Gilcrease Museum Demolition

[LandArchPoke]

It looks like they could expand to the north

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.  

[LandArchPoke]

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.

[SXSW]

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.

[LandArchPoke]

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).   

[SXSW]

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



This is the Sun Court that will have a view of downtown

[LandArchPoke]

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:



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.

[tulsabug]

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.

Lincoln Logs would have been my choice over Lego.

[TheArtist]

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.

[swake]

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.

[TheArtist]

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. 

[TulsaBeMore]

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?     

[tulsabug]

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:

[TheArtist]

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.

[TheArtist]

Here's that building in 1949 a la Beryl Ford:

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.