Midtown

[mcca7596]

What's being missed is that Architect's post was primarily a jab at JTF for ironically liking this project, which has ample surface parking, while always being negative of anything that isn't pushed out to the street in other areas of downtown.

[Architect2010]

Deleted.

Thankyou mcca, I felt as if I was being taken very wrongly here. I'm glad someone realized what I was trying to do.

[Pete]

Fair enough, I guess I missed the sarcasm.


Let's please get back to discussing Midtown development.

[Dustin]

This is why there is a "reply with quote" button.

[wschnitt]

Looking at the wiring on the outside of the building, it looks like they have the power in place for the CLINE HOTEL neon sign on the NW corner. That is really cool.

[Spartan]

I was under the impression that the expansion of the Cline was going to be a little bit more significant?

[Skyline]

I was under the impression that the expansion of the Cline was going to be a little bit more significant?

I was too, for some reason I thought there was going to be an additional 3 story building connected. It turns out to be only some type of enclosed balcony build-outs, that are about 10'x10'.

[wschnitt]

That was the size of the historical addition. In order to maintain it's historical status, that was all they could add.

[dankrutka]

Looks great! Any updates on 1212 or other renovations?

[BoulderSooner]

1212 and the Cline are coming along and should be done before the summer

[Rover]

Nicely done.

[Questor]

Wow that's great looking. Happy to see developments/restorations like this.

[soonerguru]

Those are killer apartments!

[Spartan]

That was the size of the historical addition. In order to maintain it's historical status, that was all they could add.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!

[Just the facts]

That was the size of the historical addition. In order to maintain it's historical status, that was all they could add.

So once again "historical" laws and regulations stand in the way of traditional neighborhood development and creating denser neighborhoods. The best way to preserve a building is to make it economically viable to use it. In many instances "historical laws" prevent that from happening.

[BoulderSooner]

So once again "historical" laws and regulations stand in the way of traditional neighborhood development and creating denser neighborhoods. The best way to preserve a building is to make it economically viable to use it. In many instances "historical laws" prevent that from happening.

not in this case .. the historic tax credits .. are what make this project viable

[wschnitt]

Regulation kept the basement on the Cline from being used because of the ADA Act of the 1990s. If there are 4 stories, which the basement would have been the 4th, there needs to be an elevator.

*Regulation kept the basement from being used economically.

[Just the facts]

not in this case .. the historic tax credits .. are what make this project viable

You do realise the tax credits are necessary to compensate for the development destroying regulations right? I'm not opposed to historic preservation of the facade but as far as I am concerned they should be able to add floors and expansion all they want.

[BDP]

I totally agree that the historical guidelines are often misguided and I would make a bigger stink about it if I wasn't positive that, without them, more would be destroyed in OKC than gained. At the same time, they really do need to consider economics more. Sometimes the guidelines create such a barrier to renovation that a building gets to the point where people are able to successfully argue for destruction of the property because they say the economics on a renovation won't work for "generations". HP needs to consider the impact of a project and weigh issuing variances against the possible total loss of a property. The reality is that sometimes an area can get to a point where renovation is actually more economically prudent than demolition because the historic nature of a property is what actually gives it its economic value. At that point a developer doesn't want to destroy but preserve it so that it can be marketed as historic and benefit from the historic aspects of the neighborhood. But that can't happen if properties flounjder to the point where they are perceived to be worth more destroyed than saved.

This can be seen in our most established neighborhoods like Crown Heights, Mesta and Heritage Hills. Ignoring historical aspects of your property in those area can negatively affect your appreciation and sell-ability of your property in the future. HP made that happen, but HP also needs to realize it has to be fluid, especially when efficiency becomes an issue.

[Just the facts]

Very well said BDP.

[Rover]

It has been stated by experts on this site over and over that the cost to preserve and rennovate a historic building is less than to tear it down and build a new one. If that is the case, why should we citizens subsidize the private development venture?

[metro]

It has been stated by experts on this site over and over that the cost to preserve and rennovate a historic building is less than to tear it down and build a new one. If that is the case, why should we citizens subsidize the private development venture?

No, the exact opposite is true.

[Pete]

Guys, we can't keep dragging these feuds and thinly-veiled snipes into every thread.

I'm going to start deleting / moving them because this is getting old.


If you want to discuss general urban development there is a thread for that.

[Urbanized]

Just to be clear: historic preservation is a REQUIREMENT on VERY FEW buildings in downtown/inner OKC, and it was not a requirement in the case of Hadden Hall. Only in a very few historic preservation neighborhoods like Heritage Hills or Crown Heights are there local ordinances requiring adherence to HP standards. This building didn't have HP guidelines imposed on it UNTIL THE DEVELOPER APPLIED FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS. When someone applies for historic tax credits, it only makes sense that they should be required to do actual historic preservation. Otherwise, I want some of those tax credits for my newfangled ranch house in suburbia (I don't really HAVE a newfangled ranch house in suburbia, but that's beside the point).

When using tax credits, a developer must comply in certain areas with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation. These are not local laws or codes.

In OKC, you can tear down or heavily modify most old buildings without a second thought; even buildings that are actually on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register only (mostly) keeps THOSE buildings from being demolished in the case of federally-funded projects. There is also a PR burden to bear when you demolish a National Register building. That is why SandRidge chose to retain the Braniff but tear down its next-door neighbor; one was on the register and one was not though they were strikingly similar. But mark it down, they could have torn down the Braniff if they had pressed hard enough.

There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding regarding HP, its cost, its application and its requirements (both local and state/federal). That is even the case here on this board, where most of the posters are in general more informed on development matters than the average guy walking down the street.

[Just the facts]

This building didn't have HP guidelines imposed on it UNTIL THE DEVELOPER APPLIED FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS. When someone applies for historic tax credits, it only makes sense that they should be required to do actual historic preservation.

..

When using tax credits, a developer must comply in certain areas with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation. These are not local laws or codes.

If that is the case with this building then you make an excellent point and I owe BoulderSooner an apology. If you want the money you have to accept the guidelines that go along with it.

BTW - I love what they did with the place.