Core to Shore

[Urbanized]

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.

There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.

But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

[Just the facts]

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.

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

[Urbanized]

Another thing: the demolished buildings that WERE replaced in the 60s, 70s and 80s all had one thing in common: they were in the CBD. There were going to be new buildings built in the CBD no matter what, driven by market demand. I think the chances of something on the fringe of downtown -- torn down on spec -- being replaced by a new structure anytime soon are pretty remote. At least that's what history tells us.

[Urban Pioneer]

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

I'm serious. What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?

[Just the facts]

I'm serious. What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?

According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.

[Skyline]

I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there.

There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.

[Just the facts]

I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there.

There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.

They razed paradise and put up a parking lot.

No chance of a parking lot here. There is no canal.

[Urbanized]

Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?

[Just the facts]

If there was I can't think of it. The closest I can think of was the proposed chamber building but the lot was probably cleared more than 30 years ago and the new building never materialized anyhow.

[rcjunkie]

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.

[Bellaboo]

There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.

But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's thru the '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.

[Urbanized]

Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.

The same could have been (and was) said a few years ago about the Skirvin. And most of the buildings in Bricktown, from the seventies through the nineties. That building is a near-twin to several of Bricktown's most substantive structures, a number of which were "vacant and decaying" for years, if not decades.

I could not disagree more with your statement; a vacant building - especially a quality and/or historic one, is almost ALWAYS worth more than an empty lot, especially in an are that is heavily comprised of vacant lots.

Again, show me where anything torn down on spec in the past 30 years has created development.

[Urbanized]

I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's thru the '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.

And it is a fairly well-accepted position that OKC lost more than it gained during the Urban Renewal period of the 60s and 70s. Are you defending those teardowns as good policy?

And again, I maintain that the scattering of buildings that replaced the teardowns -- buildings like Leadership Square, BOK, Corporate Tower, Oklahoma Tower, or even the Myriad -- those buildings were built due to market demand and a desire to be in the CBD, not because there happened to be vacant land sitting there waiting for them. Would they have been built in those specific locations had that land not been pre-scraped? Maybe, maybe not. But they probably still WOULD have been built.

Like I said -- and someone like Steve might need to weigh in here, because I am unsure which of those buildings were torn down for a specific project and which were demolished on spec -- some of those buildings were definitely a higher and better use. I have no issue with demolition of a most buildings (besides obvious historic treasures), provided they are replaced with something of equal or greater value.

But there are so few examples in OKC's history of spec teardowns resulting in a better building in a reasonable amount of time -- even within a generation -- that I feel pretty safe in saying that demolishing that building just for the sake of demolishing would be a bad trade-off for a patch of grass.

[Urbanized]

[Urbanized]

By the way, there has been considerably more torn down over the past 25 years than you might think. It has just been more insidious than wholesale, an more of it has been at the fringe of downtown than near the core. I can think of a number of places torn down or burned in the past decade to 15 years along Walker north of 6th, for instance. Most of them are now grass, but a couple of them do have nice asphalt parking lots.

[metro]

Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?

India Temple?

[Steve]

According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.

I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.

[OKC74]

This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already. But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs. I heard something about this on the news. Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city? Or just the downtown area? I'm in favor of changing them all over town. With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.

[BoulderSooner]

I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.

what measures?

[Urban Pioneer]

This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already. But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs. I heard something about this on the news. Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city? Or just the downtown area? I'm in favor of changing them all over town. With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.

Just downtown are going to horizontal format to help further deliniate the P180 area.

[Just the facts]

I think the horizontal light are used because they are easier to see while stopped at the light, especially with the introduction of left-turn lights at all intersections.

[Urban Pioneer]

Perhaps... But remember the committee liking them because they were different. Lol

[Urbanized]

India Temple?

Patch of grass. At least for now.

That said, if they construct the new building that they have indicated will go there, I wouldn't classify that as a "spec" teardown. That building apparently was in their long-range plans all along. And depending on the quality of the new building, this could be a reasonable example of "higher and better" use.

Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.

However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.

[SkyWestOKC]

Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.

However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.

A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).

[Urbanized]

A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).

That's a perfect example. Next to the now-demolished Public Inebriate Alternative was the Finley Building. That was actually a really nice mid-century building with a great history that certainly could have been rehabbed into something worthwhile. But when the Aloft became a real project, by all means I supported its demolition. That is a very clear higher and better use for that property. A hardcore preservationist might have a problem with it, but I do not. But again, it was not torn down just for the sake of demolition; it was torn down to clear the way for a real project.