The 134,000-square-foot structure — an amalgam of five buildings cobbled together on a hillside west of downtown over the past 74 years — is coming down, city and museum officials said.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/city-scraps-plans-to-renovate-gilcrease-museum-will-build-new/article_ef9442bb-e989-5956-8d92-89fdee3d2c28.html
This is quite the turn of events and surprising that we are this deep into the process and just now learning that the various cobbled together wings of the building cannot be remodeled for what it will cost tear it all down and start new.
Wow
This worries me, and I don't quite understand their reasoning for coming to this conclusion so late. I thought the expansion renderings were kind of kooky, but I assumed the architects knew what they were doing. Seems they didn't even do their homework to see if the building was suitable for the design until now. I'm guessing an engineer somewhere had to refuse to sign something for it to come to this.
I don't like how Americans treat buildings so disposable. The reasons being presented here for demolition are lame and predictable. Why does it matter that the building is composed of multiple additions, and if there are leaks, why not fix the damn leaks? Sounds to me like the architect needs to be replaced.
I for one am very happy for this decision. The exterior of the building is terrible, the layout is awful, and the interior "finishes"/design is not good either. Has no real stylistic, or period quality that will be missed imho.
Often people complain when a developer, or non-profit for that matter, builds something cheaply or with an expected "lifespan". In some cases the complaint is warranted, but if the intent is to "do the job" for the time being to get the ball rolling and make a profit, then later build the quality building,,,, then I think it's ok.
I for one dream of someday buying some property and building my dream DECOPOLIS and realize that in order for my investment to be successful, for it to be a draw that will succeed and not fail, I need to have a certain amount of space and "critical mass" of buildings/activities, etc. So its very likely that whatever I do at first will be facades of styrofoam and stucco, fake this and that, etc. If the business choice is to have 1 little building of high quality construction, or 5 of low quality, but that look all fancy... the 1 not being a big enough competitive draw to make money and grow, while the 5 being a bigger draw with much more potential to make money. It's only reasonable to go with the 5, with the hopes that as you start making good money you can improve the buildings with higher quality materials, etc. Or tear them down and build better.
I remember talking to architects about the Tulsa Art Deco Museum proposal we were working on for the last Vision package. First thing they would always try to push, and continue to push even after I said no, was something fancy made of glass and steel which would have left me with a tiny building of only a few thousand square feet. And I was like, make me a giant cheap warehouse type structure that I can put a fake facade on! lol Lets make this a genuine attraction that will pull people in and be self-sustaining, and even able to make a profit first, then we can add quality buildings to later, or tear down and build quality later. I am not going to be left with some tiny little building that cost a fortune and can't pay for itself and then fail.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 09, 2020, 06:25:33 PM
I for one am very happy for this decision. The exterior of the building is terrible, the layout is awful, and the interior "finishes"/design is not good either. Has no real stylistic, or period quality that will be missed imho.
Often people complain when a developer, or non-profit for that matter, builds something cheaply or with an expected "lifespan". In some cases the complaint is warranted, but if the intent is to "do the job" for the time being to get the ball rolling and make a profit, then later build the quality building,,,, then I think it's ok.
I for one dream of someday buying some property and building my dream DECOPOLIS and realize that in order for my investment to be successful, for it to be a draw that will succeed and not fail, I need to have a certain amount of space and "critical mass" of buildings/activities, etc. So its very likely that whatever I do at first will be facades of styrofoam and stucco, fake this and that, etc. If the business choice is to have 1 little building of high quality construction, or 5 of low quality, but that look all fancy... the 1 not being a big enough competitive draw to make money and grow, while the 5 being a bigger draw with much more potential to make money. It's only reasonable to go with the 5, with the hopes that as you start making good money you can improve the buildings with higher quality materials, etc. Or tear them down and build better.
I remember talking to architects about the Tulsa Art Deco Museum proposal we were working on for the last Vision package. First thing they would always try to push, and continue to push even after I said no, was something fancy made of glass and steel which would have left me with a tiny building of only a few thousand square feet. And I was like, make me a giant cheap warehouse type structure that I can put a fake facade on! lol Lets make this a genuine attraction that will pull people in and be self-sustaining, and even able to make a profit first, then we can add quality buildings to later, or tear down and build quality later. I am not going to be left with some tiny little building that cost a fortune and can't pay for itself and then fail.
I agree. So long as the mansion is left alone.
While I can see Artist's point, I smell a brother-in-law deal.
That's a pretty drastic drop in square footage (from 134,000 to 89,000), especially considering it was supposed to be an "expansion" to rival Crystal Bridges (lol!). They do address that though:
QuoteAnderson said it would be a mistake to assume that less square footage means less museum.
"Essentially what you have is a museum building that is pretty inefficient currently. There are a lot of huge walls, there are a lot of unoccupy-able spaces, and things like that," she said.
Although the museum won't have the space initially envisioned, it will certainly be able to achieve the top three priorities set for the museum by the task force, Anderson said. Those are increased exhibit space, including room for traveling exhibits; a bigger, better storage area; and an "amazing face," such as a front lobby, where people can gather.
Still, it is very disappointing to hear of this along with the unmentioned elephant in the room (sounds like TU has backed out on the "matching gift" of $55 million). Just like just about everything else in the Vision 2.0, the reality of it is vastly inferior to what the public was sold, but the mayor somehow always calls it a great win. "An historic moment for Tulsans" as we have to accept footing almost the entire bill of demolition and construction of a brand new museum which will not be impressively large and will almost certainly not compete with Crystal Bridges (which is 200,000 square feet; but I'll be glad if it is, even if I'm skeptical now).
This whole thing was sold as taxpayers and an expansion that will put Gilcrease up on that level, but no it will be significantly smaller than the current museum and won't even be close to Crystal Bridges. Great job! The mayor is proving again and again why giving our dollars to the government is a big waste. They never know what something will cost and they get us to vote yes by lying and selling what should legally amount to fraud. I hope citizens get together sue to rescind the penny taxes which are not paying for what they were supposed to. Most every project is far behind schedule and, when we do get updates we find out they are just a skeleton of what we were sold.
What a world where Tulsa can't even sniff the artistic pull of ARKANSAS! No one cares how much the collection is worth if it's packaged away in storage, mostly out of sight.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 10, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
That's a pretty drastic drop in square footage (from 134,000 to 89,000), especially considering it was supposed to be an "expansion" to rival Crystal Bridges (lol!). They do address that though:
Still, it is very disappointing to hear of this along with the unmentioned elephant in the room (sounds like TU has backed out on the "matching gift" of $55 million). Just like just about everything else in the Vision 2.0, the reality of it is vastly inferior to what the public was sold, but the mayor somehow always calls it a great win. "An historic moment for Tulsans" as we have to accept footing almost the entire bill of demolition and construction of a brand new museum which will not be impressively large and will almost certainly not compete with Crystal Bridges (which is 200,000 square feet; but I'll be glad if it is, even if I'm skeptical now).
This whole thing was sold as taxpayers and an expansion that will put Gilcrease up on that level, but no it will be significantly smaller than the current museum and won't even be close to Crystal Bridges. Great job! The mayor is proving again and again why giving our dollars to the government is a big waste. They never know what something will cost and they get us to vote yes by lying and selling what should legally amount to fraud. I hope citizens get together sue to rescind the penny taxes which are not paying for what they were supposed to. Most every project is far behind schedule and, when we do get updates we find out they are just a skeleton of what we were sold.
What a world where Tulsa can't even sniff the artistic pull of ARKANSAS! No one cares how much the collection is worth if it's packaged away in storage, mostly out of sight.
It's actually an even more drastic drop than that. With the Vision money, it was supposed to have been expanded; I believe we were sold on a gallery-space expansion of 20,000 square feet, plus new restaurant space, plus new entrance space. This seems pretty shady. They have been working on these expansion/remodeling plans for years and now suddenly they discover the current facilities are irredeemable?
On the face of it, I'm disappointed. Crystal Bridges to the east is 217,000sf. The OKC National Cowboy HoF Museum is 220,000sf. We're told Gilcrease has THE MOST SIGNIFICANT/MEANINGFUL collection of art of the creation/heritage of America IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. And we're talking 89,000sf with a very reputable journeyman architecture firm at the helm. IF THERE IS NOWHERE ON EARTH YOU CAN EXPERIENCE THIS ART + Bob Dylan Archive why would it not get Gathering Place treatment? It's about art --- they have a 450-acre canvas to paint this on --- think Getty Center. Gathering Place is spectacular, but there are other parks across the country. Maggy Daly in Chicago. Scissortail in OKC, etc. Gathering Place may be best, but there is plenty of competition and how far are people going to come to go to Gathering Place? 100, 200 miles? Your best chance to bring in new money is to exploit something that only you have --- that if you wanted to see, this is the only place on earth - cannot be replicated. Why not double or triple the fundraising, hire an iconic architect to build an iconic facility that itself would be art and draw visitors (Crystal Bridges, BOK Center). Put up "The American" statute on the property. Hire a world renowned landscape architect to create grounds complimenting nearby Botanic Garden. Make it a national landmark. Right now, Walmart covers admission to Crystal Bridges for perpetuity. QuikTrip? Williams? ONEOK? We have a lot of things that a lot of other cities have --- even if done better. We've become a "me too" city. Arenas, Food Halls, etc. All great, all done elsewhere first. I've been led to believe the Gilcrease collection is unique in all the world. Bob Dylan and maybe other American music archive collections could find an iconic home. Go big here. Make it the national landmark it could be. Widen Gilcrease Road and over-landscape it all the way up... Also inspire others to contribute their collections. They say Gilcrease has 10-12,000 pieces, many irreplaceable. Crystal Bridges has 2,500 not nearly as significant historically in total, yet they get multiple time more visitors. PR and Placemaking! Build a Gilcrease the art can be proud of --- one that people take notice of whether they mean to or not. What better do we have to hang our hat on?
Relax; this is a good thing. Gilcrease is underwhelming at best. At worst it's kind of a dump. So this makes sense. The original plan was lipstick on a pig. A brand new building has the potential to be spectacular.
And if you're disappointed in the scope/square footage, recognize that they're chasing money here.
QuoteBynum said that although the city intends to seek additional private funding, the available dollars are all that's needed to build an exceptional museum.
"If not a dime comes in, we can build a fantastic museum with more exhibit space than exists right now for the budget that we have," he said.
You don't think maybe this story was a trial balloon floated to hook a bigger donation?
In addition to Gilcrease proper, make a complimentary American Music Archive on grounds housing Dylan and add to that collection - Johnny Cash, etc. Amphitheater overlooking the Osage for concerts - New National Home of OKLAHOMA replacing Discoveryland? Make it a destination for families, Route 66 travelers --- a bucket list "must see." I know it's easy to have ideas using other people's money. Just seems like the opportunity many in Tulsa have been reaching for is right before our eyes.
This late revelation calls into serious question the level of vetting that was done before this project made it on the list. I get that there is only so much money that can be spent to put together a proposal, but this was one of if not the most expensive project in the package. The final product may be much nicer than tinkering with and adding on to the old building, but tearing down the existing museum and building a smaller one (even if it will ultimately have more exhibit space) is not what voters were promised. Under delivering is how you break the public's trust and it will be remembered the next time the city comes to the voters with its hand out.
Quote from: Tulsan on February 10, 2020, 05:03:18 PM
Relax; this is a good thing. Gilcrease is underwhelming at best. At worst it's kind of a dump. So this makes sense. The original plan was lipstick on a pig. A brand new building has the potential to be spectacular.
And if you're disappointed in the scope/square footage, recognize that they're chasing money here.
You don't think maybe this story was a trial balloon floated to hook a bigger donation?
Of course, I do. That's why I wrote the damn paragraph I did and placed similar elsewhere. You don't think they wanted to illicit responses from regular Tulsans? --- that in order for bigger donations to come, people may want to express the base plan should be amplified so that they can point to excitement?
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 10, 2020, 05:06:55 PM
In addition to Gilcrease proper, make a complimentary American Music Archive on grounds housing Dylan and add to that collection - Johnny Cash, etc. Amphitheater overlooking the Osage for concerts - New National Home of OKLAHOMA replacing Discoveryland? Make it a destination for families, Route 66 travelers --- a bucket list "must see." I know it's easy to have ideas using other people's money. Just seems like the opportunity many in Tulsa have been reaching for is right before our eyes.
This is a very good idea.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 10, 2020, 04:46:45 PM
On the face of it, I'm disappointed. Crystal Bridges to the east is 217,000sf. The OKC National Cowboy HoF Museum is 220,000sf. We're told Gilcrease has THE MOST SIGNIFICANT/MEANINGFUL collection of art of the creation/heritage of America IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. And we're talking 89,000sf with a very reputable journeyman architecture firm at the helm. IF THERE IS NOWHERE ON EARTH YOU CAN EXPERIENCE THIS ART + Bob Dylan Archive why would it not get Gathering Place treatment? It's about art --- they have a 450-acre canvas to paint this on --- think Getty Center. Gathering Place is spectacular, but there are other parks across the country. Maggy Daly in Chicago. Scissortail in OKC, etc. Gathering Place may be best, but there is plenty of competition and how far are people going to come to go to Gathering Place? 100, 200 miles? Your best chance to bring in new money is to exploit something that only you have --- that if you wanted to see, this is the only place on earth - cannot be replicated. Why not double or triple the fundraising, hire an iconic architect to build an iconic facility that itself would be art and draw visitors (Crystal Bridges, BOK Center). Put up "The American" statute on the property. Hire a world renowned landscape architect to create grounds complimenting nearby Botanic Garden. Make it a national landmark. Right now, Walmart covers admission to Crystal Bridges for perpetuity. QuikTrip? Williams? ONEOK? We have a lot of things that a lot of other cities have --- even if done better. We've become a "me too" city. Arenas, Food Halls, etc. All great, all done elsewhere first. I've been led to believe the Gilcrease collection is unique in all the world. Bob Dylan and maybe other American music archive collections could find an iconic home. Go big here. Make it the national landmark it could be. Widen Gilcrease Road and over-landscape it all the way up... Also inspire others to contribute their collections. They say Gilcrease has 10-12,000 pieces, many irreplaceable. Crystal Bridges has 2,500 not nearly as significant historically in total, yet they get multiple time more visitors. PR and Placemaking! Build a Gilcrease the art can be proud of --- one that people take notice of whether they mean to or not. What better do we have to hang our hat on?
The original proposal was something that was supposed to fit what you're talking about. Very disappointing that we will instead get a base line museum that will replace the function the museum already fulfills. It will be nicer, sure, but highly unlikely that it'll be a regional draw. It is long past time to go big or go home for Gilcrease. This was their chance and someone (or several involved) dropped the ball on usefulness of the current place. It looks like they'll just "stay home" and remain a small local musuem with a large hidden collection.
Hopefully a large donor will come along (cough cough.. GKFF), but looks like TU's financial woes put a death knell to any major outside funding for the time being.
Additional article: https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/renovating-expanding-gilcrease-museum-would-have-cost-million-more-than/article_c26848df-ee5e-5cfd-a47b-ae46690c5a5a.html
"The city's decision to build a new, smaller Gilcrease Museum, rather than renovate and add to the existing structure, was based on two related facts: the building is in bad shape, and rebuilding it to today's museum standards would cost much more than the city has to spend.
How much more? About $17 million, according to an analysis of the structure done by SmithGroup, the lead architect on the project.
Jame Anderson, cultural practice director with SmithGroup, said the discussion changed from renovation to new construction once the firm's analysis of existing conditions was completed."
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 10, 2020, 05:06:55 PM
In addition to Gilcrease proper, make a complimentary American Music Archive on grounds housing Dylan and add to that collection - Johnny Cash, etc. Amphitheater overlooking the Osage for concerts - New National Home of OKLAHOMA replacing Discoveryland? Make it a destination for families, Route 66 travelers --- a bucket list "must see." I know it's easy to have ideas using other people's money. Just seems like the opportunity many in Tulsa have been reaching for is right before our eyes.
I like that the music archives are downtown and the Guthrie Green is already there and is an awesome facility when in use. If we are going to be a music hub it should be concentrated downtown to the extent possible (the casinos obviously would be where they are).
I'll withhold judgement until the new plans are released but agree the current building is very underwhelming.
No doubt the conglomeration of buildings is a challenge, I recall significant water problems during the 80's expansion project that buckled the new wood floors which was traced to unknown issues with the existing buildings. However; I also have a bunch of personal emotion on this one. Gilcrease has always been a special connection for my family as my Father was City Attorney when the collection was acquired, he negotiated the deal with Mr. Gilcrease, wrote the original ballot/bond issue (which he admitted needed a little post election help from the State Supreme Court) that bought the original Collection, museum building and site essentially for free. Plus the original curator was a long time family friend and over the years my mother donated several pieces to the collection so I'm invested, excited, cautious and really hopeful this project will be something special to showcase the collection and draw new visitors.
Kirby Crowe
Quote from: Vision 2025 on February 13, 2020, 11:01:48 AM
No doubt the conglomeration of buildings is a challenge, I recall significant water problems during the 80's expansion project that buckled the new wood floors which was traced to unknown issues with the existing buildings. However; I also have a bunch of personal emotion on this one. Gilcrease has always been a special connection for my family as my Father was City Attorney when the collection was acquired, he negotiated the deal with Mr. Gilcrease, wrote the original ballot/bond issue (which he admitted needed a little post election help from the State Supreme Court) that bought the original Collection, museum building and site essentially for free. Plus the original curator was a long time family friend and over the years my mother donated several pieces to the collection so I'm invested, excited, cautious and really hopeful this project will be something special to showcase the collection and draw new visitors.
Kirby Crowe
That's really neat your family was so closely tied to that.
Overall, this sounds like the only option and a necessary one for the future of Gilcrease, but I think a lot of people are disappointed after being told there was a "matching gift" of $55 million from TU (gone), plus a big expansion that would put this up there with Crystal Bridges. Now we're supposed to be thankful they even saved Gilcrease. The craziest thing about it is that Gilcrease just went through a $28 million expansion in 2014!
http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion (http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion)
It isn't just this one disappointment with the Vision 2025 stuff:
* The Pedestrian Bridge is held up and is far under-funded vs what the citizens voted on.
* The BMX construction on the Fairgrounds was completely botched and old usable stadium (for which there was income-producing demand for soccer games) was demolished to be a sinkhole of lawn maintenance and no prospects. The new BMX facility ended up costing around 50% more than what it was supposed to cost.
* Zink Dam seems nowhere near starting even though it was slated to be constructed in 2019 (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf))
* The cuts to 911 15 staff right after voters approved adding 16 positions (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)) (The ol' bait & switch with funds)
* Public Safety: Has crime decreased at all? In any categories? I keep seeing Tulsa creep up the most dangerous city lists with astonishingly high violent and property crime rates. Looks like some neighborhoods are safe from violent crime but petty theft is common while other neighborhoods are drowning in crime. Do we even have more police or fire fighters than before 2016?
* Education: Once again no measurable or visible improvement. Families still flock to the suburbs while the majority of inner city schools are proving they cannot and will not educate students. Teacher retention kept dropping more and more over the last 4 years. Nothing about the teacher retention fund seemed to help.
I haven't heard updates on most of the Vision 2025 projects. Are any of the big items being constructed yet? We voted for this stuff in 2016 and 4 years later there is almost no progress on any of the big items! This is pathetic. Tulsans were foolish to ever think giving the government more money would create any "big visionary" changes like we were sold before voting. One of the easier things to implement in the package (BRT) took over 3 years!
Then the mayor dropped the ball on siding with the people for the 71st and Riverside debacle where the previous mayor gifted a developer around $10 million worth of real estate for nearly free. That should've been corrected by the new mayor to differentiate himself as someone who supports the citizens and stands up for what is right. Giving away prime parkland on the river for a wasteful shopping center with massive parking crater is shameful. That's old Chicago-level corruption.
I guess the government wants to teach Tulsans an important lesson: Life sucks and then you die. Or more specifically Tulsa sucks and the city will keep throwing your money away to make sure it always will.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 09:45:56 AM
That's really neat your family was so closely tied to that.
Overall, this sounds like the only option and a necessary one for the future of Gilcrease, but I think a lot of people are disappointed after being told there was a "matching gift" of $55 million from TU (gone), plus a big expansion that would put this up there with Crystal Bridges. Now we're supposed to be thankful they even saved Gilcrease. The craziest thing about it is that Gilcrease just went through a $28 million expansion in 2014!
http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion (http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion)
Surely, that building (the very new Helmerich Center) is not slated to be torn down... Please tell me they aren't tearing down a free-standing building that was just completed 5 years ago.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 14, 2020, 11:31:30 AM
Surely, that building (the very new Helmerich Center) is not slated to be torn down... Please tell me they aren't tearing down a free-standing building that was just completed 5 years ago.
I hope not. Is that building the only thing they added on in 2014? If so I'd guess they keep it, but the wording of the article made it seem like they had to find/build an interim place to keep all the artwork and create a popup gallery. You'd think they could just use that building for storage.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 14, 2020, 11:31:30 AM
Surely, that building (the very new Helmerich Center) is not slated to be torn down... Please tell me they aren't tearing down a free-standing building that was just completed 5 years ago.
Surely not, that building and the home are likely where they will have small exhibits and offices during construction of the new museum.
Sort of related - Anybody know why Philbrook didn't get the George Kravis Industrial Design Collection? Said to be one of the most impressive collections in the country. First, it was to be housed at Philbrook in the Arts District according to promotional material from 2013. Then that seemed to go away - never noticed an article on why. Then when George died the collection was divided among 18 museums/schools across the country --- nothing for Philbrook. I've also noticed on a recent facility map of Philbrook the name Kravis is nowhere to be found even though the entire 70,000sf wing on north end was named the Kravis Wing when built --- think it still says that on front. What happened? You don't see the Kravis name on anything around here anymore. Henry was born here - think he went to Edison... and a multi-billionaire --- he just gave $10 million for the renovation of the Kravis Performing Arts Center in West Palm Beach. Was there some type of falling out?
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 09:45:56 AM
....
* Public Safety: Has crime decreased at all? In any categories? I keep seeing Tulsa creep up the most dangerous city lists with astonishingly high violent and property crime rates. Looks like some neighborhoods are safe from violent crime but petty theft is common while other neighborhoods are drowning in crime. Do we even have more police or fire fighters than before 2016?
* Education: Once again no measurable or visible improvement. Families still flock to the suburbs while the majority of inner city schools are proving they cannot and will not educate students. Teacher retention kept dropping more and more over the last 4 years. Nothing about the teacher retention fund seemed to help.
....
But installing new (old-style) streetlights along barren stretches of north Tulsa is a priority, even over education spending.
Imagine That.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 17, 2020, 06:46:19 AM
Sort of related - Anybody know why Philbrook didn't get the George Kravis Industrial Design Collection? Said to be one of the most impressive collections in the country. First, it was to be housed at Philbrook in the Arts District according to promotional material from 2013. Then that seemed to go away - never noticed an article on why. Then when George died the collection was divided among 18 museums/schools across the country --- nothing for Philbrook. I've also noticed on a recent facility map of Philbrook the name Kravis is nowhere to be found even though the entire 70,000sf wing on north end was named the Kravis Wing when built --- think it still says that on front. What happened? You don't see the Kravis name on anything around here anymore. Henry was born here - think he went to Edison... and a multi-billionaire --- he just gave $10 million for the renovation of the Kravis Performing Arts Center in West Palm Beach. Was there some type of falling out?
Wasn't this collection at one time stored in Tulsa? I remember hearing about it.
There is still the Kravis medical office building at 19th & Utica next to St John.
Yes. Mr. Kravis had the collection here in Tulsa and I believe his goal was to house it here in the middle of the country in a facility of its own --- likely connected to Philbrook. Not totally sure. OSU got some of it and so did the Tulsa Historical Society --- not Philbrook. From the website which is still up, it looks like the Design Center would have been in Tulsa had Mr. Kravis not died. https://www.kravisdesigncenter.org/about-george-kravis-design-center.
As far as the Kravis Building at St. John and the name on other buildings, etc., I don't think the family has its name on anything new in the past few years (maybe 20). Henry Kravis is a Tulsa-born billionaire who collects art and his wife is involved in museums in NYC. Not sure, but don't think he comes around here much anymore just based on what's out in public magazines, articles, media, etc. Could be 100% wrong.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 09:45:56 AM
That's really neat your family was so closely tied to that.
Overall, this sounds like the only option and a necessary one for the future of Gilcrease, but I think a lot of people are disappointed after being told there was a "matching gift" of $55 million from TU (gone), plus a big expansion that would put this up there with Crystal Bridges. Now we're supposed to be thankful they even saved Gilcrease. The craziest thing about it is that Gilcrease just went through a $28 million expansion in 2014!
http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion (http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion)
It isn't just this one disappointment with the Vision 2025 stuff:
* The Pedestrian Bridge is held up and is far under-funded vs what the citizens voted on.
* The BMX construction on the Fairgrounds was completely botched and old usable stadium (for which there was income-producing demand for soccer games) was demolished to be a sinkhole of lawn maintenance and no prospects. The new BMX facility ended up costing around 50% more than what it was supposed to cost.
* Zink Dam seems nowhere near starting even though it was slated to be constructed in 2019 (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf))
* The cuts to 911 15 staff right after voters approved adding 16 positions (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)) (The ol' bait & switch with funds)
* Public Safety: Has crime decreased at all? In any categories? I keep seeing Tulsa creep up the most dangerous city lists with astonishingly high violent and property crime rates. Looks like some neighborhoods are safe from violent crime but petty theft is common while other neighborhoods are drowning in crime. Do we even have more police or fire fighters than before 2016?
* Education: Once again no measurable or visible improvement. Families still flock to the suburbs while the majority of inner city schools are proving they cannot and will not educate students. Teacher retention kept dropping more and more over the last 4 years. Nothing about the teacher retention fund seemed to help.
I haven't heard updates on most of the Vision 2025 projects. Are any of the big items being constructed yet? We voted for this stuff in 2016 and 4 years later there is almost no progress on any of the big items! This is pathetic. Tulsans were foolish to ever think giving the government more money would create any "big visionary" changes like we were sold before voting. One of the easier things to implement in the package (BRT) took over 3 years!
Then the mayor dropped the ball on siding with the people for the 71st and Riverside debacle where the previous mayor gifted a developer around $10 million worth of real estate for nearly free. That should've been corrected by the new mayor to differentiate himself as someone who supports the citizens and stands up for what is right. Giving away prime parkland on the river for a wasteful shopping center with massive parking crater is shameful. That's old Chicago-level corruption.
I guess the government wants to teach Tulsans an important lesson: Life sucks and then you die. Or more specifically Tulsa sucks and the city will keep throwing your money away to make sure it always will.
Please remember that "Vision 2025" and "Vision Tulsa" are totally separate programs. The projects you reference are in Vision Tulsa. Presently the only project I am involved with is the Zink Dam modifications which are actually nearing the advertisement for bids.
Hope that helps.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on February 18, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Presently the only project I am involved with is the Zink Dam modifications which are actually nearing the advertisement for bids.
I saw the December schematics for the dam on the city engineer's webpage. It's an incredible project.
Quote from: Tulsan on February 18, 2020, 08:05:26 PM
I saw the December schematics for the dam on the city engineer's webpage. It's an incredible project.
Can you provide a link? I can't find it.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 22, 2020, 11:28:15 PM
Can you provide a link? I can't find it.
I started a new thread for it here: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21842
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on February 17, 2020, 06:46:19 AM
Sort of related - Anybody know why Philbrook didn't get the George Kravis Industrial Design Collection? Said to be one of the most impressive collections in the country. First, it was to be housed at Philbrook in the Arts District according to promotional material from 2013.
I know Philbrook is moving out of downtown (with the Bob Dylan Archive taking its place) and consolidating their modern/contemporary art collection on Rockford. I wonder if they would be open to having a second location again focused on modern/contemporary art. The parking lot next to AHHA where the Dylan Archive was going to be built would be a great location. Not sure if Gilcrease has a modern collection but they could have a place there as well.
I saw that Crystal Bridges announced a big expansion this morning and was curious if there's any news on the Gilcrease demo/rebuild? - https://crystalbridges.org/blog/crystal-bridges-museum-of-american-art-reveals-plans-for-major-expansion-designed-by-safdie-architects/ (https://crystalbridges.org/blog/crystal-bridges-museum-of-american-art-reveals-plans-for-major-expansion-designed-by-safdie-architects/)
QuoteBentonville, Ark. — Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art today revealed plans for an expansion that will increase the size of the current facilities by 50 percent. Adding nearly 100,000 square feet to the 200,000-square-foot facility, the expansion will allow the museum to showcase its growing collection and welcome more visitors to experience the power of art, in an inclusive environment. Envisioned to support Crystal Bridges' commitment to free access to art for all, the new space will increase capacity for presenting art and exhibitions, educational and outreach initiatives, cultural programming, and community events.
Quote from: tulsamatt on April 07, 2021, 11:11:41 AM
I saw that Crystal Bridges announced a big expansion this morning and was curious if there's any news on the Gilcrease demo/rebuild? - https://crystalbridges.org/blog/crystal-bridges-museum-of-american-art-reveals-plans-for-major-expansion-designed-by-safdie-architects/ (https://crystalbridges.org/blog/crystal-bridges-museum-of-american-art-reveals-plans-for-major-expansion-designed-by-safdie-architects/)
I am curious as well. I haven't seen anything in a while. It's odd how quite most of these Vision projects are or maybe I'm just missing the coverage on it. There's been very little fanfare with most of the projects it seems like, counter to the original Vision package. Not sure if it's because they're all going through things like Gilcrease where the project isn't even what was sold to voters in the first place. I do hope the new design is built with the ability to expand down the road, given the collections Gilcrease owns there's no reason it be close to 200,000 to 300,000 sq. ft. Maybe some donors will come around down the road to expand the museum.
Found this on the city's Vision website (apparently outdated):
PROJECT TIMELINE:
The following timeline is a fluid estimate of major project milestones. As with any large design project, dates are subject to change.
March 25 (2019): Architect submissions due to City of Tulsa April: Mayor's Task Force short lists the architects
May-June (2019): Architect interviews
June (2019): Construction manager selected (This item was completed in July 2019)
July (2019): Mayor's Task Force selects architect firm (This item was completed in June 2019)
July 2019-July 2021: Design phase (I guess we're still in the Design phase and they must plan to be in Design phase for a while longer, or there would surely be some indication of when the Museum will be closing for its 2-year construction phase)
January 2021: Construction begins
PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT:
• One 5,000-square-foot changing gallery for traveling exhibitions
• Three changing galleries designed primarily for Gilcrease Collection • Open storage to display more of the Gilcrease Collection
• Three core thematic galleries
• Dedicated education space
• Helmerich Great Hall
• New lobby and retail store
• Café
• New facade for museum entrance
Also found this Facebook post from late Feb 2020:
Design phase was starting then and would take about 2 years.
So we're probably a year away from demolition, with construction to follow.
https://www.facebook.com/GilcreaseMuseum/posts/10157875423484705
Waiting for Vision 2025 to chime in ;)
I'm excited for this, Gilcrease is awesome and this is an opportunity for it to be a much larger attraction.
Quote from: SXSW on April 08, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Waiting for Vision 2025 to chime in ;)
I'm excited for this, Gilcrease is awesome and this is an opportunity for it to be a much larger attraction.
It's a Vision Tulsa project, and not a 2025 project. But that said, as City Attorney, my dad negotiated the deal with Mr. Gilcrese and wrote the bond issue which both the voters and the Supreme Court approved so yes I have a special interest in Gilcrease.
Quote from: SXSW on April 08, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Waiting for Vision 2025 to chime in ;)
I'm excited for this, Gilcrease is awesome and this is an opportunity for it to be a much larger attraction.
I'm not excited. It's a stripped down version which leaves Gilcrease with considerably less square footage and hardly any design bells and whistles. I don't believe they've done a big push (maybe any push) to get private dollars to make a facility worthy of the Gilcrease collection. Gilcrease should be housed in a facility equivalent to Crystal Bridges. An iconic structure and grounds. It's the only thing in Tulsa that is not a "me too." Gathering Place is incredible, but cities have parks including extravagant ones. Nobody on earth has the same collection as Gilcrease --- or so we've been told forever. If showcased properly, it would be a benefit economically to Tulsa. Arguably, Oklahoma City promotes its far less significant National Cowboy Museum better --- I'll bet most uninformed/neophytes would think its the major western museum in Oklahoma and Bentonville just flat outclasses on presentation. The building is part of the art. I'm sure the Childrens Museum at Riverside will be outstanding, but an opportunity was lost, I believe, in making the exterior of that building part of the "discovery" process.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on April 14, 2021, 12:30:43 PM
I'm not excited. It's a stripped down version which leaves Gilcrease with considerably less square footage and hardly any design bells and whistles. I don't believe they've done a big push (maybe any push) to get private dollars to make a facility worthy of the Gilcrease collection. Gilcrease should be housed in a facility equivalent to Crystal Bridges. An iconic structure and grounds. It's the only thing in Tulsa that is not a "me too." Gathering Place is incredible, but cities have parks including extravagant ones. Nobody on earth has the same collection as Gilcrease --- or so we've been told forever. If showcased properly, it would be a benefit economically to Tulsa. Arguably, Oklahoma City promotes its far less significant National Cowboy Museum and Bentonville just flat outclasses on presentation.
Have we even seen the design yet though?
Quote from: SXSW on April 14, 2021, 12:41:45 PM
Have we even seen the design yet though?
I have not, but the footprint is much smaller. I believe when announced it would be too expensive to renovate the existing facility and add square footage, that they said amenities would be targeted --- more narrow focused. Could be wrong. Hopefully that's changed. Even so, it's nothing comparable to Crystal Bridges.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on April 14, 2021, 12:47:30 PM
Even so, it's nothing comparable to Crystal Bridges.
Correct - but that sets the bar pretty high and is arguably the best museum of its kind in the country. It also just happens to be 2 hours away..
Quote from: SXSW on April 14, 2021, 12:52:14 PM
Correct - but that sets the bar pretty high and is arguably the best museum of its kind in the country. It also just happens to be 2 hours away..
Not sure what you're trying to say. If Gilcrease has the single most significant collection of western art and artifacts in the world in addition to the Dylan archive, etc - why wouldn't the bar set be the absolute highest. I'd think its in the same market for the major museum dollar along with OKC. In fact, I read that in coverage of the original Gilcrease expansion before it was realized the building was a hodge-podged disaster. The need to keep up with the regional museums for people who travel and make museums their destinations, etc. Gathering Place set the bar the highest in its area, everyone says.
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on April 14, 2021, 12:30:43 PM
I'm sure the Childrens Museum at Riverside will be outstanding, but an opportunity was lost, I believe, in making the exterior of that building part of the "discovery" process.
I was thinking the same thing. Something like the exterior of the Children's Museum of Indianapolis would be cool. The dinosaurs making a run for it and a couple peering into the building.
View from 30th and Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8101271,-86.1589677,3a,75y,38.31h,92.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBznl-ooq6FAxPax9FQqWkQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBznl-ooq6FAxPax9FQqWkQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D271.87146%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
View of main entrance (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8108458,-86.158935,3a,78.7y,78.49h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFC2isYB2yp4H4m0qtbHPbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: Urban Enthusiast on April 14, 2021, 05:22:09 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Something like the exterior of the Children's Museum of Indianapolis would be cool. The dinosaurs making a run for it and a couple peering into the building.
View from 30th and Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8101271,-86.1589677,3a,75y,38.31h,92.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBznl-ooq6FAxPax9FQqWkQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBznl-ooq6FAxPax9FQqWkQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D271.87146%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
View of main entrance (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8108458,-86.158935,3a,78.7y,78.49h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFC2isYB2yp4H4m0qtbHPbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I think the Indianapolis Children's Museum is the most popular in the country. Also, have you see the huge bear at the convention center in Denver or the architecture of Cesar Pelli's Connecticut Science Museum? I'm sure the Tulsa museum will be cool, the outside on the renderings just looked a little mundane --- could have been a credit union headquarters or similar. I'm a big fan of the architects who designed it --- they can design anything. I went back and looked at the renderings. It looks good. I'm prepared to eat my words once I see it in person.
My guess would be the delay is for additional fundraising.
Quote from: swake on April 14, 2021, 07:44:30 PM
My guess would be the delay is for additional fundraising.
That makes sense.
The museum is closing July 5 for 2-3 years. Renderings will be released this summer
https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/gilcrease-museum-closes-july-5-to-prepare-for-new-facility-construction/article_4aee3c1e-9c83-11eb-af31-afc65d5fe35e.html (https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/gilcrease-museum-closes-july-5-to-prepare-for-new-facility-construction/article_4aee3c1e-9c83-11eb-af31-afc65d5fe35e.html)
Here is additional information from a Kevin Canfield TulsaWorld article Feb 20, 2020 when it was announced Gilcrease would be downsized from the current 134,000sf to 89,000sf. Originally, the idea was to add 10,000sf to the existing building's renovation.
"The city's decision to build a new, smaller Gilcrease Museum, rather than renovate and add to the existing structure, was based on two related facts: the building is in bad shape, and rebuilding it to today's museum standards would cost much more than the city has to spend.
How much more? About $17 million, according to an analysis of the structure done by SmithGroup, the lead architect on the project."
"The new 89,000-square-foot museum won't be able to accommodate Gilcrease's "100% wish list," Anderson acknowledged, but should set it up for the next 50 years by providing flexible spaces and room for growth."
https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/renovating-expanding-gilcrease-museum-would-have-cost-17-million-more-than-city-had-budgeted-analysis/article_c26848df-ee5e-5cfd-a47b-ae46690c5a5a.html
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on April 15, 2021, 02:29:23 AM
Here is additional information from a Kevin Canfield TulsaWorld article Feb 20, 2020 when it was announced Gilcrease would be downsized from the current 134,000sf to 89,000sf. Originally, the idea was to add 10,000sf to the existing building's renovation.
"The city's decision to build a new, smaller Gilcrease Museum, rather than renovate and add to the existing structure, was based on two related facts: the building is in bad shape, and rebuilding it to today's museum standards would cost much more than the city has to spend.
How much more? About $17 million, according to an analysis of the structure done by SmithGroup, the lead architect on the project."
"The new 89,000-square-foot museum won't be able to accommodate Gilcrease's "100% wish list," Anderson acknowledged, but should set it up for the next 50 years by providing flexible spaces and room for growth."
https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/renovating-expanding-gilcrease-museum-would-have-cost-17-million-more-than-city-had-budgeted-analysis/article_c26848df-ee5e-5cfd-a47b-ae46690c5a5a.html
Makes sense, build to the budget now and expand later. Crystal Bridges did the same thing and just announced their expansion. I hope the new museum highlights the views to the west, it's really a beautiful area with the forest and hills.
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2021, 12:26:37 AM
The museum is closing July 5 for 2-3 years. Renderings will be released this summer
https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/gilcrease-museum-closes-july-5-to-prepare-for-new-facility-construction/article_4aee3c1e-9c83-11eb-af31-afc65d5fe35e.html (https://tulsaworld.com/entertainment/gilcrease-museum-closes-july-5-to-prepare-for-new-facility-construction/article_4aee3c1e-9c83-11eb-af31-afc65d5fe35e.html)
Cool. The design process must be going faster than they ha originally anticipated.
Renderings it looks like from one of the consultants who is helping plan the interior:
https://www.gallagherdesign.com/projects/gilcrease-museum/
Bet these get taken down too lol.
https://museuminsider.co.uk/opportunity/gilcrease-museum-2/
No luck finding anything for exterior rendering from Smith Group or 1Architecture
Quote from: LandArchPoke on April 15, 2021, 10:32:28 AM
Renderings it looks like from one of the consultants who is helping plan the interior:
https://www.gallagherdesign.com/projects/gilcrease-museum/
Bet these get taken down too lol.
https://museuminsider.co.uk/opportunity/gilcrease-museum-2/
No luck finding anything for exterior rendering from Smith Group or 1Architecture
This was when they originally were going to renovate - I'm sure it has changed quite a bit but I liked this design. This is SmithGroup's portfolio - they do some amazing projects: https://www.smithgroup.com/our-work/projects#all (https://www.smithgroup.com/our-work/projects#all)
(https://d302e0npexowb4.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/04135606/gilcrease-museum-expansion-tulsa.jpg)
(https://hot-town-images.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/kotv/production/2016/March/10/tulsa-could-see-added-rewards-with-improved-gilcrease-museum.1457671692000-1.jpeg)
I hope they take full advantage of the scenic Osage Hills backdrop
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/172791386_1170845760029951_2090573762768291872_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=KTkaxhb_ZEEAX99oUkR&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=93c4b75918e51bab81af8fdb8aefcef1&oe=609D7B8F)
Ah yes you are correct, morning brain can't tell the difference between 2020 and 2021 ha.
I do hope the new museum has some sort of elevated event/gathering space like that original concept to take advantage of the views too. I hope some of the budget does go to site improvements too - that's part of the charm of a lot of museums is the outdoor spaces too (Getty, Philbrook, Crystal Bridges, etc.)
While not an art museum, this would be something given the terrain of the site that would really make Gilcrease unique if they did something like the California Academy of Sciences roof:
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXqMfT2YDwAhX9gU4HHWPICqgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgIIADIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BAgAEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BggAEAUQHjoECAAQGFCQggVYkrAFYLOzBWgAcAB4AIABQYgB0AeSAQIxOJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=3m14YNfBBP2DuuoP45CrwAo&bih=920&biw=1524&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS892US897
Green roofs are expensive, but imagine the views from a living rooftop and being able to walk around. Given budget constrains I'll be happy with some sort of view room being incorporated somewhere.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on April 15, 2021, 11:51:22 AM
Ah yes you are correct, morning brain can't tell the difference between 2020 and 2021 ha.
I do hope the new museum has some sort of elevated event/gathering space like that original concept to take advantage of the views too. I hope some of the budget does go to site improvements too - that's part of the charm of a lot of museums is the outdoor spaces too (Getty, Philbrook, Crystal Bridges, etc.)
While not an art museum, this would be something given the terrain of the site that would really make Gilcrease unique if they did something like the California Academy of Sciences roof:
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXqMfT2YDwAhX9gU4HHWPICqgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgIIADIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BAgAEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BggAEAUQHjoECAAQGFCQggVYkrAFYLOzBWgAcAB4AIABQYgB0AeSAQIxOJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=3m14YNfBBP2DuuoP45CrwAo&bih=920&biw=1524&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS892US897
Green roofs are expensive, but imagine the views from a living rooftop and being able to walk around. Given budget constrains I'll be happy with some sort of view room being incorporated somewhere.
That is pretty cool. Be cool if the Children's Museum had something like this, too. (The Smith Group people designed the Museum of the Bible in DC)
https://www.greenroofs.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/calacademy1-1.jpg
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2021, 10:34:48 AM
This was when they originally were going to renovate - I'm sure it has changed quite a bit but I liked this design. This is SmithGroup's portfolio - they do some amazing projects: https://www.smithgroup.com/our-work/projects#all (https://www.smithgroup.com/our-work/projects#all)
(https://d302e0npexowb4.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/04135606/gilcrease-museum-expansion-tulsa.jpg)
(https://hot-town-images.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/kotv/production/2016/March/10/tulsa-could-see-added-rewards-with-improved-gilcrease-museum.1457671692000-1.jpeg)
]
That's a great design - I hope they're able to keep most of it. The nods to Pelli and Wright really shine.
The Arkansas Museum of Fine Art in all its upcoming 135,000sf splendor. What will Gilcrease's 89,000sf renderings reveal for a museum of works said to be a national treasure? https://www.dezeen.com/2021/04/16/studio-gang-arkansas-museum-of-fine-arts-construction/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Dezeen&utm_content=Daily%20Dezeen+CID_90bb821e730d3b732a2a6afc700cb71c&utm_source=Dezeen%20Mail&utm_term=Studio%20Gang%20reveals%20folded%20concrete%20roof%20of%20Arkansas%20Museum%20of%20Fine%20Arts
Quote from: tulsabug on April 16, 2021, 05:50:34 AM
That's a great design - I hope they're able to keep most of it. The nods to Pelli and Wright really shine.
Terribly sad design. Uninspired. Drab and boring. It's an insult to the people, the children, the guests who will visit. My heart literally hurts when I look at it.
I think that was the design concept they were using when they were trying to keep the original building. It is my understanding that the new design will be nothing like that. Here is an article that was in the Tulsa World a few weeks ago with some elevation diagrams.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/the-new-gilcrease-museum-building-will-be-taller-thinner-but-wont-look-much-different-from/article_11faaee2-3b3a-11eb-bbf4-4b09277655c3.html
Quote from: TheArtist on April 17, 2021, 08:40:53 AM
Terribly sad design. Uninspired. Drab and boring. It's an insult to the people, the children, the guests who will visit. My heart literally hurts when I look at it.
Well I'd just like to see whatever design they go with integrate with the landscape regardless if children are insulted by it.
Quote from: tulsabug on April 18, 2021, 07:32:10 AM
Well I'd just like to see whatever design they go with integrate with the landscape regardless if children are insulted by it.
I believe all it takes is some thought and imagination to make it both a place that is "integrated into the landscape" and one that is beautiful, inspiring, creates a sense of awe and wonder... that shows someone thought of and cared about the viewer, the people who will be walking up and into the space, the incredible art and history that will be housed there. People, young and old, really do get it, and I think its important to show that we care about people of all ages and stripes. It's not always an easy world out there. Put in a little magic and caring and it will go a long way. People do notice, even if subliminally, if you (the city, the architects, etc.) didn't care, and they REALLY do appreciate it when you show that you do care, when you do put in those extra bits of thought and detail.
Visit DECOPOLIS someday and tell me whether this is a store that is being created by someone who cares about the visitor, the children of all ages, including you ;-)
Quote from: tulsabug on April 18, 2021, 07:32:10 AM
Well I'd just like to see whatever design they go with integrate with the landscape regardless if children are insulted by it.
I don't think that previous design was that bad either. Is it 'iconic' - no. We aren't getting a Guggenheim type design, sorry Artist. That previous design isn't insulting either. I liked that in the slope of the roof line integrated with the landscape and shows some green roof coming up along the roof line. That's why I thought of the California science museum I posted that has a living roof and you can walk around on the roof too. With some small tweaks to that original concept, an understated design that incorporated a living roof and some other things could be a very powerful design.
Frankly, I'd far rather see the outside design be less extravagant and have it blend into the landscape like that concept. I think that speaks way more to the type of art and collections Gilcrease has than something that is meant to be 'iconic' that sticks out like a sore thumb and doesn't pay respect to western art - which a large portion is centered around nature and landscapes.
I'm far more concerned at this point that we're going to get something focused solely on the building and cramming as much into a smaller space as possible and nothing will be done with the grounds. If we're getting a smaller building, one that incorporates the outdoors properly too will make the museum feel much larger than it is.
I'm with Artist. The original design was so completely uninspiring. Worse still when you realize that green roof portion would have required a big ugly fence and signage in real life to keep people off of it. It just seemed lackluster all around, like it was designed by an arch. student and not a professional. I'm not necessarily expecting something world class, but as with the discovery center discussion, it doesn't take THAT much effort to simply not be completely boring and unoriginal.
The massing diagram in that TW article is interesting... To be fair, they really just need a lot of long galleries, so a tall slender building that runs along the "cliff" would be a much better use of space. Leaves more room for the future too. Neighbors complaining about sightlines should get a reality check. That neighborhood isn't much, and the Gilcrease grounds are beautiful.
Quote from: shavethewhales on April 18, 2021, 12:41:10 PM
I'm with Artist. The original design was so completely uninspiring. Worse still when you realize that green roof portion would have required a big ugly fence and signage in real life to keep people off of it. It just seemed lackluster all around, like it was designed by an arch. student and not a professional. I'm not necessarily expecting something world class, but as with the discovery center discussion, it doesn't take THAT much effort to simply not be completely boring and unoriginal.
The massing diagram in that TW article is interesting... To be fair, they really just need a lot of long galleries, so a tall slender building that runs along the "cliff" would be a much better use of space. Leaves more room for the future too. Neighbors complaining about sightlines should get a reality check. That neighborhood isn't much, and the Gilcrease grounds are beautiful.
Check out this link or just google 'California Academy of Sciences Roof':
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXqMfT2YDwAhX9gU4HHWPICqgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgIIADIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BAgAEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BggAEAUQHjoECAAQGFCQggVYkrAFYLOzBWgAcAB4AIABQYgB0AeSAQIxOJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=3m14YNfBBP2DuuoP45CrwAo&bih=920&biw=1524&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS892US897
Most greenroofs can be built in a way that is user friendly and nothing like what you're saying would be required. In that particular building in San Francisco you can go up on the roof and walk around. Each one of the 'bubbles' has walking trails around them and the roof is an exhibit of the museum.
I'm with Artist. We visited Decopolis yesterday and I'd have to say it was the highlight of our day. The customers represented all ages and everyone in the store seemed awed by the environment. Decopolis is obviously the result of good planning and attention to detail. I'm hopeful the new Gilcrease will be something we can all be proud to have and show off to visitors.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on April 18, 2021, 12:47:15 PM
Check out this link or just google 'California Academy of Sciences Roof':
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjXqMfT2YDwAhX9gU4HHWPICqgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=california+academy+of+sciences+roof&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgIIADIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BAgAEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BggAEAUQHjoECAAQGFCQggVYkrAFYLOzBWgAcAB4AIABQYgB0AeSAQIxOJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=3m14YNfBBP2DuuoP45CrwAo&bih=920&biw=1524&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS892US897
Most greenroofs can be built in a way that is user friendly and nothing like what you're saying would be required. In that particular building in San Francisco you can go up on the roof and walk around. Each one of the 'bubbles' has walking trails around them and the roof is an exhibit of the museum.
Look at the gilcrease rendering again. It's noting like the California Academy of Sciences building, which doesn't reach down to the ground. I am saying that in reality they would have to put barriers up to stop kids/people from wandering up there. It's obviously not designed for people to go up there, it's just an architectural flourish to have it extend to the ground. Poor conception.
Now if they wanted to do a green roof that was designed for people to actually go on top of the building and blend it into the landscape, that would be cool.
Quote from: shavethewhales on April 18, 2021, 03:40:46 PM
Now if they wanted to do a green roof that was designed for people to actually go on top of the building and blend it into the landscape, that would be cool.
For sure, which was what I was meaning... I think with some tweaking that original design could be pretty cool given the sloping of the roof line and how it looks like it's coming out of the ground. Incorporating a functional green/living roof where it acts as an extension of the museum would make the building pretty unique.
So I certainly don't hate that original concept, just needs a little more design development.
New renderings
(https://bloximages-newyork1-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/AW/s/bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/be/ebeac22f-f0fc-51c7-b885-e9f875340a32/60d3b973df9eb.image.jpg?resize=1024%2C576)
(https://bloximages-newyork1-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/AW/s/bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/4f/94fa0c7a-2d3f-584b-91f4-6c4243771bc9/60d3b9770c843.image.jpg?resize=1024%2C576)
(https://bloximages-newyork1-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/AW/s/bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/b7/5b768761-95c1-5134-9373-7c0ef71deeec/60d3b97c2e529.image.jpg?resize=1024%2C576)
I don't know how I feel about it. There are some good elements and bad elements and a lot of meh elements. Not sure how good it will look in reality. The lower terrace looks odd, like it's not really connected to anything? It also looks like a lot of different levels and stairs, which I thought they were trying to get away from.
I dunno. I trust them I guess. Hopefully this works well.
I like it.
Not the direction I would take at all, and would of course prefer the direction I would take lol, but from what I can tell it has a good feel to it and the potential to showcase some art well.
I like it too, I just wish it was twice the size. I assume this has the ability to be expanded?
Quote from: swake on June 24, 2021, 08:29:37 PM
I like it too, I just wish it was twice the size. I assume this has the ability to be expanded?
It looks like they could expand to the north
(https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/sites/kwgs/files/styles/x_large/public/202106/gilcrease_museum_aerial.jpg)
Quote from: swake on June 24, 2021, 08:29:37 PM
I like it too, I just wish it was twice the size. I assume this has the ability to be expanded?
That's what she said!
anyhoo...
As for the new renderings - I wish it was more fluid and a lot less cold. What I liked about the previous design was it felt like the museum was part of the landscape which was fitting for it's focus on Indigenous artwork. The new design is a bit like the Borg designed it. It would have been nicer to have been more a part of nature and less, well, Borg - the Biesbosch Museum in the Netherlands would have been a nice direction to explore.
(https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5656/8174/e58e/ce15/3300/0268/newsletter/SMV_View_Exterior_01_%C2%A9Ronald_Tilleman_MR.jpg?1448509798)
Though admittedly it still beats the old 80's mall that Gilcrease was by a mile so I'll allow it.
Does anyone have a link to the master plan or more info on how they plan to connect to the trails?
Quote"The museum's master plan includes outdoor spaces where people can engage with one another and with nature. In addition to a new building that is responsive to nature, plans for the Gilcrease campus include more than 13 miles of new walking/bike trails that will ultimately connect with trail networks throughout the city, increasing access to Gilcrease, nature, and community."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gilcrease-museum-unveils-concept-design-for-new-building
Quote from: tulsamatt on June 25, 2021, 09:42:09 AM
Does anyone have a link to the master plan or more info on how they plan to connect to the trails?
I was wondering that too. Possibly a connection to the Katy trail to the south?
Will the outdoor trails be accessible to those not going to the museum?
Quote from: SXSW on June 25, 2021, 12:28:06 AM
It looks like they could expand to the north
(https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/sites/kwgs/files/styles/x_large/public/202106/gilcrease_museum_aerial.jpg)
Huge missed opportunity with the outdoor rooftop area on the northside of the building - they should have just expanded it a few feet east and then you'd be able to see downtown from the outdoor area too, the way it's designed now you have no view because the building blocks it. That's just really dumb design but architects tend to not think much about outdoor space.
It does seem like there's ability to expand the building to the north in the future - the material choices will be interesting to see the specific stone and also what material that 'blueish' color is... but the building does seems to fit in with the terrain of the site at least which I was afraid they wouldn't do very well. Hopefully the trail integration is done well, that might be the only thing about this project that can be unique and memorable.
The interior looks incredibly generic, I feel like I've walked through dozens of the same museum space. Typical signage, text, displays, etc. that's super disappointing and NOTHING about the interior is unique at all. Unfortunately it looks like most of the experience here will be 100% forgettable. Maybe in any future expansion if some donors step up that can be fixed.
This round of Vision projects have been massive disappointments - just incredible. Between this and a s**t pedestrian bridge with no shade and terrible design it's not looking good for a 3rd Vision package if we ever get there. Only project that seems to have gone well so far was the Convention Center upgrades, they did a good job there.
I seriously don't understand why the Gilcrease and city didn't attempt to do any fundraising to do the Gilcrease project right. I find it hard to believe they couldn't raise money for this project if a capital campaign was undertaken.
I have seen the interior renderings and think in many of the spaces the art will be the main attraction not the building. Which for me is preferable outside of a few key locations like the lobby and restaurant areas.
Quote from: SXSW on July 05, 2021, 12:41:32 PM
I have seen the interior renderings and think in many of the spaces the art will be the main attraction not the building. Which for me is preferable outside of a few key locations like the lobby and restaurant areas.
I hope, there wasn't many public renderings that I can find of the interior exhibit spaces and it seemed pretty generic and disappointing, but hopefully the build out is better in person and the additional renderings/plans for the exhibit spaces are better.
I'm glad the building isn't the main focus, given the collection and site it shouldn't be and would make more sense for the building to blend in (which for the most part I think they did a good job with that) they just completely turned their back on the outdoor space on the upper levels and being able to take advantage of views toward downtown as well - huge missed opportunity if they don't fix it.
Hopefully the plans for the grounds and trail connections don't disappoint either but I'm not too optimist right now given what's been shown and how some of the other vision projects are turning out. They're on to some good things but just looked to have ran out of money to actually make it a great project.
I just do not understand the lack of even trying to do a capital campaign to raise funds to do this to the right scale and buildout. Just seems like some might be covering up the fact they F***ed up on cost estimations and didn't want to draw attention to it so instead of admitting they made a mistake they'd rather cover it up and pretend like they are delivering on promises they are not. Rinse and repeat on the "iconic" pedestrian oven (bridge).
I could be wrong but it looks like the restaurant space is next to the upper outdoor patio in that rendering. If so there is a large expanse of glass on the east side that will have a great skyline view in a space they're calling the Sun Court. The outdoor patio will have the view of the gardens and hills...see below
(https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Gilcrease-Museum-Osage-Hills.jpg)
This is the Sun Court that will have a view of downtown
(https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Gilcrease-Museum-Sun-Court.jpg)
I did see that they have a viewing area inside. I marked the rendering below, might make more sense - it's hard to explain in writing:
(https://i.ibb.co/0c7mZB6/Gilcrease-Render.jpg)
The orange area marked with seating in the rendering doesn't need to be there, they could have used the same allocation of space completely along the northern side and extended the seating area east instead (where the other orange box is marked) to where a portion of the upper outdoor terrace would then have views to downtown as well. Right now, because they decided to stop the seating where it is, the building will completely block views towards downtown from the outdoor seating area there. Just seems like an odd decision and something that would easily be fixable too. Then you'd have views out into the Osage Hills and back toward downtown from the upper level outdoor terrace for the same amount of space allocated to seating on the upper terrace area versus only having views out toward the Osage Hills as it is designed now.
It's pretty much a smaller less colorful version of the Lego Museum and the more I see the renderings the less I can stomach it.
(https://thelegocarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-lego-house.jpg)
Quote from: tulsabug on July 07, 2021, 08:44:49 AM
It's pretty much a smaller less colorful version of the Lego Museum and the more I see the renderings the less I can stomach it.
(https://thelegocarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-lego-house.jpg)
Lincoln Logs would have been my choice over Lego.
The problem I see with a lot of this stuff, from the Discovery Lab to this Museum, even the Gathering Place, the Mother Road Market, etc. is that they are designed by architects, and commissioned by corporate people and or committees that seem to be more interested in "keeping up with the Jonses" aka other museums, architects, cities, etc. and have mindsets that come from the worlds they are used to inhabiting. When you are in the rarefied world of the architect for instance you see what "wins awards" and the elements that are looked upon as respectable and of "good design form".
But these things have little to no connection to what the average person may want and enjoy. And the people who design and approve these projects are quite frankly afraid of doing what would be wonderful and magical to the average person. Often because that kind of thing requires understanding feelings, art and the art of storytelling. They poo poo themed, Disneyesqe type things, that I and the average public would absolutely love.
For them everything has to be tight and controlled, work well on a spreadsheet. You look at what's comparable and quickly shy away from anything having imagination that requires trusting someone somewhere making a decision based on....art. Disney starts with artists, and then the engineers and pencil pushers come in to figure out how to make it work. Nobody at the "upper echelons" of this town would have the guts to do that. Any single person pushing to do so would get push back from those around them.
This buildings design is safe, sturdy and respectable in the world of architects, museums, the wealthy, the usual corporate committees, etc. and to hell with what the public would want and enjoy. The concern is with the former not the latter. They are more concerned with themselves and with what their cohorts think than what the public would want or think. This is what you get, and when you judge it by those constraints, its pretty good.
Again as I have said before, its good, but not at all what I would do! And because of their limited imaginations, they have preconceived ideas of what that would be, wrong ideas of what that would be, so would easily dismiss it. I know, because I have spoken to "those people" lots of times. Its like talking to a brick wall, they live in an entirely different universe.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 08, 2021, 09:14:07 AM
The problem I see with a lot of this stuff, from the Discovery Lab to this Museum, even the Gathering Place, the Mother Road Market, etc. is that they are designed by architects, and commissioned by corporate people and or committees that seem to be more interested in "keeping up with the Jonses" aka other museums, architects, cities, etc. and have mindsets that come from the worlds they are used to inhabiting.
Way back when I was an architecture student. And I am not an architect. But, I was told that architecture is an art constrained by cost, physics, engineering, use and the desire of the client.
You should never discount that. It's easy to draw something that looks great, it's very hard to design something that looks great and can be built.
Quote from: swake on July 10, 2021, 12:51:23 AM
Way back when I was an architecture student. And I am not an architect. But, I was told that architecture is an art constrained by cost, physics, engineering, use and the desire of the client.
You should never discount that. It's easy to draw something that looks great, it's very hard to design something that looks great and can be built.
I get the desire of the client, and that is what I mentioned in what I wrote. But, I run into problems with architects all the time that don't "get it".
One example is when we were working to be a contender for some Vision funding for the Tulsa Art Deco Museum. Met with an architect and they were thinking of a contemporary, boxy structure of glass, steel and cement. Sturdy and strong I am sure. But I was going, "Hey, we may have about 3 mill at most so what we need is something that will be an attraction. 3 mill of the usual museum build will get us something tiny and uneventful. We need BOOM impact, this is an attraction! So we need to start with a cheap shell like a Home Depot type structure that we can build an Art Deco "Main Street" inside of and an exterior that can also look like multi-story, Art Deco buildings (basically styrofoam and cement stucco illusion). You can always upgrade the exterior IF you make something that will be a success and pulls in lots of people so it makes lots of money. Architect, totally did not get it and as we went on in the discussion it appeared they were more interested in their appearance as an architect than the wants of me, the client.
By the way, just as an example, drop by the new DECOPOLIS on Route 66 and check it out for a small example. I did the entire build out for right at about $20,000. Every "building" (movie theater, flower shop, department store, candy counter, mini-museum), every shelf, the walk-in cave and volcano, front desk area, wizards laboratory, etc. and I guarantee you its all sturdy as heck and overbuilt lol. And every single thing in there has a story and intent. All woven together into a larger story. Hopefully this is all but a tiny step to making money and then building a much larger attraction in the future. Imagine what someone like me could have done with 3 mill! I could convert an entire city block into a top city attraction and magical wonderland! lol.
You can use creativity and imagination to build incredible things, within budget, that are architecturally sound. Yes, there is always a dance between the budget, quality, and the creativity. But you start with the creativity and a story, then work your way backwards.
I would have started with artists meeting with..., geologists (to get information on the native geology that could be worked into the design) historians and native Americans (to get information about the history of the area and the art collection itself, and even the stories of the native Americans themselves) studied the flora and fauna. Then worked to create a story, or multiple stories that could be incorporated into the structure of the building so that it says something, that its magical, that every rock, every design has a meaning, is part of a story. Details matter, like the fireplace in the Wilderness Lodge looks like layers of strata complete with fossils relevant to the particular layers, foot tracks of different animals imprinted in the sidewalks. Giant, solid wood beams below and where you can reach, but the rest (for budget purposes) is flawless illusion creating the appearance of a massive lobby made out of impressive and expensive wood posts. The Disney resort in Hawaii where they did extensive research on the natives, recording the stories of the elders, looking into Pacific Island designs, etc. to then create elements in the building design.
People REALLY respond to these sorts of things. They get that you cared about them, the visitor and viewer. It makes them happy and appreciative. All these things, can yes be beautiful, but can also open up opportunities for learning, for artistic creativity, for storytelling. They can also show that you really care about the collection of art and artifact housed inside.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 10, 2021, 09:44:56 AM
I get the desire of the client, and that is what I mentioned in what I wrote. But, I run into problems with architects all the time that don't "get it".
One example is when we were working to be a contender for some Vision funding for the Tulsa Art Deco Museum. Met with an architect and they were thinking of a contemporary, boxy structure of glass, steel and cement. Sturdy and strong I am sure. But I was going, "Hey, we may have about 3 mill at most so what we need is something that will be an attraction. 3 mill of the usual museum build will get us something tiny and uneventful. We need BOOM impact, this is an attraction! So we need to start with a cheap shell like a Home Depot type structure that we can build an Art Deco "Main Street" inside of and an exterior that can also look like multi-story, Art Deco buildings (basically styrofoam and cement stucco illusion). You can always upgrade the exterior IF you make something that will be a success and pulls in lots of people so it makes lots of money. Architect, totally did not get it and as we went on in the discussion it appeared they were more interested in their appearance as an architect than the wants of me, the client.
By the way, just as an example, drop by the new DECOPOLIS on Route 66 and check it out for a small example. I did the entire build out for right at about $20,000. Every "building" (movie theater, flower shop, department store, candy counter, mini-museum), every shelf, the walk-in cave and volcano, front desk area, wizards laboratory, etc. and I guarantee you its all sturdy as heck and overbuilt lol. And every single thing in there has a story and intent. All woven together into a larger story. Hopefully this is all but a tiny step to making money and then building a much larger attraction in the future. Imagine what someone like me could have done with 3 mill! I could convert an entire city block into a top city attraction and magical wonderland! lol.
You can use creativity and imagination to build incredible things, within budget, that are architecturally sound. Yes, there is always a dance between the budget, quality, and the creativity. But you start with the creativity and a story, then work your way backwards.
I would have started with artists meeting with..., geologists (to get information on the native geology that could be worked into the design) historians and native Americans (to get information about the history of the area and the art collection itself, and even the stories of the native Americans themselves) studied the flora and fauna. Then worked to create a story, or multiple stories that could be incorporated into the structure of the building so that it says something, that its magical, that every rock, every design has a meaning, is part of a story. Details matter, like the fireplace in the Wilderness Lodge looks like layers of strata complete with fossils relevant to the particular layers, foot tracks of different animals imprinted in the sidewalks. Giant, solid wood beams below and where you can reach, but the rest (for budget purposes) is flawless illusion creating the appearance of a massive lobby made out of impressive and expensive wood posts. The Disney resort in Hawaii where they did extensive research on the natives, recording the stories of the elders, looking into Pacific Island designs, etc. to then create elements in the building design.
People REALLY respond to these sorts of things. They get that you cared about them, the visitor and viewer. It makes them happy and appreciative. All these things, can yes be beautiful, but can also open up opportunities for learning, for artistic creativity, for storytelling. They can also show that you really care about the collection of art and artifact housed inside.
Drove by DECOPOLIS today for first time in a while. Looks like some critical mass is developing in that area. Inviting. Fun. The white building, I think west of you, has three roof top frames for billboards, right? It would really add to the appeal of the block to have those filled --- any plans you know of to do that?
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on July 11, 2021, 01:25:55 AM
Drove by DECOPOLIS today for first time in a while. Looks like some critical mass is developing in that area. Inviting. Fun. The white building, I think west of you, has three roof top frames for billboards, right? It would really add to the appeal of the block to have those filled --- any plans you know of to do that?
Here's that building in 1949 a la Beryl Ford:
(https://digitalcollections.tulsalibrary.org/digital/api/singleitem/image/p15020coll1/14250/default.jpg)
Quote from: TulsaBeMore on July 11, 2021, 01:25:55 AM
Drove by DECOPOLIS today for first time in a while. Looks like some critical mass is developing in that area. Inviting. Fun. The white building, I think west of you, has three roof top frames for billboards, right? It would really add to the appeal of the block to have those filled --- any plans you know of to do that?
Thanks!
As far as I know there are no plans, but yes, I agree it would be nice to do something with them.
Quote from: tulsabug on July 11, 2021, 02:26:11 PM
Here's that building in 1949 a la Beryl Ford:
(https://digitalcollections.tulsalibrary.org/digital/api/singleitem/image/p15020coll1/14250/default.jpg)
Great find! I would love to find an old photo of the building I am in! Have searched as best I can and haven't found anything yet.
Quote from: tulsamatt on June 25, 2021, 09:42:09 AM
Does anyone have a link to the master plan or more info on how they plan to connect to the trails?
I saw this posted from the groundbreaking ceremony. The new trail network will be awesome and extends almost all the way out to 53rd W Ave into the hills around Harlow Creek. Currently the Gilcrease trails only go out to 33rd W Ave. That street on the right is Gilcrease Museum Rd.
I assume this will be open to the public as it would be too large to control access. This will be a great place to hike and ride mountain bikes.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/215595906_4253104701377087_8331547577526618420_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=ZpCaLSJCccsAX8ZkPWZ&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=9a5c2b9d316f855e043d34fa829b1392&oe=60F2312E)
Dreaming here but it would be really cool if somehow the trails here connected to the trails at the Tulsa Botanic Garden, the western-most trails would only be about 2 miles south of the garden. This is where the Gilcrease Expressway will cut through which is supposed to have a trail along it similar to the Creek Turnpike trail so it could be possible..
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54f272bee4b0f6df27b76807/1578603771055-JTCHMIDH8G523Z9N9JJR/20-001-2.jpg)
Surprise, surprise... not just a little over budget but $27 million over budget.
This has got to be one of the worst management public projects in the region in forever. Bad, bad, bad.
It's a shame because this had so much potential to be something great. I just hope they figure out a way to get the project finished and not strip out $20 million from the project because it will pull out just about any amenity worthy of making it a decent museum like the outdoor roof space, landscaping/trails in the property, etc.
https://www.newson6.com/story/6323b270706ae10729df4cb6/gilcrease-museum-reconstruction-bids-millions-higher-than-projected-budget (https://www.newson6.com/story/6323b270706ae10729df4cb6/gilcrease-museum-reconstruction-bids-millions-higher-than-projected-budget)
Quote from: LandArchPoke on September 16, 2022, 04:05:20 PM
Surprise, surprise... not just a little over budget but $27 million over budget.
This has got to be one of the worst management public projects in the region in forever. Bad, bad, bad.
It's a shame because this had so much potential to be something great. I just hope they figure out a way to get the project finished and not strip out $20 million from the project because it will pull out just about any amenity worthy of making it a decent museum like the outdoor roof space, landscaping/trails in the property, etc.
https://www.newson6.com/story/6323b270706ae10729df4cb6/gilcrease-museum-reconstruction-bids-millions-higher-than-projected-budget (https://www.newson6.com/story/6323b270706ae10729df4cb6/gilcrease-museum-reconstruction-bids-millions-higher-than-projected-budget)
I get inflation, but shouldn't that also help tax collections to go well over projections leading to a surplus that can be used for these overages?
Quote from: swake on September 16, 2022, 04:33:07 PM
I get inflation, but shouldn't that also help tax collections to go well over projections leading to a surplus that can be used for these overages?
Interesting point about increase in sales taxes, I haven't paid attention to really see how that has been trending lately.
Even with inflation there is no way the bids should be $27 million over... either someone screwed up the cost estimations horrifically or something shady is going on with the bids from the subcontractors. I get $5 maybe even $10 million but not $27 million.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on September 16, 2022, 07:30:26 PM
Interesting point about increase in sales taxes, I haven't paid attention to really see how that has been trending lately.
Even with inflation there is no way the bids should be $27 million over... either someone screwed up the cost estimations horrifically or something shady is going on with the bids from the subcontractors. I get $5 maybe even $10 million but not $27 million.
I dunno - if the original budget was pre-Covid then a 25% increase doesn't sound too weird. Normally however the bids should have been locked down and the construction companies would be stuck with most of the price increase (based on what experience I have on large building projects and the bidding process), so I'm confused why they are still actively working on the bidding process after construction has already started. Was the city budgeting off of a "guesstimate" and not an actual bid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3esNWTjNQ&ab_channel=FlintcoConstruction
Solid progress so far. They'll get the shell done this year at least.
Curious if costs have come back down yet. I know some material costs have been falling, while there's still shortages of a few materials such as PVC and cast iron pipes.
Really hope this doesn't turn into another OKPOP.
Wow they've made some serious progress!
OkPop, what a mess. I saw a TulsaWorld article saying that they need to find $40 million to finish the interior. That could take 10 years.
https://www.newson6.com/story/63f7605e96d356196d948e53/tulsa-city-council-diverting-funds-to-complete-construction-of-gilcrease-museum-new-animal-shelter
Some great shots of the construction progress and an update on the funding. Now they'll be able to finish the building, but like OKPOP they'll still need tens of millions for exhibits. Really not liking having two major museums in Tulsa in need of massive funding to build exhibits.
Rendering
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/fox23.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/b8/3b86fc69-89b2-5392-b644-d3bd6d68c26c/63e5d7d968d05.image.jpg?crop=960%2C504%2C0%2C17&resize=438%2C230&order=crop%2Cresize)
Latest progress
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/384768566_834755351983484_4774796571519730344_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=49d041&_nc_ohc=HH76jq_ITWYAX8P1RX3&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfB6AYGo_yDW6dRk0JjYwuxkQ0P1A0rUIIt7QnG12LTSqA&oe=651FCD6B)