Comments on: Before We Dismiss What Buildings Remain Standing in Core to Shore…

By: Chad Reynolds

Chad Reynolds — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:31:31 +0000

Bravo to Steve for raising this issue and to all the commentators here for this thought-provoking thread. I think preserving as many of these old buildings in the C2S area would be wise, for many of the reasons stated above. But also that would provide some variety to the eventual redevelopment of the area. As Steve shows is the case in Deep Deuce, an old building mixed in with newer ones creates a sense of variety and interest. It would also encourage a mixed usage of space…restaurants and businesses below, apartments above…and this mixed usage is what brings a neighborhood to life.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:39:03 +0000

The International Harvester building used to be home to a slew of live music clubs in its basement back in the late 90s. Very cool basement area.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:26:50 +0000

Good article and points raised. If they had bull dozed all of the buildings and built new, would Bricktown be Bricktown?

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:01:07 +0000

At page 33 of the PDF file containing the 2008 Final Report 5 photos appear. The caption at the bottom of the page and without further description reads, “Underutilized land of the project area where outmoded industrial uses and vacant lands have a detrimental effect on the scattered residences.”

The photo at the top of page 33 is of the International Harvester building, as well as lots of debris in the vicinity. The caption is sufficient vague that it could be said, “Well, we didn’t mean to include the building, just the mess,” even though no such disclaimer is given.

Example 1: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_33_example1.jpg

Example 2: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_33_example2.jpg

Example 3: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_33_example3.jpg

Example 4: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_33_example4.jpg

Example 5: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_33_example5.jpg

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:48:43 +0000

As long as Anthony McDermid is on the committee, I feel confident that there will at least be a debate over these buildings individually.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:35:38 +0000

This is an extremely valuable post. Keep in mind though that many “redevelopment plans” put placeholders for buildings. They leave the individual redevelopment parcels up for debate/interpretation when the architect comes up with plans. I personally know many of the architects on the Core to Shore team and they are probably as sensitive as us to tearing down great old buildings.

I would be more concerned about an “out-of-state” design firm that might not have such sensitivity. It is unfortunate though that the redevelopment proposal does not include a line item list of the more substantive buildings that you point out. That Harvester Building looks promising.

By the way, has anyone been to the bar in the basement there? What kind of bar is it?

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:00:36 +0000

Sorry … I didn’t properly enter the link to the City’s Core To Shore website … it is http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/index.html

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:56:42 +0000

I’ve downloaded the “Final Report” (2008) from the City’s Core to Shore Website: City of Oklahoma City | Core to Shore … at 152 MB, it may take some time to download, at least it did for me.

I found the following in that file which doesn’t bode well for historical preservation issues, except as to Little Flower, Union Station, and perhaps the old Riverside School and next-door church on SW 11th:

(From Page 30 of the PDF File, Page 22 of the Report)

“BUILDINGS AND HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE

The Core to Shore district’s building stock is a mixture of industrial buildings, brick warehouse structures, storage yards, and older residential structures interspersed with vacant land. Many structures are in poor condition. Two buildings in the district, Union Station and Little Flower Church, have special historical and architectural significance.

Union Station, opened in 1931 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is located directly south of the US Postal Service building that blocks a clear view of its historic, Mission Revival facade. The former depot currently houses the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) and a small business, but it is not used for public events. Little Flower Church, at 1125 South Walker Avenue, was established in 1926to serve the large Mexican immigrant community that lived in the Riverside neighborhood at the time.

While no other buildings have the architectural significance of Little Flower Church and Union Station, several notable older buildings, such as the Latino Community Development Agency building, contribute to the character of the area and could be incorporated into development projects if economically feasible.”

The report does not otherwise identify what (if anything in particular) may have been meant by the phrase, “several notable older buildings” other than Riverside School & the old church (which are the Latino, etc., buildings).

By: Curt

Curt — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:47:37 +0000

Good point Kris. Look at the Flat Iron district. That is just one or two buildings and that area has so much character because of these two buildings.

Good point Nick. The people that designed Core to Shore didn’t care about OKC’s history. They cared about their design. They didn’t care about the people of OKC, they cared about their design. That is the problem with a lot of these design/architecture firms. They care more about getting their designs out there than using the existing character of an area. Look at what happened in the 70s and 80s. They didn’t care about the character that was already in OKC, they cared about their design.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:52:07 +0000

The idea of core to shore is great, since each of our districts does feel isolated and insular, in no large part due to the design of our highways. Broadway extension effectively places a brick wall between the health complexes/capitol area and bricktown/deep deuce/etc. It’s nice to have one of those walls moved (I-40), particularly to where we’re already blocked off naturally due to the river. I’m not going to say that all of the buildings you’ve chronicled should be retained, but some semblance of the character the c2s area lost years ago should definitely live on. Another V-Park isn’t the answer, unless we want a ‘drive to’ district to make us feel good about ourselves from a distance. I’d rather have something that people actually use and can easily get to on foot/bike/etc. We don’t need Memorial Rd. in downtown.

I think Austin is a great city to look at for inspiration of how things can be tied together well. A river, to a downtown, straight into an entertainment district, straight into the capitol complex, straight into a major university. All walkable for the most part, and none of it feels walled off from one other. It all feels like one continuous Austin, and I hope that’s what we strive for, not for a bunch of “districts” divided by mega-freeways and boulevards that we don’t need. This all was real city once before UR, and I’d like to see that remembered and alluded to in anything we do. Of course, we’re missing the original transit systems that had no small part to do with that, but regardless, that’s another debate.