Moving City Hall

[Hometown]

Some time ago I suggested that city, county, state and federal governments consolidate their offices and become anchor tenants for downtown.  That's a good idea.

Abandoning City Hall and slowing dismantling Civic Center is a horrible idea.

Does anyone out there really believe that Tulsa has the will to create another Civic Center?  

Are there any major American cities without a civic center?  Civic Center already has a good synergy of people doing business.  It's downtown's only success story as it were.

Not to mention our Civic Center is a Modern Classic that will look better with age.  In a few more years we'll be seeing Modern architecture with a new eye.  Just in time to lament what's been torn down and to curse the bad remodel of the Convention Center.

Let's see:  No Civic Center but big suburban style Sports Arena, Home Depot and Wal-Mart.

I'd say chances are very good that major trends of the last three decades will continue and within 20 years downtown will no longer be recognizable as a downtown, despite the noble efforts of the local intelligentsia.

Leaders that dismantle Civic Center will earn a permanent spot on my sh** list.

[MichaelBates]

Downtown was healthier when government uses were mixed in with retail and office buildings. The County Courthouse used to be at 6th & Boulder. The old Federal Building (still in use) is between 2nd and 3rd on Boulder. Old City Hall is at 4th and Cincinnati. The Carnegie Library was at 3rd and Cheyenne.

Having a government ghetto was a fashionable fad about 50 years ago, but it didn't work any better than the pedestrianized Main Mall did. The neighborhood that was replaced by the Civic Center used to provide a gradual transition from the high-intensity downtown core to totally residential areas. (Look at old aerial photos and you'll see treetops where there is now only concrete and asphalt.) Segregated uses and superblocks are bad urban planning.

While the library and county courthouse are nice examples of modern architecture, City Hall is just plain ugly. I think it may be the ugliest City Hall of any major city in America. I suspect some corners were cut when it was built.

If the financials work out, move city offices to the Borg Cube, tear down old City Hall, reopen Frisco Avenue and Fifth Street to traffic, and sell the land (at market rates) to a private developer who can create some variety in the midst of that monotonous cluster of government buildings. If there's more room in the new City Hall than city government needs, move Central Library there, and let the district court adapt the current library building for their needs.

Before anything happens, though, let's make sure we don't put city government in a deeper financial hole.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

If the financials work out, (run on sentance)

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates
Before anything happens, though, let's make sure we don't put city government in a deeper financial hole.

Same thing?

Anyways, the financial benefits are under investigation as we speak.

I'm confident that the study wouldn't even be taking place if Taylor & Co. didn't already know they got a hell of a deal on the giant glass building.

[cannon_fodder]

Bates brings up a good point on the District Courts, they have been wanting more space (and nearly had a new building a while back).  However, I believe the sorting facilities currently located downtown for the USPS are being moved and the space will be available to the Courts.

Anyway:


When was the last time a government entity proposed something contingent on a "study" and then decided the study doesnt support it?  In my humble opinion, those studies are just paying the choir to sing...

I hope I'm wrong and this is an opportunity to improve city services, save money, and help revitalize downtown.  But I remain skeptical.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Bates brings up a good point on the District Courts, they have been wanting more space (and nearly had a new building a while back).  However, I believe the sorting facilities currently located downtown for the USPS are being moved and the space will be available to the Courts.

Anyway:


When was the last time a government entity proposed something contingent on a "study" and then decided the study doesnt support it?  In my humble opinion, those studies are just paying the choir to sing...

I hope I'm wrong and this is an opportunity to improve city services, save money, and help revitalize downtown.  But I remain skeptical.

The sorting facility did move a while back. It will still take money & time to take that space over, even if it could be made useful.

[Hometown]

Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse.  I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved."  There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down.  Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.

Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject?  What's changed?

And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.

City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse.  I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved."  There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down.  Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.

Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject?  What's changed?

And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.

City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.

OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive.  Anything of quality, i can appreciate.  Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture.  In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction.  I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too.  But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks.  You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case.  In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather.  The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years.  The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.

[Wilbur]

Has anyone considered the Homeland Security of the proposed new City Hall building?  Moving a major government operation into a totally glass enclosed structure doesn't seem the most secure to me.

[TulsaSooner]

There is very little 'secure' about the current City Hall facility.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Has anyone considered the Homeland Security of the proposed new City Hall building?  Moving a major government operation into a totally glass enclosed structure doesn't seem the most secure to me.

The new building was built with a lot of security features built in. Given that terrorists rarely attack with lights (despite what boston thinks) the glass isn't real applicable.

[Double A]

bullsh*#t.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse.  I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved."  There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down.  Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.

Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject?  What's changed?

And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.

City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.

OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive.  Anything of quality, i can appreciate.  Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture.  In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction.  I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too.  But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks.  You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case.  In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather.  The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years.  The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.

Great, I love architects.  I'm a published art critic and I find City Hall a decent example of Modernism.

More important than the one structure is maintaining the integrity of civic center which could be livelier if anyone ever thought to present a free lunch time concert.

You complain about walking but many folks on this forum want to see walking as part of the downtown experience.

I agree all of the additions in the Civic Center area are bad and should be removed.

A careful restoration would leave us with a Modern gem that would grow in value.  Other than the bad remodels and add-ons the problem with Civic Center is maintenance.  There is a pattern in Tulsa of not funding maintenance.

You might say Tulsa is pound foolish and penny wise when it comes to maintenance of government property.

I'm not for "anything old."  I'm for quality.  Today's developers don't have the budgets that we had when the oil companies were headquartered here.  Not to mention the general decline of work product across the board.  Structures today tend to be built on the cheap.

And if you've made it this far let me ask you, "Do you believe that it is important for Tulsa to have a civic center?"

[Wrinkle]

If you want to see what emphasis this City places on our public facilities, one need look no further than here:

   Tulsa Public Facilities Authority

The one meeting in October 2006 with an Agenda has only three items:

 Election of Officers
 Fiscal Year Financial Statement
 Vision 2025 - Arena & Convention Center Project - Update

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

If you want to see what emphasis this City places on our public facilities, one need look no further than here:

   Tulsa Public Facilities Authority

The one meeting in October 2006 with an Agenda has only three items:

 Election of Officers
 Fiscal Year Financial Statement
 Vision 2025 - Arena & Convention Center Project - Update

The Public Facilities Authority exists to issue bonds on the Convention Center and a handful of other projects.  It has no bearing whatsoever on the maintenance of City Hall or other city facilities.  That is overseen by the Building Maintenance division of the Public Works department.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Yes and wouldn't we love to that have old courthouse.  I'm sure it made perfect sense to Tulsans of that era to tear down something old and build something "new and improved."  There's a pattern here that is consistent with many Tulsa treasures being torn down.  Honestly all Tulsa has to do to make an enormous improvement is to declare a moratorium on destruction of buildings north of 51st Street.

Why would a city that has made so many serious errors in demolishing historic structures suddenly have some wisdom on the subject?  What's changed?

And while people cry about getting Tulsans back downtown, there's already a healthy crop of people doing business at Civic Center.

City Hall is a fine example of Modern architecture that will only improve with age, but folks probably won't be happy until we have a shiny new engineer-designed prefab with animal art prominently displayed about the property.

OK, I'm an architect, and i can appreciate modern architecture, mid century design, and even current trends that many people find offensive.  Anything of quality, i can appreciate.  Nothing about our current city hall is a fine example of modern architecture.  In fact, it was built with cheap materials, and suffered lots of cost cutting measure at the time of it's construction.  I think the Francis Campbell City Council meeting hall is nicely done, and the library is a nice example, too.  But the current midrise building that houses the administration, no thanks.  You seem to be operating under the assumption that everything old is good and everything new is bad, and that is not always the case.  In my experiences at the Civic Center Plaza
(Jury Duty, BOA meetings, City Council meetings, etc.), the place does not function well as you describe, it is deserted, and requires walking long distances in inclement weather.  The 1950's courthouse could use a renovation, but it has also been butchered by bad additions over the years.  The Federal Courthouse is out of scale, closed off from the street (how's that work in an urban environemnt?), and generally accepted as ugly, but at least it has a sense of quality to it.
I have never thought that the current city hall offices fit in with the civic center plaza.

Great, I love architects.  I'm a published art critic and I find City Hall a decent example of Modernism.

More important than the one structure is maintaining the integrity of civic center which could be livelier if anyone ever thought to present a free lunch time concert.

You complain about walking but many folks on this forum want to see walking as part of the downtown experience.

I agree all of the additions in the Civic Center area are bad and should be removed.

A careful restoration would leave us with a Modern gem that would grow in value.  Other than the bad remodels and add-ons the problem with Civic Center is maintenance.  There is a pattern in Tulsa of not funding maintenance.

You might say Tulsa is pound foolish and penny wise when it comes to maintenance of government property.

I'm not for "anything old."  I'm for quality.  Today's developers don't have the budgets that we had when the oil companies were headquartered here.  Not to mention the general decline of work product across the board.  Structures today tend to be built on the cheap.

And if you've made it this far let me ask you, "Do you believe that it is important for Tulsa to have a civic center?"

Define walkable.  I love walking.  Downtown as it is IS walkable, you can walk across parking lots with more character than is currently available at the civic center plaza.  There is very little sense of place there.  To me, a walking environment would entail being able to window shop, stroll in clearly defined paths, something providing a sense of place.  As it is today, the civic center plaza is a parking lot without stripes.  And I don't know that it is all that important that we have a civic center plaza.  I can imagine that the current city hall could be renovated and leased out as professional offices for lawyers.  Or build a new modern building in it's place.  If each of these buildings were spread out two or three blocks from each other, THAT would encourage a quality walking experience.  Restaurants and shops on the way in between, etc.  Where is the enjoyment in walking across that plaza?  Bring on the Artist's old idea of a solar canopy.  Farmer's market.  Put some small cafes on it.  A huge sheet of concrete that an occassional band will play on?  We need activity, and free band lunches aren't enough.