Demolition of Fields Downs Randolph in Downtown

[PonderInc]

Another one bites the dust... sadly, literally.

[cannon_fodder]

Well really we needed more surface parking downtown . . . 

Too bad there isn't the same notice requirements for a demolition that there is for zoning ordinance changes or construction permits.  Give people a chance to survey any historical significance, take pictures, reclamation companies to contact the owner (both parties to make money and save treasures), or maybe a hesitant buyer to come out of the woodwork.    Surely if the building sat for decades unused a demolition permit requiring publication on three separate Fridays or a 2 week listing on a City of Tulsa demolition website or something wouldn't be too much to ask. 

I don't think a notice requirement would do much harm at all, and it could potential be good for the owner, the community, and other parties.

[dbacks fan]

Here's a game for those that want to know what it's like to be a property owner in downtown..........

http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html

[bluelake]

Here's a game for those that want to know what it's like to be a property owner in downtown..........

http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html

wow that game really makes me feel like I'm a downtown Tulsa developer.  I give it high marks for not allowing any structure(s) to be built after the demolition so it's implied that a parking lot will be built.  Highly realistic.

[jtcrissup]

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A27552


Urban Tulsa story on this demo a week or two ago (July 15) had this interesting tidbit (in addition to mentioning this thread):

"Hunt said an out-of-state developer closed on several properties in the district on July 7, including the former Bill White Chevrolet site at 401 S. Elgin, the Harrison Building at 418 S. Frankfort, the Parkade at 408 S. Frankfort, the Skelly Office/Warehouse site at 414 E. 4th St. and the City Tent & Awning site at 415 E. 5th St.

He described the deal as essentially including all the buildings between 4th Street and 5th Street between Frankfort and Elgin. Hunt said the buyer was not willing to go public with his plans at this point, but he did say the property most likely would go for a mixed-use development."

I had not heard or seen any discussion on this transaction on the Board, which is why I am posting this...if it is out there, please post a link.  Hopefully it is a "build value through adding immediate improvements" type of investor and not the the "sit and wait...and wait....and wait for someone to pay you ransom" type of investor.  Anyone have an idea? Rumors, facts, thoughts? 

[Nic Nac]

That is some encouraging news.  I hope hope hope they don't demo the Bill White Cheverlote building.  Def. one of my favorite buildings downtown.  On a side note, it looks like the lobby was a club at one time.  You can even see sign for the club faded (or painted over) above the front door.  Anyone have any history on this?

[Townsend]

http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=8D2EBF9A3148C57A2FE4A271FF368170&ref=1&src=rss

Bill White Sells Tulsa Portfolio for $1M
Larson Development Buys Five Buildings in Downtown Tulsa

[cannon_fodder]

Wow.  Is that the entire block from Franklin and Elgin between 4th and 5th?  If not all of it, the vast majority of it. 

Also, 1 block for $1 mil . . . or one building for $1.7mil.  Gee, why didn't that building sell.   Why oh why.

[Ihearttacos]

That is some encouraging news.  I hope hope hope they don't demo the Bill White Cheverlote building.  Def. one of my favorite buildings downtown.  On a side note, it looks like the lobby was a club at one time.  You can even see sign for the club faded (or painted over) above the front door.  Anyone have any history on this?

Around '94-95 there was a club called 401, short lived punk type venue that I visited before it moved down to Cheyenne & Archer, with the same name.  Not really so much of a business as a squatter haven.  I think they did put an actual club in there some years later that actually functioned and maybe even had permitting, it didn't seem to last long either.

[TheArtist]

I really hope they save the Bill White Chevrolet building, and even a couple of the smaller ones to the east of it.

It was really neat when I was at the Hollywood Studios in Florida to see how they recreated the feel of the time period. There were deco buildings and Italianate buildings jumbled together. Think about the mix you see that still remains on 11th street. The Bill White Chevrolet building is deco, right next to it to the east is one with a terracotta roof, then another deco I believe. If they even left the facades and built up, or gutted and remodeled then added to the empty spaces with more deco or deco period italian, or even contemporary with some deco hints. It would really be great to save and enhance these things which could really contribute to Tulsas identity, its tourism potential, bring back some of that "Tulsa in its heyday" feel where there were streets lined with that mix of deco and Italian.

After I got back from the Hollywood studios and noticed how they had that mix of building styles and how well it worked. I dreamt of building the Deco Museum and its Cafe, Gift Store, etc on a block with different facades like that... then there an example was right in downtown showing both of those styles right next to each other.  Puleeeeze dont tear them down.

Here are some pics of Hollywood/mgm Studios that show the mix of deco and italian and how well they work together to evoke that deco era feeling. Have added a few pics that show the actual buildings they got their inspiration from.  



















Not at Hollywood Studios, but shows how easily contemporary can be shifted to contemporary/deco. Would be great to see that sort of thing next to the Bill White Chevrolet building. Preserving what we have, yet still adding the fresh and contemporary in a way that enhances our cities identity and unique character.

[waterboy]

I'm not seeing it. I know those buildings intimately. The larger one looks more like modern than deco. Anyone check when the BW building was constructed? I'm guessing early 60's. Either then or a modern facade was added around that time. It was pretty new when I attended nearby Central in the late 60's. The rippled turqouise fiberglass panels leave me cold.

Anyway, the building is a mess structurally. Tons of deferred maintenance even though this owner is resident Tulsan. It leaks, has suffered water damage, the plumbing and electrical is sketchy to say the least and its main use has been for storage for a decade. Storage of vehicles, fixtures etc. The main building stores the trolleys and busses. The one to the east is Bill's office and its a nondescript fifties building for sure. The little old service station east of that is cute but functionally obsolete for anything today. The building on the South side of the block is interesting also and better maintained.

If the new owner doesn't tear it down I would be truly amazed. We have destroyed better buildings than this (Cadillac building, Chrysler dealership, Ford dealership, second oldest firestation) without much hesitation for parking.  I'm glad he got tired of waiting and sold it all. Maybe someone else will do something with the spot.

[TheArtist]

I'm not seeing it. I know those buildings intimately. The larger one looks more like modern than deco. Anyone check when the BW building was constructed? I'm guessing early 60's.

I know your not seeing it,,, your not an artist. 

There are lots of styles of deco (zigzag, pwa, streamline, deco moderne, deco revival) and deco built in different time periods (11th st bridge 1916, Service Pipeline/ARCO bld. 1949, Mayo Motor Inn 1950, BOK at 31st Harvard and KVOO Television on Peoria 1956, MTTA Downtown Transfer Center at 4th and Denver 1999)  When something becomes authentic enough to save could indeed be a legitimate argument.  But I look at that building and see deco, and early 60s is still older than me and thats getting pretty danged old lol.

Not gonna say I would chain myself to the building, but I do think it would be a loss. The facade has character, and I think its beautiful and could be fixed up. Whether they save the rest of the building in this instance isnt as important. Your right, we have lost a lot of other more important buildings, but if we keep getting rid of the "non important" ones, we really are gutting our ability to say "We have one of the best collections of Art Deco, or one of the largest number of deco buildings, etc." Its not true as it is but we are still known for it via bluff. But soon there wont be enough left to even bluff our way lol.  Even the most mundane ones at this point are important if we really want to promote ourselves as an art-deco destination. One of the few positive bragging rights that people the world over still see Tulsa as having.

[waterboy]

I know your not seeing it,,, your not an artist. 

There are lots of styles of deco (zigzag, pwa, streamline, deco moderne, deco revival) and deco built in different time periods (11th st bridge 1916, Service Pipeline/ARCO bld. 1949, Mayo Motor Inn 1950, BOK at 31st Harvard and KVOO Television on Peoria 1956, MTTA Downtown Transfer Center at 4th and Denver 1999)  When something becomes authentic enough to save could indeed be a legitimate argument.  But I look at that building and see deco, and early 60s is still older than me and thats getting pretty danged old lol.

Not gonna say I would chain myself to the building, but I do think it would be a loss. The facade has character, and I think its beautiful and could be fixed up. Whether they save the rest of the building in this instance isnt as important. Your right, we have lost a lot of other more important buildings, but if we keep getting rid of the "non important" ones, we really are gutting our ability to say "We have one of the best collections of Art Deco, or one of the largest number of deco buildings, etc." Its not true as it is but we are still known for it via bluff. But soon there wont be enough left to even bluff our way lol.  Even the most mundane ones at this point are important if we really want to promote ourselves as an art-deco destination. One of the few positive bragging rights that people the world over still see Tulsa as having.

I yield to your superior argument.  I successfully avoided becoming an artist, but couldn't avoid aging.

The building is interesting and I do like its kitschy look. I need to expand my vision of deco I guess. White is one of those folks who held on to his properties, waiting for the big downtown explosion to capitalize. I talked to him about it way back in the early nineties. Because of that, the buildings were not really kept up. I doubt he ever expected them to be saved.

I listed those other buildings to point out that the current mentality of their buyers is to see them as impediments, not as fine representations of architecture. They were solid buildings that were difficult to raze. This one doesn't make as good an argument for survival as they did. I especially lament the ignorance in tearing down a firestation that originally used horse drawn equipment so that OSU Tulsa could have more parking.

[TTownGen4]

I know it's not their fault, their only the 'messenger', but every time I see an Arc Wrecking truck or sign, I know it's a sad day for some old historic structure.

[MichaelBates]

I try to avoid linking my own stuff here, but I think this is on topic and worth reading.

Over the weekend, I met the lady that owned the Page-Glencliff Dairy building. She told me about the building and the decision to tear it down, and with her encouragement I wrote up the conversation on BatesLine.