I.P., Mummers Theater.

[Of Sound Mind]

TEAR DOWN THIS WALL — I mean, structure.

[Pete]

Yes, the Stage Center never found it's guardian angel; or at least one with deep enough pockets and a real passion for the building.

[Pete]

Demolition approved, 3-2.

[Of Sound Mind]

Demolition approved, 3-2.

Sanity prevailed.

[Just the facts]

It's like pulling the plug on a loved one. Some will miss the person, some couldn't stand the person when they were alive, some only remember the healthy good times, and some remember all the hard work and personal sacrifice trying to care for them in old age.

[Jake]

Close vote.

[Pete]

Very, very mixed feelings but I suppose now the best thing to do is to make sure this new project is as good as possible.

But of course, the committee won't really have any leverage with the developer; they just have to meet very basic requirements.

[David]

And again I have to ask, what do we need to address so that this particular comment:

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/s...61954285809664

City attorney advising can't condition demolition on future development, as requested by Chuck Ainsworth. David Box agreeing...

Is no longer true? Is this a city ordinance issue? A state law issue?

[Pete]

^

I don't think there is a way to make demolition conditional on development because it's unenforceable.

Once a building is gone you can't force someone to build. And 9 times out of 10, developments change even once commenced... Financing backs out, tenants flake, costs end up being much higher, etc.

[Tavia]

Demo has been approved....

[Urban Pioneer]

GiGi Faulkner broke the tie.

[LakeEffect]

I didn't read Steve's articles - who abstained from voting and why? Or were they simply gone?

[Just the facts]

^

I don't think there is a way to make demolition conditional on development because it's unenforceable.

Once a building is gone you can't force someone to build. And 9 times out of 10, developments change even once commenced... Financing backs out, tenants flake, costs end up being much higher, etc.

Probably the only thing to do is make the demo permit part of the building permit with no approval for demo being required. You get approval to build you can demo what is on the property. If you aren't going to build anything there is no way to get a demo permit.

In essence - do away with the entire demo permit process.

[David]

That may be so Pete, but from Spartan's experiences in Cleveland that he was talking about just a little up-thread:

Agreed. The real problem is that OKC's plan review process is so lacking that each side is denied the possibility of using leverage how they normally would in other cities, which hinders the ability for meeting in the middle and compromise.

Here in Cleveland I was negotiating before I came home for Xmas with preservationists in a downtown demolition and the chair of the Landmarks Commission who came out and said, "I'm just not seeing a plan here that is better than the building we already have, so your demolition permit will get a continuance until you make the improvements we've requested."

The developer came back two weeks later with the improvements made and got their demolition permit, really for a phenomenal development IMO that is 8-stories tall with a zero lot line and decent street interaction. The point is very rarely is the demolition of a historic landmark totally removed from the planned replacement. How you can have a reasonable debate here with these two aspects legally removed is utterly absurd. The typical compromise that would play out ANYWHERE else with normal laws would be that the historic landmark be used as leverage to get a better replacement proposal, which will then move forward in the name of "progress."

Here "history" is pitted against "progress" statutorily. While each side will understandably just try to do what they can within the legal framework, like I said, I just hope that it doesn't eliminate the potential for a middle ground. The problem of course is that said middle ground may not involve Rainey Williams unless he suddenly comes into real money and can deliver on "world class" whatever that means.

I am getting the impression that our local laws could at least be modified to give the review process more teeth.

[betts]

Don't worry. They're building a great big parking garage with a green roof so Devon won't have to look at it.

[Pete]

I believe the instance the Spartan is citing would not be enforceable if push came to shove. Just like the committees in OKC often make recommendations and the applicants will usually abide to expedite the process. But in reality, they are merely requests, not requirements and would not only not hold up on appeal, but the City might be financially liable for unduly delaying construction if lawyers got involved.

Also, there has to be a separate demolition process because there are often dilapidated structures that are unsafe.


In reality, the best solution to this problem is to make the city great and thus the land too valuable to sit idle or put to it's highest and best use.

[Paseofreak]

Perhaps the solution is to identify "super high value properties" in areas adjacent to large public investments and make a much higher design standard for those select properties. However, I can absolutely see where that would also foment heartburn, aggravation and lawsuits.

[Just the facts]

Just do away with the demo permit process.

Create an urban development overlay district which doesn't have a demo process and tie the demo in with the building permit. At that point the plans will all be final, financing will be in place, the city and residents will see exactly what is to be built, and the review committee can see if the proposed new structure is good enough to warrant removal of the old structure and then simply approve or deny the building permit. If you aren't going to build anything there is no way you can demo a structure because there is no building permit.

If your structure gets listed on the 'dilapidated building' list you can either build something, sell to someone who will, stop paying taxes on it and let OCURA take over, or donate it to the City for redevelopment and get a tax deduction.

[Anonymous.]

3 flatbeds already parked outside with bulldozers.


Just kidding. I really hope this turns out well.

[tomokc]

The lesson for architects is that buildings must also be functional and affordable.

[UnFrSaKn]

Panel clears Stage Center demolition | News OK

[mkjeeves]

Scratch one more reason to go downtown.

[OkieNate]

At this point the best thing I can say about this project is at least it wont block views of the Devon tower too significantly...