Protecting the “Streetwall”
All too often I end up facing the same quandry – how do I expand the discussion of issues we face downtown without getting too wonkish for readers? Over this past year we’ve delved into an exploration of urban planning from the viewpoint of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, the ideas of William Whyte including the “blank wall,” and finished with a parade of guest blogs about downtown from some of the brightest minds of this city.
We live in a society where we like issues to be simple: brand x and brand y. Good guy and bad guy. Black and white. Coke and Pepsi. One, maybe two plot lines that can be wrapped up in 60 minutes, minus commercials. Or better yet, let’s limit the whole damn conversation to 140 characters.
I’m suggesting – no – I’m challenging and daring you to declare once and for all that we’re ready to go more in-depth on a topic. And this topic demands some serious discussion – SandRidge Energy’s proposal to tear down four downtown buildings. Until now most people (and maybe me included) have looked at this as a question of “is the building historic?” But there’s an urban planning and design question at stake here as well.
So let’s start with the introduction of a new word to our vocabulary – one that we’ve not heard said much in OKC but is certainly a topic of importance elsewhere: “Streetwall.” We start by going to Chicago.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Given the history of all the buildings that were lost in the name of urban renewal, I can understand the inclination to be wary of more demolition. But the fact is we don’t have a “streetwall” in OKC. At first glance one might think that the four blocks on the east side of Robinson from Main to Fourth might be the beginning of a “streetwall.” The ugly truth is most of the buildings are empty. From the Carnegie library building to the Dowell building there are no tenants living or working. These buildings look nice from a distance but are essentially unusable for whatever reason. That has to be a consideration as well. Who is to bear the expense of restoration when alternatives are more economically viable?
Exactly- it is not only the historical significance or beauty of of a building that should make us think twice about removing it. We should also consider how the absence of the building will change the “streetwall,” or the feeling of enclosure that has been shown to be comfortable and pleasing to pedestrians.
Replacing buildings is good; removing buildings for unneeded plazas is bad.
In a dreamworld Sandridge would consider replacing some of these buildings with nice residential highrises of about 15-20 floors with retail street levels.
An interesting term. You learn something new every day!
I can’t say I’m against the Sandridge proposal, but I am VERY skeptical of anyone who wants to reduce the streetwall along Robinson.
Interesting to note that in Chicago the conversation has advanced to where the idea of destroying the streetwall outright – like that being considered in OKC – is impossible; thus the debate is about to what extent the skyline can be affected by towers built behind the historic facades.
It won’t necessarily remain this way forever, but right now, the more history we maintain and the more density we create, the better off Downtown OKC is going to be!
It will be interesting to see what happens here. This case is a litmus test for our planning and downtown design review process. At the very least, there should be a meaningful discourse and serious questioning before such a drastic, and irreversible, move is made downtown.
My thoughts exactly. I don’t have a problem with tearing down a building if another is going up in its place. But let’s not tear something down just to have a bigger plaza. That’s bad.
Even if Sandridge has no plans for the buildings at the moment, let’s hold off on destroying them. Let’s keep them up until someone has a specific plan to either renovate them or replace them. No point in tearing down a perfectly good building, just because. We have enough empty space as it is.
Is this SandRidge keeping up with the Devons? Devon gets to renovate the Myriad Gardens and whatnot, SandRidge gets to create their own plaza in their backyard.
Definitely shades of grey here. Learned something new – and there’s even a wiki about the streetwall concept:
http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/street-wall
Personally, I’m deeply uncomfortable with the idea of 4 downtown buildings meeting the wrecking ball – especially the India Temple building. I’m very glad that at least there is a design review board that will have to give final approval to Sandridge before they have a green light. We should know more in January I guess…I’m a touch skeptical of the whole thing at this point.