BOK Park Plaza

[CuatrodeMayo]

I'm just spit-balling here, but I think for private development to be blocked in the name of preservation of an existing structure, the reasons and standards need to be substantial. The building preserved should:

1. Not present a public safety hazard, and,
2. Be economically viable for occupancy, and,
3. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, historical significance to the local community, or,
4. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, architectural significance to the local community.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Could be easily argued for a yes.
4. Could be easily argued for a yes.

[onthestrip]

For some, or me at least, I am more than okay with demolition for a better or higher use and if they were proposing this tower on just the carpenter square area or heck even on the hotel black corner but it had parking built into it base then it would be a whole different story. Yet, how can anyone say this is what we want our downtown to turn into. Parking garages taking up almost half of every block doesn't promote growth or a fun walkable environment. For me, its more that Hines and Pickard are willing to say the block has to be this way because those building don't fit into their plans and that should settle any debate. Especially when there are projects all around the country that prove this to be false. Every block needs to have a purpose and in 5 years who wants to look at this block and conclude that its purpose was large parking garages.
Also, when Preftake is quoted as " I won't raze the buss station" you kinda expect there to be at least some more original plans than a large parking garage with some blue "deco" tiles on it honoring the structure. I keep waiting for Steve to have a comment from him on his current involvement in the block but it seems he and Rainey Williams are holed up in Vast or somewhere plotting their next blocks to monopolize.

I think this is more the issue with most people. Its less of demolition of historic structures and more of whats replacing them, giant, unappealing, cold, concrete parking garages. This block doesnt necessarily need the old bus station or carpenter square to make a pleasant urban area, but it most definitely doesnt get to a pleasant urban area with mountains of parking garages with little to no retail space.

[jccouger]

This could be posted in any number of threads, but I feel its best served and discussed here due to the ongoing discussion of cars and parking garages
5 signs America is falling in love with public transit - CNN.com

[Just the facts]

There is the problem jccouger - OKC is so late to the urbanization party they missed the part where they are planning a city for a society that won't exist in the near future. These parking garages are 30 years too late but OKC civic leaders are so far behind the times our mass transit system will also be 30 years too late. I am reminded of the line in the Starsky and Hutch movie when Huggie Bear asks why do all that chasing and running around when you can just go straight to the finish line. In other words, plan for the world we are entering, not the one we are leaving.

[HOT ROD]

better late than never.

[BigD Misey]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Could be easily argued for a yes.
4. Could be easily argued for a yes.

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

[ABryant]

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

These particular buildings were built with methods that will never be used again. They were built well. They are not ground breaking architecture. As has been repeated before, downtown Oklahoma City has a glutton of undeveloped space. Why tear down functionally non-obsolete buildings when a better solution can be had. These buildings became vacant because they were purchased and not available to the market. My biggest complaint is that the west side of the Core Business District might soon be known as the Core Garage District.

[bchris02]

So the historical or architectural significance of this building is a selling point to a corporation? Seriously?
Or size and layout the floor plates are an attractive and competitive feature for a company looking to move to OKC?
And when your freinds come to visit Okc you are proud to visit show off this particular building because...(enter slight impressive credential here, other than 'well its older than my mom, it was built in 1930!)
I loved the movie UP

That could be an impressive block if the historical architecture was restored and revitalized. Picture the Bus Station as a 24-hour diner and One North Hudson and Motor Hotel as loft apartments. Then picture new, 2-3 story development on the surface parking with some retail/restaurants on the first floor and maybe more apartments above that. That would be a nice, urban block. However, razing it and building a tower as proposed would be better than just leaving it as is. The problem for preservationists especially in OKC is finding a deep pocketed developer to revitalize some of these old properties. It seems like these properties always end up either in the hands of a national developer who doesn't care and is content just sitting on them, or a local developer who has ambition but lacks the funds to realize that ambition. We all know how difficult it has been securing a deal at First National for crying out loud, let alone these smaller, lesser known properties.

[UnFrSaKn]

Not to mention the State Capitol of our state is crumbling and now has been discovered to have cracks in the "new" dome that was installed in 2002. Pieces literally falling down through the ceiling into people's offices. It even was a debate to find money to allocate to this.

[DocThunder]

Adding a few more floors to this box will not make it too costly. Adding a few more creative looks on the "skin" will not be too costly. Making the crown into a creative statement, will not be too costly. So why not have a 600 ft tower that makes a statement too ? ...the cost of having too many garages and not enough TOWER, is the real $ ? There is a reason why the other cities have large towers, that is when they reach the ROI point. ...more tenants to pay it back.

[Urbanized]

Why the name change soondoc?

[bchris02]

Why the name change soondoc?

I thought DocThunder's post sounded a lot like soondoc.

[UnFrSaKn]

Like I said before, I fear our old enemy has returned under a new name. Let's combine old and new screen names into one. No one will notice.

[BDP]

Maybe they should just let the hole block sit like it is for another 5-10 years. Then people would be begging for them to build what they have proposed.

It's only been sitting like it is because the buyer got rid of the tenants.

Of course, when this is built most of the block will be a "hole" in the urban fabric.

[DocThunder]

Having a large development is great. I'm for it. I saw this and like some of their ideas at street level and the incorporation of the existing structures.

Bustler: JAHN-Designed Japan Post Tower to Open in Tokyo

[BDP]

I think your point about there not relatively be much left does hits home, but again buildings like those on Main east of 420 West Main are not comparable.

Well, yeah, if you take a look at what we have torn down, it does not compare. We're kind of getting down to the last remnants. But even more so than individual buildings, the most striking thing that was lost was a vibrant urban center as a whole. The case could easily be made that this block is historically significant because, when taken as a whole, it is a mostly intact block that represents downtown Oklahoma City's past as an functioning urban center. From a macro view, the motivation for saving the block is more like saving the corner stone of a grand building that is being torn down. We're probably never going to fully realize that fully integrated and vibrant downtown that developed organically we once had, especially when whole blocks are still developed in this way, but we might be able to have a real reminder of what Oklahoma City once was without having to check some books out at a library.

I'm just spit-balling here, but I think for private development to be blocked in the name of preservation of an existing structure, the reasons and standards need to be substantial. The building preserved should:

1. Not present a public safety hazard, and,
2. Be economically viable for occupancy, and,
3. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, historical significance to the local community, or,
4. Possess a unique, not represented elsewhere, architectural significance to the local community.

I'm sure the standards are well defined somewhere, and when I get more time, perhaps I do better research on what those standards may be. But, this dialog is mostly opinion based it seems, and that is where I am looking at this topic at the moment.

I agree, this is largely based on opinion. There are many people whose opinion is formed more by what downtown looks like from the freeway than what it's actually like to spend time there. There are many that focus on the short term perspective and believe that building something, anything, is always the best course of action with no consideration for opportunity costs. Clearly those that have the money to buy and develop entire blocks of the city have a different opinion of what Oklahoma City could be than I do. And really, I'm even uncomfortable with forcing them to restore buildings or change their plans after they've already invested in it. If anything, I just try and voice my opinions about developments as they happen more so to express what I think should be done in the future when the next super block is proposed or maybe to inspire future policies that guide development before the design process ever begins.

In general, I tend to try and consider downtown as a cumulative development project, like most would view their neighborhood. Most would be concerned about what is built in their neighborhood and how it affects the overall quality of life, property value, and aesthetic of where they live. To me, this is kind of the same thing on a larger scale. Most would not want to see 5 homes torn down in their neighborhood, so that one large house could be built on 2 of the lots and the other three lots be used for a 10 car garage. Then, if this were being done in an older neighborhood with 70-100 year old houses like Crown Heights or Heritage Hills and the houses were occupied before the buyer purchased them, it would probably draw the attention of people outside of the community as well. This is more or less what's happening here, but on a larger scale, in my opinion.

[ABryant]

Still, so many garages.

[BDP]

The cox will be almost 50 years old when the time for demo comes. Maybe we should save it?

This fight is already over. The votes are there for demo

The interesting thing about the cox center as an example is that the same development philosophy that led to the building of that "not-worthy-of-saving" monolith is very much at work with this development.

[shawnw]

These particular buildings were built with methods that will never be used again. They were built well. They are not ground breaking architecture. As has been repeated before, downtown Oklahoma City has a glutton of undeveloped space. Why tear down functionally non-obsolete buildings when a better solution can be had. These buildings became vacant because they were purchased and not available to the market. My biggest complaint is that the west side of the Core Business District might soon be known as the Core Garage District.

That would be a cool guerrilla urbanism thing. Put up bogus wayfinding signs to the "Garage District" or "Parking District". Not that I would do this or encourage it. But if it happened, I would giggle.

[OKCRT]

Yes and if they don't build this project it will prob. be sitting some more.

I agree there needs to be more to this project but if I have to make a choice of what is just sitting there now or their project I think I would take what they are offering. Why? Because it's better than a bunch of building sitting there rotting away.

[Bullbear]

and if we have to say "Fine build your garages" which I am sure is the pill we have to swallow.. then why can't the bottom actually be useable space for lease. as it is they are trying to pass it off as that but clearly that is now what is being built.. something more like the Main street garage with actual useable for lease space and then ACTUALLY lease it!

[DocThunder]

I want this project, my desire is for them to make a couple of easy up-grades.

[dankrutka]

I'd be happy with this project if parking took up floors 2-13 or so of the tower, the angle was fixed, and one (just one) historic building is saved. This all is very doable.

[SOONER8693]

I'd be happy with this project if parking took up floors 2-13 or so of the tower, the angle was fixed, and one (just one) historic building is saved. This all is very doable.

Amen. I wish it could be that simple. But, in today's world, I guess, nothing can be simple.

[Pete]

Keep in mind the more these types of projects are allowed/approved, the less likely anything is ever going to change.

We've already seen this happen with the demolitions... Once the SandRidge thing was approved, on what grounds can the deny the same type of request from Hines or anyone else?