|
aoxamaxoa
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2006, 10:35:15 am » |
|
I don't think any developer can make a dime on the location because the current owner wants to make a bundle. And they are not in need of selling it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2006, 11:02:17 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I don't think any developer can make a dime on the location because the current owner wants to make a bundle. And they are not in need of selling it.
Yes to all of this thread. It serves as a roadmap for why buildings decay and are eventually levelled in this city. Kind of like global warming. Once it starts it perpetuates itself. It will take a huge economic event to change the dynamics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Breadburner
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2006, 11:11:42 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Why would anyone spend more money to remove the asbestos in the Camelot than it would cost to build a new hotel? And then still have to remodel, not to mention the cost to purchase the Camelot in the first place. Would be far cheaper and easier to build a new hotel in downtown or else where.
I doubt that the property value is going to go up enough in our lifetime to make it worth tearing down.
Asbestos remediation would happen if you remodel or tear it down....Either way it has to be delt with..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tulsa1603
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2006, 11:56:15 am » |
|
Asbestos is not a problem as long as it isn't "friable", meaning torn, frayed, disturbed, etc. to the point that particles become airborne. Can't it just be covered up in a remodel? I'm sure there are small pockets where it would have to be removed to allow for structural changes, but if you kept it as a hotel, wouldn't the basic layout be the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DM
Guest
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2006, 11:56:39 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
asbestos is flame retardant, not flame proof. torch it.
I second that. [  ] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pmcalk
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2006, 03:42:29 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
asbestos is flame retardant, not flame proof. torch it.
I second that. []
Doesn't burning asbestos release toxic fumes? I certainly wouldn't want to be within 100 miles if it were burned. I think people are too quick to presume tearing down is the best alternative when asbestos is present. Breadburner is right--you have to be just as careful with the asbestos whether you tear down the building, or encapsulate it. And if you tear down the building, you still have the problem of disposing of the asbestos. I am not saying that Camelot should necessarily be preserved, but I don't think the asbestos should be the deciding factor. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aoxamaxoa
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2006, 03:58:53 pm » |
|
The price tag is the deciding factor. North of 4 million....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dsjeffries
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2006, 04:54:40 pm » |
|
I'm only 20, so I have no fond "moments" at the Camelot, but I have always, always looked at it in marvel, even as a five-year old: Why was it run-down? Why didn't somebody do something to fix it? I wonder what used to happen there... It must have been magical.
I find myself asking these same questions today, and I know now that the Camelot was just the biggest still-standing example of what people in Tulsa think about history and architecture: it's not worth time or money to take care of things now or restore old buildings.
Grandeur, schmandeur.
Presevation? That's what you do to fruits in cans, right?
Pride? It comes and goes...
Reading the replies on this topic only confirm my thoughts: Tulsans just don't care.
Has anyone else noticed that the only thing mentioned in this discussion are in terms of dollars and cents? While that counts for a lot, i.e. determining who can do what with the property, it shouldn't be the overriding factor in this hotel's storied life! Once host to Elvis, President Richard Nixon, a British parliamentarian and other high-profile people, the Camelot isn't something that can be measured solely in dollars. And neither can its refurbishment.
Think of the headlines: Legend of Camelot Lives On... Think of the memories yet to be made in this hotel that hasn't lived out its life yet... Think of the views of downtown; or, for all you money-mongers:
Imagine the proft to be made, the money it could bring in by those people wishing to relive their experiences at the hotel, by all the people visiting Tulsa who wish to stay in Brookside, by everyone who passes by on I-44, or by those who choose to host conventions there. Think of the potential development in the area that could come from its rehabilitation (yet, can most Tulsans see potential in anything?). Who would want to stay in a castle? I know I would.
Building hotels isn't a cheap job unless they're just that: cheap hotels. Tulsa has enough of these. Yes, a Renaissance was built, but it looks like a cheap knock-off lego building with no charm, personality, history or elegance (what can one expect from a Hammonds?). It has no real presence; and even though the Camelot isn't in use, hence the dilapidation, it still has more "presence" than any new hotel development has or could have.
So the owner is asking $3 million for it. Negotiate! And guess what? It costs about $1.3 million just to build a Mazzio's; and up to $2.9 million for a Sonic Drive In. Seriously, people. Sonic. What would you rather see there Tulsa, another parking lot (you know, that way people could park there and ride a trolley to Brookside! Novel idea! Woo hoo! Wonderful use of historic space!)? Or better yet, another nice, new strip mall? Yes, the model of the 71st Street corridor is exactly what should be used for redeveloping this once glorious hotel in a mature neighborhood. Bravo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2006, 07:06:54 pm » |
|
Is it just me? But I do not find the Camelot Hotel to be in any way a desirable or attractive building. I am usually one of the people who love historic buildings, and can see value and worth in some that other can't. I love the Abundant Life building for instance. But the Camelot to me is just boring and ugly. The sign on the top of it looks tacky. I dont know how you could remodel it to make it attractive? Perhaps make it 70s kisch? That could be done on the inside, even have the people at the front desk wearing polyester suits and those wide ties lol. Keep the same retro, "faux castle" plastic and tin decor etc. But how would you get the outside to look more that way, to make it obviously fun and not just unattractive? Its not as though the place could be updated to look attractive to modern standards so it would almost have to be retro.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
|
|
|
|
Oil Capital
|
|
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2006, 08:11:31 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Is it just me? But I do not find the Camelot Hotel to be in any way a desirable or attractive building. I am usually one of the people who love historic buildings, and can see value and worth in some that other can't. I love the Abundant Life building for instance. But the Camelot to me is just boring and ugly. The sign on the top of it looks tacky. I dont know how you could remodel it to make it attractive? Perhaps make it 70s kisch? That could be done on the inside, even have the people at the front desk wearing polyester suits and those wide ties lol. Keep the same retro, "faux castle" plastic and tin decor etc. But how would you get the outside to look more that way, to make it obviously fun and not just unattractive? Its not as though the place could be updated to look attractive to modern standards so it would almost have to be retro.
No, it's not just you, Artist. I agree. I can see nothing desirable or attractive about that building. It is ugly and looks cheap and tacky (one could say "a cheap knock-off lego building with no charm, personality, or elegance"). I was surprised to read that it once hosted such high-profile guests. Was it once the best hotel in Tulsa? Hard to believe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aoxamaxoa
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2006, 10:47:47 am » |
|
DScooter...if it were apathy or we did not care then we would not be posting here....
The Camelot can't be rejuvenated. Recall, the days of romance created it. Those days are history. We live in a different world today.
BTW, they want $5 million.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rwarn17588
Guest
|
|
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2006, 11:05:27 am » |
|
I think what's scaring off potential developers of the Camelot is the sheer size of the thing. Developers are more inclined to roll the dice if it's a smaller size.
But the Camelot is so big, it's difficult to come up with a viable financial plan for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AMP
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2006, 11:15:33 am » |
|
Cost of energy today has caused many businesses to down size and install high effiency HVAC units.
Engineers could design zone systems for heating and cooling that unit may be cost effective again. Having to heat and cool the entire building is out of the question.
Been in a Wal Mart, K-Mart or other large box type store since the price of energy skyrocketed? Better wear your coat in cold weather and shorts and a very thin tee-shirt in the hot weather.
Could do as Oral Roberts did with the prayer tower building, and not use finish or use the upper floors of the building until grow developed. Block the elevator and lock the stair well doors to those floors that are inactive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
azbadpuppy
|
|
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2006, 12:00:53 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Is it just me? But I do not find the Camelot Hotel to be in any way a desirable or attractive building. I am usually one of the people who love historic buildings, and can see value and worth in some that other can't. I love the Abundant Life building for instance. But the Camelot to me is just boring and ugly. The sign on the top of it looks tacky. I dont know how you could remodel it to make it attractive? Perhaps make it 70s kisch? That could be done on the inside, even have the people at the front desk wearing polyester suits and those wide ties lol. Keep the same retro, "faux castle" plastic and tin decor etc. But how would you get the outside to look more that way, to make it obviously fun and not just unattractive? Its not as though the place could be updated to look attractive to modern standards so it would almost have to be retro.
No, it's not just you, Artist. I agree. I can see nothing desirable or attractive about that building. It is ugly and looks cheap and tacky (one could say "a cheap knock-off lego building with no charm, personality, or elegance").
I was surprised to read that it once hosted such high-profile guests. Was it once the best hotel in Tulsa? Hard to believe.
Althought it was quite a novelty in its day, being one of the first large scale 'themed' hotels I can think of (pre-dates the Excalibur in Vegas by many decades), there were several other hotels in Tulsa that were of a higher class than the Camelot. I agree that its an eyesore and as it's not histoically or architecturally significant I believe it should be torn down. Doesn't the city of Tulsa have any say in owners allowing a blighted building to just sit there and rot? Can't the owners be fined? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
