They won’t say it that way – they’ll throw in something about neighborhood compatibility or something like that – but that’s what they mean. Besides, Finley’s already got a bridge named for him, isn’t that enough?

On the Kermac/SandRidge properties, I might be a little more forgiving if the dozers come: the India Temple is so screwed up with that bogus façade that it might be impossible to return to something resembling its proper appearance, and while I like the Braniff, I suspect it has few fans.

During the fight to save the building, several so-called development and real estate experts stated that the foot print and configuration of the building made it virtually unusable for anything other than a headquarters bank building. As anyone can see now that the building has been readapted for office use that the experts were at least unimaginitive and short sighted.

A cookie cutter Walgreens or any other temporary box development is never a wise substitute for a landmark. US cities are repleat with unique buildings that have been adaptively reused after preservationists have saved them from demolition. I dare say that nearly any existing building of reasonably good construction deserves very serious consideration as to how it might be reused or incorporated into a new development before it is sacrificed to the wrecking ball.

Until the Gold Dome was purchased with plans to turn it into a multicultural center, maybe a cookie cutter Walgreens would have made for a higher and better use for that land than a unique but wholly abandoned geodesic dome. The key is searching for alternatives to demolition.

As a second example, there is a 3- or 4-story brick structure south of I-40 that has been singled out on the OkMet forum as a potential candidate for some sort of preservative efforts… but it appears to be sitting on property that will one day be Oklahoma City’s shining new mega convention center… When funding, plans, etc, are solidly laid out for that facility, it may well be justifiable to tear down the historic structure.

We will always be hesitant about demolition in Oklahoma City after the extensive damage done to our core that is chronicled in OKC: Second Time Around. But was the problem with that demolition the fact that it destroyed historic structures, or was the REAL problem that it destroyed them without a secure financial foundation on which the redevelopment of these properties could occur?