Preftakes Block

[Spartan]

He didn't comment on condition, but rather configuration. Things can be sturdy and yet functionally obsolete for their intended use. He certainly wasn't advocating demolition, but stating a fact.

So we're supposed to make a common assumption that cars were smaller when the Auto Hotel was built?

[Plutonic Panda]

I would think a lot of cars were bigger back than

[OKCRT]

Maybe just make it for mid-compact cars and motorcycles. No trucks or SUVs.

[Pete]

Maybe just make it for mid-compact cars and motorcycles. No trucks or SUVs.

So, about 2% of general U.S. population?

[Rover]

So we're supposed to make a common assumption that cars were smaller when the Auto Hotel was built?

Nm

[ljbab728]

I would think a lot of cars were bigger back than

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

[Jeepnokc]

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

I parked there 4-5 years and at one point had 6 reserved spots in the garage. There is plenty of height room. The issue is the ramps. They are not very wide and are very tight turns. A Tahoe is pushing it. Long bed trucks, crew cabs, are nearly impossible. Midsize cars are fine as well as small suvs. BUT.....you have to have confidence in your driving. You are going up or down at weird angles while turning into a very tight space. Once you are on the floors, there are a lot of support poles that makes it difficult to make turns and pull into spots without having to do 3 point turns. Structurally, the building appears like sold concrete and sturdy....configuration would be the problem. When I had my reserved spaces there on first floor, I had two spaces next to each other to park my truck (Shortbed supercrew F250) because there wasn't enough room to turn and get the truck into one spot It also would have stuck out too far making it impossible for other cars to get into their spots. My truck is 3/4 ton 4x4 with 4 inch lift and I never worried about height in there...just length. May not have fit on upper floors as I couldn't get up the ramp but the tahoes did without scraping

[ljbab728]

I parked there 4-5 years and at one point had 6 reserved spots in the garage. There is plenty of height room. The issue is the ramps. They are not very wide and are very tight turns. A Tahoe is pushing it. Long bed trucks, crew cabs, are nearly impossible. Midsize cars are fine as well as small suvs. BUT.....you have to have confidence in your driving. You are going up or down at weird angles while turning into a very tight space. Once you are on the floors, there are a lot of support poles that makes it difficult to make turns and pull into spots without having to do 3 point turns. Structurally, the building appears like sold concrete and sturdy....configuration would be the problem. When I had my reserved spaces there on first floor, I had two spaces next to each other to park my truck (Shortbed supercrew F250) because there wasn't enough room to turn and get the truck into one spot It also would have stuck out too far making it impossible for other cars to get into their spots. My truck is 3/4 ton 4x4 with 4 inch lift and I never worried about height in there...just length. May not have fit on upper floors as I couldn't get up the ramp but the tahoes did without scraping

I'm sure you're correct but I think the average length of most vehicles today is less than what it used to be. I'm remembering the boats from the 50's and 60's. It just was never meant for everyone, especially pickups or SUV's.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

I also meant to say 'then' instead of 'than'. Sorry about that.

[Jeepnokc]

I'm sure you're correct but I think the average length of most vehicles today is less than what it used to be. I'm remembering the boats from the 50's and 60's. It just was never meant for everyone, especially pickups or SUV's.

I agree. The building was built in 1929 (according to assessors site) and I am sure all of those cars fit fine. I can't imagine trying to get a 1960s or 1970 caddy deville in there

[Spartan]

I'm sure that's correct, plupan. I think the major problem would be with the vehicle's height instead of overall size.

The major problem is that we are all playing a game of speculation on what conditions might possibly maybe exist that might misrepresent demolition as an attractive option.

I've seen this play out far too many times to not call it out. Initially Pete got us rolling down this pathway by warming us up to the idea of letting go of the Carpenters Square storefronts IN EXCHANGE FOR A 50 STORY TOWER!!! Okay, whatever. Last remnants of OKC's historic Main Street, which by the way we could have totally reconnected with a minor tweak to the Devon site plan. If you're into that whole big picture thinking thing, I'm not convinced that in 20 years we wouldn't consider reconnecting our Main Street by taking down parts of the Devon garage or something that may be possible in the future that we couldn't even imagine today. I just think this notion of bringing back Main Street, especially as we've tried everything else to enliven our CBD core, is a very compelling "big picture" kinda idea.

Now that we've been warmed up to a few small storefronts, now we're talking about the whole block except the Black Hotel and 420 building, basically. Who needs a junky historic parking garage anyway? Except that it's a cool building, a significant building, and a good building. I just can't help but be amazed that the block will likely see other buildings razed for.... a parking garage. And now we are debating that surely a new parking garage would be a great one, bc they would want to "do it right!" Right.

Now take a step back and realize that all of this development is dependent on good oil prices. I see no reason for all of this development to not happen, but I also see a lot of strategic reasons to not first tear down what we have, then plan to build anew on the same site. That doesn't go well for OKC.

I'm really excited as much as anyone else, I just want to make sure that we are asking the right questions and push for the right minor site plan tweaks. I'm not critical at all of new towers for OKC, I just think getting the planning right IS critical. Honestly, there are profitable development opportunities that exist on this block and nowhere else in all of OKC, and most other cities actually. We've gotten a lot of good development, but most of it is just good, not necessarily a world class combination of design and context:

[CuatrodeMayo]

Like!

[Pete]

The major problem is that we are all playing a game of speculation on what conditions might possibly maybe exist that might misrepresent demolition as an attractive option.

I've seen this play out far too many times to not call it out. Initially Pete got us rolling down this pathway by warming us up to the idea of letting go of the Carpenters Square storefronts IN EXCHANGE FOR A 50 STORY TOWER!!! Okay, whatever. Last remnants of OKC's historic Main Street, which by the way we could have totally reconnected with a minor tweak to the Devon site plan. If you're into that whole big picture thinking thing, I'm not convinced that in 20 years we wouldn't consider reconnecting our Main Street by taking down parts of the Devon garage or something that may be possible in the future that we couldn't even imagine today. I just think this notion of bringing back Main Street, especially as we've tried everything else to enliven our CBD core, is a very compelling "big picture" kinda idea.

Now that we've been warmed up to a few small storefronts, now we're talking about the whole block except the Black Hotel and 420 building, basically. Who needs a junky historic parking garage anyway? Except that it's a cool building, a significant building, and a good building. I just can't help but be amazed that the block will likely see other buildings razed for.... a parking garage. And now we are debating that surely a new parking garage would be a great one, bc they would want to "do it right!" Right.

Now take a step back and realize that all of this development is dependent on good oil prices. I see no reason for all of this development to not happen, but I also see a lot of strategic reasons to not first tear down what we have, then plan to build anew on the same site. That doesn't go well for OKC.

I'm really excited as much as anyone else, I just want to make sure that we are asking the right questions and push for the right minor site plan tweaks. I'm not critical at all of new towers for OKC, I just think getting the planning right IS critical. Honestly, there are profitable development opportunities that exist on this block and nowhere else in all of OKC, and most other cities actually. We've gotten a lot of good development, but most of it is just good, not necessarily a world class combination of design and context:

The whole point is to let people know what is going on so if someone wants to get involved one way or another, they can.

Otherwise, we can go back to reading about demolition permits and other major movements after all the decisions have already been made.

[catch22]

I don't think it is fair to throw Pete under the bus as a proponent of demo without context.

Pete is advocating for the devil in this case. He is presenting the argument that pro-saving advocates will be facing when it's time to have this argument on stage.

Pete is absolutely right; they will be arguing the functionality. They cannot argue the structural integrity. They will say the corners are too tight, the parking spaces are built for a different era, the capacity is not large enough; etc. They will be requesting to demolish based on how well it does its job. Not how well, or not well, it fits inside the urban fabric, is historically relevant, is viable for future non-parking uses...etc.

I don't want to see this demolished for yet another parking structure, or even another tower for that matter. We have too much empty space downtown to put those things on. There are too many vacant lots, and underdeveloped lots. Towers do not take up a large footprint. it's the parking garages that take up all that room. It will be a tough fight. You are going up against the powers that be. Nichols and company. They get what they want, not to take a conspiracy angle -- there is no conspiracy. But, they (the powers that be) do get what they want. And there's plenty of proof supporting that.

So, pulling Pete out from under the bus...he brings up some valid points that we need to use to assemble an argument before it's too late to make one. At least we can try.

[Pete]

I was just pointing out that given the parking crunch, there must be reasons the Auto Hotel is still mainly vacant. Not too hard to connect the dots.

But it could easily be renovated for another use if parking isn't feasible.

However, I don't think that is the current plan.

[Jeepnokc]

I was just pointing out that given the parking crunch, there must be reasons the Auto Hotel is still mainly vacant. Not too hard to connect the dots.

But it could easily be renovated for another use if parking isn't feasible.

However, I don't think that is the current plan.

We were parking there up till about 2 months ago and there were a lot of days that we had to go to 4, 5 or 6 to find a space so it appears to be little over 1/2 full at minimum. May have been cars higher looking for the easier spots to get into but we never had to go that high as our little KIA company cars could get in anywhere.

[Pete]

We were parking there up till about 2 months ago and there were a lot of days that we had to go to 4, 5 or 6 to find a space so it appears to be little over 1/2 full at minimum. May have been cars higher looking for the easier spots to get into but we never had to go that high as our little KIA company cars could get in anywhere.

Yet Devon, who clearly has an ownership interest in this property and will be making decisions about it's future, is taking more spaces at the City Center East and Main Street garages.

It's also the only downtown garage that isn't pretty much 100% full.

[Jeepnokc]

Yet Devon, who clearly has an ownership interest in this property and will be making decisions about it's future, is taking more spaces at the City Center East and Main Street garages.

It's also the only downtown garage that isn't pretty much 100% full.

I agree. Devon would potentially be renting spaces for employees that possibly wouldn't be able to use them. Goes back to the original problem that you have to be a very confident driver to navigate up and down the ramps everyday. It is very tight and at weird angles. My female staff members refused to park in there (not that females are any better or worse drivers) because they were not comfortable driving the ramps. The only reason I parked there so long was that I had reserved spots on the second floor and several reserved spots on first floor.

[Pete]

^

You know Devon or Bank of Oklahoma or any other large company that leases space on this block is not going to ask their employees to park under those circumstances.

And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.

I'm also hearing they are seriously considering replacing the entire south half of the block with new construction. This is a change from previous promises to preserve the bus station.

[Snowman]

...
And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.
...

It seems like for several structures like this I heard 100 years was the expected lifetime, however that is with some (almost surely expensive) mid-life maintenance the parking decks may not have even had.

[Spartan]

I don't think it is fair to throw Pete under the bus as a proponent of demo without context.

Pete is advocating for the devil in this case. He is presenting the argument that pro-saving advocates will be facing when it's time to have this argument on stage.

Pete is absolutely right; they will be arguing the functionality. They cannot argue the structural integrity. They will say the corners are too tight, the parking spaces are built for a different era, the capacity is not large enough; etc. They will be requesting to demolish based on how well it does its job. Not how well, or not well, it fits inside the urban fabric, is historically relevant, is viable for future non-parking uses...etc.

I don't want to see this demolished for yet another parking structure, or even another tower for that matter. We have too much empty space downtown to put those things on. There are too many vacant lots, and underdeveloped lots. Towers do not take up a large footprint. it's the parking garages that take up all that room. It will be a tough fight. You are going up against the powers that be. Nichols and company. They get what they want, not to take a conspiracy angle -- there is no conspiracy. But, they (the powers that be) do get what they want. And there's plenty of proof supporting that.

So, pulling Pete out from under the bus...he brings up some valid points that we need to use to assemble an argument before it's too late to make one. At least we can try.

Absolutely. I'm only quoting Pete's posts to make my points so that people have a snippet of context and to reply "against the plans" and not against Pete. I do think his word carries a ton of influence though, and I don't see the benefit in going a little bit beyond in speculating potential demolition reasons, unless there is a real threat that we aren't talking about the storefronts and are in fact talking about the more significant buildings coming down. For land speculation, essentially.

[Spartan]

^

You know Devon or Bank of Oklahoma or any other large company that leases space on this block is not going to ask their employees to park under those circumstances.

And BTW, if you look at the article on the top of this page, I always assumed the Auto Hotel would be safe, but Steve has said several times he doesn't think so and now that's what I'm hearing as well.

I'm also hearing they are seriously considering replacing the entire south half of the block with new construction. This is a change from previous promises to preserve the bus station.

Well knowing who is involved, and that this has been ten years of shoddy land assembly in the works (and deferred maintenance to proactively create blight here), they're just going to tear down as much as we let them, and only preserve as much as we make them. Period.

We'll get to find out very quickly where our civic priorities lie when it comes to center city development.

[bombermwc]

Mark this on your calendar folks, I'm agreeing with Spartan here!

We've been in this "doze it all" mode before, and 50 years later, we're really regretting losing some MAJOR gems like the Biltmore....just because it was closed for a while (much less than the Skirvin was closed for and in far better condition) and it was dozed for a park. Granted, we got a great park out of it, but we COULD have also kept the Biltmore...especially considering we didn't end up getting the second "tube" because of the oil crash. Who knows what kind of happenings would affect some "supposed" plan for this lot. There's far too much speculation going on for me to hop on board since the place is such a classic structure. It definitely fits into the category of "they don't make them like this anymore". Now whether you view that as a good or bad thing, I can't make that decision for you. But one thing I can say is that just because it's newer, doesn't mean they'll make the ramps any better. That POS garage next to the ballpark is a prime example of how NOT to build one, and it's even worse now that the hotels have claimed it (since you have to use the stairs from every floor since you don't have a room key). Even some of the airport garage ramp turns are bad enough that they blocked spaces off. So I would VERY MUCH NOT assume that the new garage will be of any quality. And most of them these days don't consider how you WALK out of the place either, just how you drive in/out of it. That dang ballpark stairwell opens into the alley (with no ability to get back in) with no clearance. You could open it right into a car or whatever...horrible. At least it's not while anymore though...and it's been re-purposed from it's original intent so again, who knows what will happen.

And this block has been a pile of speculation for 10 years now. That's 10 years of no real information. That's 10 years of assumptions by Preftakes (and all of us) that there's a reason to build there. 10 years of assuming that you have to take out everything else to make it work too. Anyone ever consider the possibility of attaching a new garage to this one and redesigning the flow so the ramps are no longer a concern (ie will rogers did it) I'm speculating here too, but that's the name of the game here.

Something built in the 20's needs oversight on it before it's torn down, plain and simple. I don't care who owns the thing, if you say your only option is to tear it down and build something new, it means you haven't done your homework. You show me some well thought out studies that show (from an objective view and not with a steered purpose) that the place is obsolete and can't function with change and whatnot, then maybe you'll convince me. But we're not getting that and Preftakes isn't making a great PR move by not providing information. If he had a development purpose ready, that block would already have something built...just saying.

[Plutonic Panda]

I did a complete walk around 360 and the Preftakes Block is a beautiful area. I don't think it should be torn down, any of it. A tower could be built on top of some of the building and they could serve as the base, not structurally of course. This is so dumb that we have so much surface parking and undeveloped land in the core yet we insist on saying ''oh, all the valuable land has these old, crappy buildings on it".

[Spartan]

Exactly. This is one of the most in-tact blocks we have left.