To Tear or Not To Tear Down, That is the Question
Is 111 N Robinson just another ugly forgetable building - another crime of the Urban Renewal era?
Or is this tower, built in 1902, once the home of the state legislature, still hidden underneath the concrete face?
That’s the question in today’s story on the plans for SandRidge Commons facing a potential roadblock at Thursday’s Downtown Design Review Committee. The city’s planning staff has sent a report to the committee recommending they reject SandRidge Energy’s plans to raze four buildings on the campus, including the above 111 N Robinson building (shown above with, and without, a fake concrete facade added in the 1960s). You can read the report here.
An intriguing part of the report is a plea by Preservation Oklahoma sent to SandRidge CEO Tom Ward asking that they delay deciding whether to tear down 111 N Robinson and invest in determining whether the original building is still hidden behind the facade.
When the deal between Kerr-McGee and the Triangle development group fell apart, leaving the fate of the older buildings on the campus in jeopardy (prior to the properties sale to SandRidge), I wrote this column in August 2006. Note the comments about the contractor who installed the facade at 111 N Robinson, and what they had to say about chances of finding the original building still intact:
I wanted to share Bob Maidt’s story at a triumphant moment.
Maidt and his son Bob Maidt Jr. were veterans in the plastering business, and I was first introduced to Bob Maidt Jr. when he helped me understand the pros and cons in the use of EIFS stucco in new construction.
In March, I wrote a story about a building on the Kerr-McGee campus that was to be part of a condominium development. At first glance, the building at Broadway and Robert S. Kerr Avenue in Oklahoma City is hardly spectacular. But developer and architect Anthony McDermid was aware that the concrete facade covered up a historic facade that dated back to 1902. The building, far from a forgettable Urban Renewal addition to downtown, is a true gem — and its restoration would give back a bit of history in an area that lost much of its past in the 1960s and 1970s.
But McDermid had no information on how the fake facade was added or whether the original India Temple facade was still intact. Before and after photos were printed with my story, and Bob Maidt Jr. immediately recognized the project as one completed by his ailing father. Maidt Jr. later e-mailed saying he approached his father, who was bed ridden, and memories started to flow.
The elder Maidt, 82, had been released from the hospital a couple of weeks earlier, with doctors telling the family they could do no more to relieve the man’s failing health.
“He did most of the Kerr-McGee work, so I figured it was his job,” Maidt Jr. said. “I went over in the afternoon, after work, and he seemed pretty excited. It perked him right up — put a gleam in his eyes. He said, ‘Oh yeah, I remember doing that.’”
Maidt Sr. not only recalled the job, but also told his son where to find the job files and photos of the new facade’s installation. The original building, he said, wasn’t seriously damaged during the 1960s-era renovation.
For Maidt Jr., the conversation was a chance to relive the days when the pair worked together, running the family business. Their plastering business had been started a century earlier by Maidt Jr.’s grandfather’s uncle, Albert Maidt (who also was one of the founders of Twin Hills Golf and Country Club). The family business had passed from one generation to another until it closed in 1997.
The visit about the Kerr-McGee campus building would be their last. That night, Maidt Sr. died. Ironically, the story that sparked the Maidts’ visit had been written a couple weeks earlier — intended to run at a later date. Had the story been delayed one more day, the information needed to restore the India Temple building to its original facade might have disappeared forever.
I’d hoped to tell the Maidts’ story once McDermid and his partners started on the property’s renovation. Now that renovation, and the future of two other old buildings on the former Kerr-McGee campus, appear to be another unfulfilled downtown dream. A deal between McDermid’s Corporate Redevelopment Group and Kerr-McGee fell apart last week.
As the two sides go to court, hundreds of new residential units are being added to downtown, leaving the prospect of the planned Braniff Towers a question of will, timing and demand.
Meanwhile, if someone does decide to bring the old India Temple building back to life, Maidt Jr. is waiting to share more details about his father’s last discussion about what’s under the concrete facade.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I don’t think they’re an obstruction Dennis, not that you’re saying so. I’m positive that if in their plans, Sandridge would have had a replacement for the four proposed demolished buildings, they wouldn’t have met so much opposition. Point is, historic buildings or not, they are demolishing four significant structures with no infill following. It is a suburbanization of that portion of downtown right before our eyes.
Dennis is right on. Structurally, mechanically, plumbing…these things are all a complete mess. The building would have to be completely gutted, facades shorn up…That is expensive. I also talked to another architect who has been in contact with McDermid and McDermid admitted the building probably can’t be saved.
Michael is right too. I think they should have to replace it with a newer structure to maintain the urban fabric. We don’t need another plaza or park.
Historic buildings suck. ^
Nevermind the KerMac Bldg that doesn’t have near the amount of problems that the India Temple has.
I live in a historic house, Nick, it has nothing to do with it being historical. In fact, being an architect I love the charm and detailing of historical buildings. The question is, is it feasible? No it isn’t. Replace it with a new building that would be great, I think they should be forced to rethink the design.
80% of your comments are negative and you don’t live in the city. Why is that?
Tell us your opinion on how to save the building. Other than city grants similar to what saved the Skirvin, how do you think they should do it?
OK Matt, personal attacks from someone I don’t know aside, all I’ve said is that I believe the KerMac Bldg should be saved. I disagree with SandRidge’s assessment that “sight lines” from one side of downtown to the other need to be improved. The KerMac doesn’t have 1/10th of the structural damage that the India Temple has and the only reason it has not already been redeveloped as a residential property is that KMG’s deal with redevelopers collapsed.
I never said that the India Temple could be easily preserved, and it would involve a lot more reconstruction than preservation. I compared it to a few other obscenely expensive preservation projects, which I believe is only warranted by the fact that the State Legislature did meet for four years inside its walls.
Can you imagine that? Legislators actually passing legislation in Downtown OKC. Few other cities have a state capital smack downtown, and this was ours for a short period–now we’re tearing it down because it would be difficult to fix up. Obviously if someone would bother to put it on the Register of Historic Places it would be eligible for tax cuts that would cover 20% of the cost. I do not see why it couldn’t be a state museum or something. Or an OKC museum. Or perhaps it could be restored and used as the new home for the Chamber of Commerce, or even SandRidge could use it as a conference facility. Or it could make a great boutique hotel for high-end corporate clients.
I don’t beleive in personally attacking anyone I don’t know either, but I get sarcasm. ^
BTW where was the personal attack? 80% negative? No hard feelings.
I like all of your ideas for converting the ITB, but where do you draw the line telling an owner what to do with their property? I would like to assume they have at least thought about saving the building.
When I was a highschool senior back in ’95 I worked for Kerr McGee in Kerr Park and around the Kerr McGee’s campus. I would love to see the India Temple and the KerMac building restored. The fact is the area is as dead today as it was back then. Money obviously an object and tearing them down is the easier solution.
It sounds like there is a grass roots movement there. What can we do to get this on the register?
Easy answer – don’t tear it down! Brickhuggers unite. But seriously – when are we going to find out if Sandridge gets the green light – is it this week?
My kidding aside from above – I’ve read a lot now about this, and though I am a big brickhugger, I’ve tried to keep an open mind and I am now persuaded by all the evidence tearing the India Temple building down in particular would be terrible loss. I hope it doesn’t get approval.
Not that my measly shares of SandRidge mean much in the grand scope of things, but I’m prepared to sell at a loss if SD takes down these buildings.
(captcha: ‘legalism of’ haha)
I worked in the India Temple building in 2006. The plumbing in there still works. The elevators still work. It’s connected to the Conncourse. I don’t see why it would need to be torn down. Does it need restored? Oh, definitely. But I think Sandridge is making it out to be worse than it is.
Michael, it goes before the Downtown Design Review committee this week. Thursday morning at City Hall, in the City Council chambers.
I went to the DDR meeting when I was in town over Christmas and spoke before them, until they realized what I was talking about and I was informed it was against the rules to talk to them about a non-agenda issue. Same thing that prevented Not This MAPS folks from speaking about MAPS at City Council meetings. It’s unfortunate, but I didn’t realize the city code said that.
Matt, Nick, I don’t see any personal attacks above. But I also will be assertive here and say I think it’s ridiculous to discount someone because they are critical of decisions being advocated by the city or because they are attending school out of state or are natives having to live elsewhere. This is how people begin to live in a bubble – safe, sure, but not a life that is either diverse, interesting or new. Some of you are too young to remember the 1980s. I’m not. And I can say without a doubt there were far too many living in a bubble here. It was when that bubble exploded in the dark despair of the oil bust that this “you don’t live here and we know best” mentality disappeared and things started changing.
Nick, I’ve not always agreed with you, but don’t you dare let anyone silence you.
Historic or not, preservable or not…downtown needs more buildings not open space. I am confident that SandRidge and their New York architectural firm can redesign a more urban plan that blows this one out of the water.
I think it’s strange that local stories of preservation and renovation of historic buildings seem to be successes, yet every time there is a question about whether to tear down or restore, there are naysayers. Examples of successes range from the Colcord to the Skirvin, from the Gold Dome to Heritage Hills.
I also find it strange that Bob Blackburn does not recommend saving the India Temple.
Could the building be placed on the register, or has it been altered too much?
If you can’t have a debate with someone then what is the point of this blog, Steve? No one is trying to silence Nick, no matter how idealistic he sounds.
“This is how people begin to live in a bubble – safe, sure, but not a life that is either diverse, interesting or new. Some of you are too young to remember the 1980s. I’m not. And I can say without a doubt there were far too many living in a bubble here. It was when that bubble exploded in the dark despair of the oil bust that this “you don’t live here and we know best” mentality disappeared and things started changing.”
What is that? Sorry if my comments disagree with your’s Steve, I promise I won’t shut up either, whether you like it or not.
Matt, I’m not taking your side or Nick’s side on this debate. I am, however, challenging you on the notion that Nick should stay quiet. And no, I don’t want you to shut up either Matt. Keep the discussion going – just respect the right of others to debate as well. If Nick is critical 80 percent of the time (I’m not quite sure that’s correct), that’s just as ok as some posters who are positive 80 percent of the time.
Again, just respect the right of others to comment. That’s what I’m asking for. Note I also challenged Nick on the idea you were engaging in a personal attack – I did not see that occurring with your comments.
So basically, I’ve once again risked offending both sides. This, for me, is a good day!
[...] was unconfirmed. Although Steve doubtless reported accurately, it was yet to be confirmed. In his March 17, 2010, blog article, “To Tear or Not To Tear Down, That is the Question,” he wondered out loud whether the [...]
Steve,
The ‘fake’ facade might indeed be removable, and the wonderful original skin might indeed be restorable. However, old buildings have MANY other attributes that are important to their suitability for use… most importantly the myriad of attributes related to life safety, accessibility, and plain old functionality.
If a substantial percentage of each floor plate must be sacrificed to build new, code-worthy egress stairways, and new elevator shafts, and new mechanical shafts, and et cetera to allow viable occupancy, then what sense does that make to the owner? I understand that Sand Ridge has spent serious resources to evaluate the options for keeping the building.
At what point does a City’s desire to ‘maintain the urban fabric’ cross the line to becoming ‘obstruction of much needed development?’
The Downtown Design Commission has a very tough job in front of them. I predict that they’ll force Sand Ridge to do more hoop-jumping, and then return for round two in a few months. Then round three…
I’m sure we’ll all stay tuned for the show.