Comments on: Protecting the “Streetwall”

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:44:08 +0000

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.

By: Curt

Curt — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:01:30 +0000

Who is the developer or architect telling them to tear these buildings down?

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:45:45 +0000

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.

By: Blair

Blair — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:36:19 +0000

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.

By: Brian J

Brian J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:59:28 +0000

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.

By: justin

justin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:11:39 +0000

….no more lawns downtown……PL3@SE!

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:07:32 +0000

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.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:22:03 +0000

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?

By: Michael Heaton

Michael Heaton — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:12:29 +0000

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.