Core to Shore

[Spartan]

The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.

Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.

[ljbab728]

The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.

Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.

Spartan, I'm in agreement with you about preservation of existing worthy buildings. I still don't believe, however, you can such a broad statement about the economics involved. Every project can be very different.

[Spartan]

Great, I hope you as fervently argue the point with the whole downtown OKC real estate establishment that is clinging onto the contrary categorical statement, just like generations typically will cling onto outdated and unsustainable methods.

[rcjunkie]

Spartan, that's a very broad statement and not always true.

Actually, it's probably never true.

[Just the facts]

The sad part is the City, and quasi-city organizations, set the standard and OKC has set the bar real real low. From lower bricktown, to the chamber building, to the proposed police headquarters - it is all bad. When they do something right like the Skirvin it is usually because they partner with a private company.

[soonergolfer]

Why do you think that the CITY has to do anything? People make investments in real estate all the time, and historic preservation is one of many viable development portfolios that are common-place downtown. Numerous people have made those projects among the most successful in all of downtown. And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.

I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved.
Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.

[lasomeday]

okc hasn't been behind tulsa for about 15 years

Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years? Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC. Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC. I am probably moving to Denver.

[BoulderSooner]

Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years? Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC. Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC. I am probably moving to Denver.

bye

[lasomeday]

bye

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

[BDP]

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

I thought you were serious, too. There are a lot with Tulsa tunnel vision that say the same things.

[BoulderSooner]

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

i did not ... sorry about that ...

[rcjunkie]

Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.

Neither do I, drive careful.

[Spartan]

Actually, it's probably never true.

Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.

[Spartan]

I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved.
Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.

Well, you tell me which happens first. That building gets renovated by private investors, or they instead by the closest vacant lot and build a smashing mixed-use development on that site. If you ask me, the second scenario is a LOT further off.

That is if we're going to look at these things in a truly objective sense, rather than assessing difficulty level before anything has even been examined properly. That's how we've lost at least 10 historic buildings in last 3-5 years. This trajectory is unacceptable and will probably leave all of Bricktown and Automobile Alley razed before the world is even over in a year.

[rcjunkie]

Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.

You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.

[Urbanized]

Hey, I'm pretty open-minded. Other than the Bricktown Ballpark, show me an example of a historic or even just a good-quality old building demolished in downtown Oklahoma City in the past 25 years, then replaced with another building of substance and quality (or in fact anything other than a parking lot or patch of grass), and I will totally consider jumping on the "it's better to tear it down than wait for a developer" bandwagon.

Better yet, show me ANY building that was torn down on spec (the building in Bricktown was demolished to make way for a sure-thing ballpark), and replaced by something better in the past 25 years. Anything? Bueller?

[Rover]

Re-use is certainly preferrential. Why does it seem to take the threat of demolition to get any momentum to reconstruct and re-use these historic properties? Should the city set up its own historic preservation which accross the board bans the deconstruction and REQUIRES minimum maintenance for preservation. What happens if a current owner can't afford to keep the property up but no reasonable buyers are willing to take the risk or make the investment...does the city foreclose on it?

[lasomeday]

You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

[Urbanized]

Or, more often that that, you literally get...nothing.

[Rover]

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

Pretty generalized and sterotypical statement. I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building. Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too. I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

[Rover]

Cheaper! That is what you get too! Cheap crap! Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

Pretty generalized and stereotypical statement. I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building. Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too. I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

[Urbanized]

The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.

Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.

Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.

[Bellaboo]

The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.

Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.

Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.

Leadership Square - they almost did NOT tear down an old building that would have been on the southeast corner of the block....they made a big deal how it made the price go up for such a small building. But it would have been way out of place if it would have been left.

For that matter, any of the buildings built between 1970 and 1985 would have replaced old structures.

[Just the facts]

If clearing land created development OKC would be the envy of the world. As urbanized said, that is the lesson we should have learned from urban renewal (queue the International Harvester building). No plan to replace but for some reason it has to be cleared and it must be done ASAP.

[Urban Pioneer]

If this true, and it is still on the slate for the wrecking ball, then where is the Preservation community? I can't see how it is, since the CC is not going there and it is not part of the park.