Nic's Diner + Lounge

[kevinpate]

A Cease and Desist order was issued late yesterday or this morning.

In related news, Farmer John returned from town and locked up the barn. The location of the horses remains unknown.

[Bullbear]

From what I understand, this is not completely cut and dried.

It seems the intention to paint the exterior was listed on the scope of work that was ultimately approved by the DDRC, although that part of the application was not obvious.

If the Nic's people wanted to push this, they would probably have decent legal standing.

Yah I'd say if they listed the paint in the scope of work and DDRC missed it and approved it.. well whose fault is that? I'd say Nic could proceed with what was approved.

[catch22]

According to BoulderSooner, it was listed on the application but not listed in the certificate of approval?

So they applied for it but didn't receive approval, correct?

[Roger S]

It looks to me like they are going for the same look as Nic's Grill.... Grey, blue, and black are common colors that he has always used.

It's easy to look at what they have done so far and say "Oh that looks terrible! How could they commit this travesty upon this building?!?!" but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that I think the finished product will not be the travesty most of you are making it out to be. Yes, it looks rough right now in it's current state, but considering that for a diner, Nic's Grill has been a diamond in a toilet of a neighborhood for a lot of years. I don't think Justin is going to do anything that is going to detract from the neighborhood he is joining now..... Especially when compared to what the building looked like under the former tenant.

[catch22]

It looks to me like they are going for the same look as Nic's Grill.... Grey, blue, and black are common colors that he has always used.

It's easy to look at what they have done so far and say "Oh that looks terrible! How could they commit this travesty upon this building?!?!" but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that I think the finished product will not be the travesty most of you are making it out to be. Yes, it looks rough right now in it's current state, but considering that for a diner, Nic's Grill has been a diamond in a toilet of a neighborhood for a lot of years. I don't think Justin is going to do anything that is going to detract from the neighborhood he is joining now..... Especially when compared to what the building looked like under the former tenant.

No, of course it will probably look okay as a finished product. But that finished product will potentially destroy this building from the outside, over time. And he's going in the opposite direction of downtown as a whole (removing paint and exposing brick facades).

[CS_Mike]

If you look at the approval, the DDRC listed the items that they were approving. Painting the exterior was not in that list. However, they did not specifically state in writing that the painting was disapproved either, so it's possible it was misinterpreted as a blanket approval for the entire scope of work. Or perhaps that omission was seen as an opportunity to move forward anyways and blame it on a misunderstanding of the approval after-the-fact.

[David]

It looks to me like they are going for the same look as Nic's Grill.... Grey, blue, and black are common colors that he has always used.

It's easy to look at what they have done so far and say "Oh that looks terrible! How could they commit this travesty upon this building?!?!" but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that I think the finished product will not be the travesty most of you are making it out to be. Yes, it looks rough right now in it's current state, but considering that for a diner, Nic's Grill has been a diamond in a toilet of a neighborhood for a lot of years. I don't think Justin is going to do anything that is going to detract from the neighborhood he is joining now..... Especially when compared to what the building looked like under the former tenant.

The travesty is not necessarily the new look, the travesty is that they're doing something that is known to destroy brick building exteriors.

[AP]

Yeah, as has been said, I don't think that it's necessarily that it will look bad, though the brick was wonderful. More that he is ruining the brick in a process that is near irreversible.

[Roger S]

But that finished product will potentially destroy this building from the outside, over time. And he's going in the opposite direction of downtown as a whole (removing paint and exposing brick facades).

Over how much time? 1 year? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? ..... I understand the effects you have stated of painting over brick but I also understand that time itself will destroy anything... I feel the effects of time on myself every day.

Yes he is going against the trend but that's a personal choice of aestethics isn't it? I know personally I prefer diversity to cookie cutter but that's just my personal preference.

[SoonerDave]

It looks to me like they are going for the same look as Nic's Grill.... Grey, blue, and black are common colors that he has always used.

It's easy to look at what they have done so far and say "Oh that looks terrible! How could they commit this travesty upon this building?!?!" but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and say that I think the finished product will not be the travesty most of you are making it out to be. Yes, it looks rough right now in it's current state, but considering that for a diner, Nic's Grill has been a diamond in a toilet of a neighborhood for a lot of years. I don't think Justin is going to do anything that is going to detract from the neighborhood he is joining now..... Especially when compared to what the building looked like under the former tenant.

Surely understand where you're coming from, BBQ, but this isn't about aesthetics so much as it is a needless treatment that will cause an issue for the existing structure. Mind you, I'm no huge champion of saving every building merely for the sake of saving it, and for an owner to do mostly what they wish with their own property. However, if you are overhauling a long-term building, and have a sound structure with a preservable brick facade, painting it just doesn't make sense in the context of a broader theme of preservation where practical/possible. The problem, though, is that the paint is on, and removing it at this point may cause more damage than it's worth. You can't unring the bell.

I think TPTB just have to be a *lot* more careful going forward.

[Roger S]

... but this isn't about aesthetics so much as it is a needless treatment that will cause an issue for the existing structure.

But from my perspective it is about aestethics... The proprietor is known for using a certain color scheme... To him it is aesthetically what he wants for his business.... Will it harm the building over time? I'm no expert on bricks but what others have said sounds logical to me. So, yes, I can accept their assessment that it will.... Is it worth throwing a torch and pitchfork party over? .... To me it isn't because I think it's still going to be a nice looking business upon completion.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^^
Even so, that is not the spirit or intent of design and HP guidelines. Personal taste (in this case your opinion that it will be nice-looking) is 100% subjective. While many confuse HP guidelines for someone's taste, they are in fact completely OBjective; designed to protect the integrity of the building, its history and the fabric of the neighborhood at large.

[Roger S]

Personal taste (in this case your opinion that it will be nice-looking) is 100% subjective. While many confuse HP guidelines for someone's taste, they are in fact completely OBjective; designed to protect the integrity of the building, its history and the fabric of the neighborhood at large.

Yep... I understand that and I'm not really trying to address that issue as much as the uproar by several posters that the building looks horrible... Of course it looks horrible right now... It's unfinished.

[David]

Over how much time? 1 year? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? ..... I understand the effects you have stated of painting over brick but I also understand that time itself will destroy anything... I feel the effects of time on myself every day.

Yes he is going against the trend but that's a personal choice of aestethics isn't it? I know personally I prefer diversity to cookie cutter but that's just my personal preference.

According to the county assessor the building in question was built in 1955, so it has already survived 60 years.

Also, it's not just the trend that he is going against. Did you see this?

A Cease and Desist order was issued late yesterday or this morning.

If the city is really taking action to stop the work, it is not just a "trend".

[Roger S]

According to the county assessor the building in question was built in 1955, so it has already survived 60 years.

Also, it's not just the trend that he is going against. Did you see this?
If the city is really taking action to stop the work, it is not just a "trend".

Ok question. is... If it is 60 years old... What is it's remaining lifespan and how much will that lifespan be shortened by painting the building?

Taken in context to the post I was responding to... Yes, it is the current trend.

[David]

Ok question. is... If it is 60 years old... What is it's remaining lifespan and how much will that lifespan be shortened by painting the building?

Taken in context to the post I was responding to... Yes, it is the current trend.

If you want to define the context of the problem so narrowly, sure. Anything is true once you add enough modifiers.

But the thing is, you can't really discuss the trend in question without also looking at what the city is requiring. One informs the other.

[Roger S]

If you want to define the context of the problem so narrowly, sure. Anything is true once you add enough modifiers.

But the thing is, you can't really discuss the trend in question without also looking at what the city is requiring. One informs the other.

Is that not the problem you and I are discussing? I honestly want to know... How many years can be expected to be taken from this structures life span by adding paint? If no one knows that is fine but I see comments stating it will destroy the building... I won't dispute that. I understand all to well the power of water to destroy things... or create depending on how you look at it in other contexts because water did create the Grand Canyon.... But how much will it shorten the building life span? That certainly seems like the pertinent question to me.

Once again... In the context of the post I was responding to... Current trend is the correct term.

[Teo9969]

Is that not the problem you and I are discussing? I honestly want to know... How many years can be expected to be taken from this structures life span by adding paint? If no one knows that is fine but I see comments stating it will destroy the building... I won't dispute that. I understand all to well the power of water to destroy things... or create depending on how you look at it in other contexts because water did create the Grand Canyon.... But how much will it shorten the building life span? That certainly seems like the pertinent question to me.

Once again... In the context of the post I was responding to... Current trend is the correct term.

Given enough resources, no building is unsalvageable. What this does however, is greatly increase the resources that will be necessary in 25 to 50 years to restore this building to its original state, which is the *most* desirable state of almost all buildings over the course of history.

It sucks, and it's silly, but the individual building "being ruined" is less worth getting worked up over than the process that led to the building "being ruined". At the end of the day, that building stands little chance to last another 25 years because there will be much higher and better use of that land even relatively soon, but for sure in a few decades. But the blip in the process is just one more example of the inability of Developers and the City to get on the same page and understand what we're working toward.

[Roger S]

Given enough resources, no building is unsalvageable. What this does however, is greatly increase the resources that will be necessary in 25 to 50 years to restore this building to its original state, which is the *most* desirable state of almost all buildings over the course of history.

It sucks, and it's silly, but the individual building "being ruined" is less worth getting worked up over than the process that led to the building "being ruined". At the end of the day, that building stands little chance to last another 25 years because there will be much higher and better use of that land even relatively soon, but for sure in a few decades. But the blip in the process is just one more example of the inability of Developer's and the City to get on the same page and understand what we're working toward.

Thank you.... And I agree the chances of the buildings demise coming at the end of a wrecking ball is higher than it succumbing to paint.

[Paseofreak]

Notwithstanding all the fine information Urbanized has provided with regard to paint degrading brick veneers, the designer (whom we both know) contends that it's not an absolute and is a non-issue if the proper methods are used on an appropriate structure. But, being within the design district, with certain codified standards, that would seem to be a moot point.

Painting of the complete exterior was included in the scope of work of the application submitted and administratively approved by the Planning Department. I. Don't know the process for passing applications around for concurrence, but the developer received approval that included citations of specific construction activities and did not exclude exterior paint (or any others that have been publicized). Bottom line, the developer received an approval that the powers that be had no apparent authority to grant.

Seems that there is no shortage of directions to point fingers. I'm making popcorn now.

[soonerguru]

But are they going to do anything about it or just shrug? I'm guessing just shrug - what good are they, then?

There will be a strongly written letter sent, with an appeal to do better next time.

[Plutonic Panda]

There will be a strongly written letter sent, with an appeal to do better next time.

Excellent.

[TheTravellers]

There will be a strongly written letter sent, with an appeal to do better next time.

Gee, that'll show Nic! Bad actions need to have consequences, otherwise they'll be repeated ad infinitum because everybody knows they can get away with it. That's actually probably one of the major problems facing the nation right now in pretty much every field and profession - somebody does something bad and/or illegal and someone says "Bad person, don't do that next time!" and that's it, no consequences (tangible or otherwise), so why bother stop doing bad things...

And no, I have no idea what consequences Nic should face, but give me an hour or so and I can probably think of something... Oh wait, how about removing the paint without harming the brick? Yep, that'd work for me.

[SoonerDave]

Gee, that'll show Nic! Bad actions need to have consequences, otherwise they'll be repeated ad infinitum

Now, as someone who is on the side of the brick not being painted, if there's a reasonable basis on which to believe he made a good-faith disclosure about the paint, and the relevant committee OK'd it, then rag on the committee. Enforcing the relevant standards is why they exist.

On the other hand, if we think the Nic group "kinda knew" about the paint rules, but buried it in a bigger application for the point of hiding it bureaucratically, and now claims ignorance or "it wasn't *excluded*", then that's a horse of a different color.

How are those standards communicated to the developer? Is it plain? Eg, is there a document or something that a developer gets that says "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not"?

The problem here is, to my naive ear, the process. If the rules are in place, and they didn't get enforced, the committee that enforces them has to take the hit. If the developer did what they were supposed to, you can't very well come back on them and say "oops..." and compel them to do something different to their own detriment.

Improve the process. Bottom line.

[HOT ROD]

good grief, this city allows way more hiddious and illegal practices to take place with regard to developers. From ridiculous setbacks being allowed in the downtown core to demolition of otherwise productive, semi-heritage buildings for a supersized parking garage district - OKC has given far more variances and back door deals that this one should be moot. I mean, we have a local business expanding into downtown and providing adoptive reuse in a heritage retail district. Sure they violated the DDRC approval process and should be fined but that should be the extent of it - PROCEED!