Comments on: What Will be Torn Down as Part of the Core to Shore Park Plan

By: shabu

shabu — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:42:34 +0000

we all just need 2 stay up late

By: Really

Really — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:32:10 +0000

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.

By: Bradley Wynn

Bradley Wynn — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:39:43 +0000

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

By: Bradley Wynn

Bradley Wynn — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:05:23 +0000

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

By: Bradley Wynn

Bradley Wynn — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:01:51 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:06:08 +0000

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.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:04:00 +0000

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.

By: Sheila Jones

Sheila Jones — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:09:59 +0000

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.

By: Ed Crunk

Ed Crunk — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:26:30 +0000

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

By: Bradley Wynn

Bradley Wynn — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:08:56 +0000

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.