Gilcrease Museum Demolition

[patric]

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

[DTowner]

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.

[swake]

Wow

[shavethewhales]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.

[swake]

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.

[Red Arrow]

While I can see Artist's point, I smell a brother-in-law deal.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

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:

Anderson 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.

[Oil Capital]

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? 

[TulsaBeMore]

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?               

[Tulsan]

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.

Bynum 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?

[TulsaBeMore]

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.    

[DTowner]

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.

[TulsaBeMore]

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?      

[Tulsan]

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.