Plow

[UnFrSaKn]

It was pointed out to me when I showed my photo of The Plow to a developer you all would know, that the clear plexiglass is really there to help open up the building to natural light for the construction workers. Boarded up windows don't really help in that regard. Of course, it's a temporary thing.

[Pete]

Couple from warreng88:

[Snowman]

Thanks Will and Pete for taking and posting those. Does anyone know what the purpose of that glass/plexiglass is? From the looks of it in the renderings, there are going to be brand new metal framed windows installed.

It seems like that would help with several things other than just light in during construction, it keeping wind/rain out, keeps tools/material from accidentally falling on someone below. It adds a bit more security on lower levels, that fence is not going to keep anyone out that wants in.

[betts]

I see one new window leaning against the Plow today. It will be nice to see it with windows.

[UnFrSaKn]

https://twitter.com/dtOKCbuilds/stat...04188493668355

[Pete]

Thanks Will.

Already looks much better just with most the boards off the windows.

[Pete]

These were taken today by catch22. Note the sample new window in the last two photos -- can't wait to see all of those up.

[UnFrSaKn]

September 8 2014

https://www.flickr.com/photos/willia...7647364452136/

[Pete]

From catch22:

[Pete]

From https://twitter.com/joshdelozier:

[UnFrSaKn]

If the RIP Building was on the Preftakes block...

[BDP]

If the RIP Building was on the Preftakes block...

Thing is, if there was going to be a 200+ ft building and parking garages, some would be all for it.

[NWOKCGuy]

Thing is, if there was going to be a 200+ ft building and parking garages, some would be all for it.

Not really. Does every thread have to have comments like this? Can hardly even read this site any more.

[Pete]

The truth is this building could have easily been demolished.

It had been vacant a very long time and it was certainly more "functionally obsolescent" than One North Hudson.


I agree this demolition theme is being spread in tons of threads but after all, there is a pending vote about demolishing a full block and it's a hot topic right now.


The bottom line is that whatever developers want to do with these buildings seems to be completely up to them (100% demolition approval record) and it's only by good fortune this one found a responsible buyer.

[NWOKCGuy]

But it wasn't demolished so what does it have do with this building? Nothing.

[Pete]

It's an example of how old buildings in poor shape can be saved, while at this very moment there is a raging debate rooted in the assertion of functional obsolescence.

It certainly could be used by the committee to challenge the Hines assertion.

[NWOKCGuy]

And I'd be happy to open a thread about this building to check on the status and see a post that says "See... This is an example of what you can do with a 'dilapidated' building". That's not what this was. This is opening a thread expecting development news about a certain project and seeing a post that says 'RIP to this building if it was on Preftakes block' followed by 'everyone would be happy if it was 200 ft surrounded by parking garage'.

[Pete]

Here's the picture I posted last night that was cutoff by pagination :

[gurantula35]

The truth is this building could have easily been demolished.

It had been vacant a very long time and it was certainly more "functionally obsolescent" than One North Hudson.


I agree this demolition theme is being spread in tons of threads but after all, there is a pending vote about demolishing a full block and it's a hot topic right now.


The bottom line is that whatever developers want to do with these buildings seems to be completely up to them (100% demolition approval record) and it's only by good fortune this one found a responsible buyer.

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?

I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

[boitoirich]

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?
I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

I can't respond for anyone here, but I would personally say that demolishing functional, historic buildings to build a parking lot is pretty irresponsible.

[Spartan]

Are you saying they buyers who have different plans than restoring "historic" buildings are irresponsible?

I could very well be reading that wrong, but wanted clarification

Responsible or irresponsible (if you are one of them you probably don't like to be called irresponsible, sorry), but there are undeniably varying levels of pride and community understanding exhibited by different property owners.

Our vaunted "corporate citizens" often do not match the level of citizen values exhibited by guys like Richard McKown, Steve Mason, et all whose work is a way of giving back to our community. Devon means well but doesn't realize what they are taking away from us while trying to give back; they do this because they don't engage, consult, and value planning.

I also can't respond for anyone else, as much as others would like my fairly strong views to be a broader strawman to attack. The planners who are trying to work in OKC exhibit (as they must) a more thoughtful approach, whatever that means (I think it means playing the game with Devon).

[gurantula35]

I just have a hard time calling someone irresponsible for doing what they want with the property THEY OWN. It sucks when the owners go back on their word, but in the end, it is there property. It is their buildings for them to do as they please. It in no way makes them irresponsible people though. That's what i don't get. Many people on here judge and label individuals by what they do with their own property.

The most recent demolitions are for a bigger and better use. They will bring much more life to the area that people have been begging for for years. The buildings going up will be better for the city in the long run.

[Spartan]

I just have a hard time calling someone irresponsible for doing what they want with the property THEY OWN. It sucks when the owners go back on their word, but in the end, it is there property. It is their buildings for them to do as they please. It in no way makes them irresponsible people though. That's what i don't get. Many people on here judge and label individuals by what they do with their own property.

The most recent demolitions are for a bigger and better use. They will bring much more life to the area that people have been begging for for years. The buildings going up will be better for the city in the long run.

I am having history lesson flashbacks to another form of property that existed up until about 150 years ago.

Something being property doesn't make whatever you want right. I'm not sure if you're trying to make a political or philosophical point, or if we are talking about civic matters.

Euclid v. Ambler and Hadacheck v. Sebastian provide strong legal tradition (both long standing SCOTUS decisions) for the city providing higher-level stewardship of the private property which it is comprised. Just in case that's your issue.

[gurantula35]

I am having history lesson flashbacks to another form of property that existed up until about 150 years ago.

Something being property doesn't make whatever you want right.

what are you referring to? excuse my ignorance

[Spartan]

Excuse mine, that's why I asked what kind of point you're making.