Sad. Sometimes it seems as if we have learned nothing from all of the downtown demolition that has been done previously.

B, there is a significant difference here from past mistakes, in that at least the buildings will be replaced with something as opposed to becoming vacant lots. Of the two buildings shown, I can see how the Salvation Army citadel will be a loss, but the old Film Exchange building is so aesthetically challenged that it would need to be completely reworked, including replacement of hideous brick color. At that point, what would be the historical value?

I feel the exact opposite. Save the Film Exchange, demolish the chapel. Keeping just that one building will go a long way to weaving the park and city together.

I don’t know where the Film Exchange Building sits in relations to other elements proposed for the park, but couldn’t it make a great site for Steve’s dream: an Oklahoma City History Museum!

The FE bldg is the 2nd built in the city and it is SOLID! I mean the thickness of the floors and walls are amazing! I don’t understand how something as large as it is cannot be saved, renovated, and revamped into an historical structure for use as retail and restaurant or even residential space! WHY tear it down? It was constructed in 1926. We don’t have a lot of historical bldgs in our downtown core and I would hate to see it demolished when it, like so many others in the film district, CAN be saved and utilized. SAVE IT!

The overwhelming majority of buildings that will be torn down are ugly eysores that really have little to no residual historical value. There are maybe one or two worth salvaging. The rest are crap holes that cannot be razed soon enough.

Bradley for many of those buildings the cost and changes needed to bring them into compliance with current fire/safety codes many times destroys the essence you are trying to keep so they gotta go.

They ought to tear down those ugly metal buildings that are the Cotton Cooperative. We build a beautiful city and then leave that eyesore right in the middle? It takes away from every beautiful structure that’s been proposed downtown.

I disagree with you there MikeN. While it will be expensive and difficult to bring it back up to code, it’s less expensive than a new building because it is obviously a complete gut. The structure is already in place and you can’t put a price on character. It could work, just a shame that it can’t be planned around.

The Film Exchange building is just butt ugly and a beauty only to those who have all their taste in their mouths. It is sad that the Salvation Army Building cannot be reporposed but since it cannot it is way past time to quit crying over nothing and get moving/advancing.

MikeN – I strongly disagree – first, the FE bldg has a lot to offer and it is in a prime location in regards to the Core to Shore vision, meaning it can being in sales tax revenue and jobs in an area that would bring NOTHING if it weren’t there as a future renovated space. It would cost less than building a new structure, as someone may offer later, after the fact, and it has a cool history. What of a place that could serve as an information office, or more – again great bldg. Have you been inside it? It is a solid bldg. In my work as an historian in downtown I come across tons of what isn’t here – why rid ourselves of something that IS and should remain and could contribute again? One firm offered to do all this and more and the city said no because their mind was on a park – an open field. I’m all about revenue, jobs, and new business. This space would be AWESOME.

The film exchange is an awesome building… it just looks bad cuz it was painted mustard yellow about 40 years ago or so.

I think it would be a bad idea to tear down the old Film Exchange building. It would be easier to keep it than to build a newer, cheap building that wouldn’t last as long. Historically, it is a treasure to this city.

If the FE building was such a “good deal”: then private industry would have done something with it before now. As to “cool history” what a load of bunk. If a piece of property cannot turn a profit on its own efforts then a different path should be chosen.

The whole idea of the Core to Shore Park was that it was to be a PARK and not a revenue generator. Pretty simple concept.

MattW obviously you have little to no experience in renovating vs new build. That is why the OCPD decided to go ahead and build new instead of renovate. Character don’t pay the bills and as such is something that a competent businessperson would not waste one second on.

Mike, someone DID try to do something with the Film Exchange Building. A construction company bought it, wanted to renovate it, and they told me the building permit was spiked by the city and they were discouraged from moving forward with the project. Private industry was STOPPED from doing something with the building.

i am awed that the city would decline any source of revenue generating structure/biz in that area – especially if it is on the border of the park and along a thoroughfare that is still staying (Robinson). That building should remain and be allowed to produce once more. The city was foolish doing that as that biz they turned down would also have added like 30 new jobs there too. They estimated they would have generated somewhere like 2 million a year btw as they were a pretty big firm. argh. WAY better than a park producing nothing there.

I’m posting to my friends and here – CONTACT your city reps and tell them to let the Film Exchange LIVE: http://www.okc.gov/council/index.html

Here are some images and more info about these Film Exchange buildings: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Oklahoma-City-Film-Exchange-District/184232698210

I suspect there could be weddings and other events at the park. Even the best plans are changed by rain. A chapel, or call it a pavilion with character could be useful. I’m sure something would find the FE as well.

we all just need 2 stay up late