ljbab, it's so impressive to see a youngster like you trying to weigh in on urbanism, but really you should experience more in life before thinking you can discuss these matters in a big boy forum like OKC Talk.
:dizzy:

lol. I try back in about 20 years then, Steve.

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/medium/flyer2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/medium/flyer1.JPG

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/medium/flyer2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/medium/flyer1.JPG

Man...I still can't believe they are doing this.

Man...I still can't believe they are doing this.

I don't see any harm, after all it's their money, their land. It could eventually pave the way for bigger and better things in the future.

I don't see any harm, after all it's their money, their land. It could eventually pave the way for bigger and better things in the future.

That's a nice idea but would you have said the same thing many years ago when the Criterion Theater and the Baum Building were being torn down?

I don't see any harm, after all it's their money, their land.

And it's our city.

You know what is so sad in all of this is that the main tower was put in the wrong place so they could have the corporate plaza in front of it. When that turned out to be a major screw-up the solution they come up with is to make the corporate plaza larger. Good idea, take the one thing that messes up the whole site and make it larger - brilliant.

Well said Kerry, I've never thought of it that way before.

I've got pics of yesterday's "hug-in" up now at Doug Dawgz Blog: Hugging Our SandRidge Buildings (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/hugging-our-sandridge-buildings.html) ... I haven't stuck any names in yet since I am still trying to get those that I can.

Click pics for larger ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/2010_05_03_00s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/2010_05_03_00.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/2010_05_03_12s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/2010_05_03_12.jpg)

Glad to see Metro there ... and ... can you believe it ... David Glover was there and he and I are actually on the same side of something for a change. Wonders never cease.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention David Glover, which was a little weird, but yeah it was odd to see Doug and I on the same side as David.

Even though he and I have been at odds about votes (beginning with the Ford Center tax, ending with the MAPS 3 vote), he's really a decent guy and I've known his mom for years.

If I send you a picture can you photoshop me in?

Sure, not a problem! :LolLolLol

I haven't seen Doug post here about his latest article on his website, so I thought I would step in and send you that way. I visited the site last night and was, once again, blown away at his amazing skills. Doug's a retired lawyer and his latest post reads and looks like a well-planned courtroom defense for these buildings. He looks at them one by one, shows visually what will be destroyed, gives some history of the smaller buildings that we haven't read before, and just gives us another amazing piece. Doug is a treasure to this city. Really. Go read his latest, it's terrific.
Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Proposal — What Have We Got To Lose? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-have-we-got-to.html)

I haven't seen Doug post here about his latest article on his website, so I thought I would step in and send you that way. I visited the site last night and was, once again, blown away at his amazing skills. Doug's a retired lawyer and his latest post reads and looks like a well-planned courtroom defense for these buildings. He looks at them one by one, shows visually what will be destroyed, gives some history of the smaller buildings that we haven't read before, and just gives us another amazing piece. Doug is a treasure to this city. Really. Go read his latest, it's terrific.
Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Proposal — What Have We Got To Lose? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-have-we-got-to.html)
Ha ha, now that's funny! :LolLolLol

It's true that I didn't (I don't think) post a link to the "What Have We Got To Lose?" article here ... I think that I may finally be getting to the point of feeling guilty for being so self-serving (if that is, in fact, possible) but I'm surely pleased that you posted the link. You can be my sidekick anytime.

It's not actually my latest ... the latest is about the "hug-in" which occurred yesterday, which I did mention here in the larger SandRidge ... thread. To throw off the phony non-self-serving cloak, that one is here: Doug Dawgz Blog: Hugging Our SandRidge Buildings (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/hugging-our-sandridge-buildings.html)

Last, I'm not retired. I just don't work as much as I used to. Gotta keep some income coming in, don't you know?

Love the way you talk, Mike! Keep it up. Problem is, I know who the real hero is, and one who I'll never come close to matching ... Jack Bauer, who, one day, will save us all. Damn I love that guy.

You know what is so sad in all of this is that the main tower was put in the wrong place so they could have the corporate plaza in front of it. When that turned out to be a major screw-up the solution they come up with is to make the corporate plaza larger. Good idea, take the one thing that messes up the whole site and make it larger - brilliant.

I've never been a fan of Pietro Belluschi's (or however in the hell you spell his name) anyway. 1980s Le Corbusier wannabe, and I just hate that entire design genre..it's interesting that OKC ended up being graced with a piece of it, although I will admit it looks awesome at night.

I've added a brief section in the blog post ... something I hadn't thought to do originally ... add up the number of stories that would be destroyed in the SandRidge proposal ... the brief concluding section now looks like this:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/cumulative_effect.jpg

I've added a brief section in the blog post ... something I hadn't thought to do originally ... add up the number of stories that would be destroyed in the SandRidge proposal ... the brief concluding section now looks like this:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/cumulative_effect.jpg
.

I thought I'd read about this from every possible angle, but Doug, I've never even thought to look at it that way. And, you're absolutely right, urban is up, after all.

Echo Mike's sentiments, never thought about it that way.....thanks doug.

I have been downtown 33 years and nothing is lost if these dogs are put out of their misery...they have been vacant eye sores for years....totally useless...thank you Sandridge for the vision....

Thanks Doug for the great info you always provide.

To Soonerus: I am not saying that in every instance, every building needs to be saved just because it is old. And there is a certain validity to the argument that if a building has been vacant for years, why not get rid of it? But if the reason that it is vacant is because the owner doesn't want anything done with it...? And the final thought is the destruction of any building needs to be carefully thought out. Once the building is gone, it removes all possibility of renovating or restoring it.

25% of downtown is currently vacant. Let's get out the wreckin ball!

There ya go Spartan...that should increase the occupancy percentages! (I kid)

anyway they could renovate a few of those old buildings to look like they did originally? like the ymca building for example. The way it looks now, i say get rid of it. But if they could make it more historic and take it back to its roots, then i say go for it.

There ya go Spartan...that should increase the occupancy percentages! (I kid)

We can total up the overall cost of demolishing every parcel of empty space in downtown and then put it in a press release and send it out to Forbes, Fortune, CNBC, NY Times, and others..to create "national buzz" about OKC's amazing downtown development.

We can total up the overall cost of demolishing every parcel of empty space in downtown and then put it in a press release and send it out to Forbes, Fortune, CNBC, NY Times, and others..to create "national buzz" about OKC's amazing downtown development.

Disagreeing and debating this issue is good, but why some feel the need to become a smart ass is childish!!

I think if they must demolish buildings, let them tear down that UGLY Kerr-McGee building

I think if they must demolish buildings, let them tear down that UGLY Kerr-McGee building

No kidding - so long as they don't replace it with empty open space.

I've never been a fan of Pietro Belluschi's

He had more talent than Jim, though.

Just curious... I wonder how much OKC's downtown office vacancy would drop if the building are all demolished. Could that make downtown look 'better'?

On paper it will probably be considered good news.


Disagreeing and debating this issue is good, but why some feel the need to become a smart ass is childish!!

Well, in all honesty, there's not much else we can do at this point except hope the appeal is successful..and making sarcastic attacks makes me feel a little bit better about it.

I haven't been downtown in a loooooooooooong time, but if they are going to tear down anything, I say start with the Greyhound Bus Terminal!!!!!

I haven't been downtown in a loooooooooooong time, but if they are going to tear down anything, I say start with the Greyhound Bus Terminal!!!!!

Heck no, that is an art deco gem. I hope Preftakes eventually turns it into a cool restaurant or multi-use facility.

Metro..are you talking about the old Union Bus Station?????

On paper it will probably be considered good news.

Well, in all honesty, there's not much else we can do at this point except hope the appeal is successful..and making sarcastic attacks makes me feel a little bit better about it.
mmmm ... uhhhhh ... Nick ... making sarcastic attacks makes you feel better/good? We need to talk.

I've added a new update section based on research I've done earlier today and it largely has to do with the 3-building group at the west end of Robert S. Kerr ... the combined OkcS&L, "Other building" (the 2-story building east of OkcS&L which I now know was a 2nd "Culbertson" building), plus the YMCA.

Learned some new stuff. The details are here: Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Proposal — What Have We Got To Lose? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-have-we-got-to.html#update) but the synopsis is that the "other" building sandwiched between the OkcS&L building and the YMCA was destroyed and an 11 story building stuck in its place; the 2 story "other" building was, at the time, called the "Culbertson" building; and the YMCA was enlarged to 9 stories. I found some interesting pictures in the Oklahoman's archives during this period, but the one which grabs me the most is the one shown below, even though off-topic, a bird's eye view of downtown Okc as of July 1969.

Before you scroll down, get your children away from the computer monitor ...
seeing what follows may cause them permanent psychological damage ...

Click on image for larger view ...
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/oklahoman_1969_07_24_downtown_bv-1.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/oklahoman_1969_07_24_downtown_bview.jpg)

As I said in the update,

The wave of Urban Renewal's destruction hadn't reached its apex when the above July 1969 photo was taken. Sheridan/Grand pretty much marks the northern edge of the destruction in the 1969 view — even though south of that edge the original Culbertson, Biltmore and Oklahoma Club/Tivoli are still standing. North of Sheridan/Grand, and yet to get the hit, are the Lawrence and Kingkade Hotels, the Herskowitz, Huckins, Commerce Exchange, Baum, and other buildings which had not yet been called to judgment by the Urban Renewal Authority. That would come in short order. Now, back to topic.
If one can possibly place themselves into the eyes of the city leaders that would have permitted such a thing to occur ... and I'm not able to make the adjustment ... and I'm avoiding passing judgment since I cannot place myself into their shoes ... but they really must have been painfully desperate to have promoted and allowed such a thing to occur. Mind-bending, it is.

Good building.

http://www.greatmirror.com/images/medium/018295.jpg

mmmm ... uhhhhh ... Nick ... making sarcastic attacks makes you feel better/good? We need to talk.

I've added a new update section based on research I've done earlier today and it largely has to do with the 3-building group at the west end of Robert S. Kerr ... the combined OkcS&L, "Other building" (the 2-story building east of OkcS&L which I now know was a 2nd "Culbertson" building), plus the YMCA.

Learned some new stuff. The details are here: Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Proposal — What Have We Got To Lose? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-have-we-got-to.html#update) but the synopsis is that the "other" building sandwiched between the OkcS&L building and the YMCA was destroyed and an 11 story building stuck in its place; the 2 story "other" building was, at the time, called the "Culbertson" building; and the YMCA was enlarged to 9 stories. I found some interesting pictures in the Oklahoman's archives during this period, but the one which grabs me the most is the one shown below, even though off-topic, a bird's eye view of downtown Okc as of July 1969.

Before you scroll down, get your children away from the computer monitor ...
seeing what follows may cause them permanent psychological damage ...

Click on image for larger view ...
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/oklahoman_1969_07_24_downtown_bv-1.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/oklahoman_1969_07_24_downtown_bview.jpg)

As I said in the update,

The wave of Urban Renewal's destruction hadn't reached its apex when the above July 1969 photo was taken. Sheridan/Grand pretty much marks the northern edge of the destruction in the 1969 view — even though south of that edge the original Culbertson, Biltmore and Oklahoma Club/Tivoli are still standing. North of Sheridan/Grand, and yet to get the hit, are the Lawrence and Kingkade Hotels, the Herskowitz, Huckins, Commerce Exchange, Baum, and other buildings which had not yet been called to judgment by the Urban Renewal Authority. That would come in short order. Now, back to topic.
If one can possibly place themselves into the eyes of the city leaders that would have permitted such a thing to occur ... and I'm not able to make the adjustment ... they really must have been desperate to have allowed such a thing to occur.

What's even more shocking is that the city had to move heaven and earth in order to get those demolitions done against the will of private property owners. That went a long way towards reinforcing demolition (and replacing with nothing) as a good option for pesky old buildings..

That photo is eye-opening.

Yeah, the photo is really something. I might even spring for a few bucks to get a good copy from the Oklahoman. It's just flat down damn powerful.

BTW, I have childhood memories of being in the Union Bus Station when a toddler on my way points-west or wherever with my mom ... I recall a 2nd floor balcony at the north end which overlooked the south, no longer there ... I'm cool with the bus station. Nice almost-deco piece of downtown.

-

That pic is something else. Note that this picture, bad as it is, was taken before the Biltmore/Sheraton demolition!

I have been downtown 33 years and nothing is lost if these dogs are put out of their misery...they have been vacant eye sores for years....totally useless...thank you Sandridge for the vision....

Just want to add a hearty "AMEN" to your statement! The 'blighted' buildings in OKC are a disgrace. OKC isn't like other cities; we truly did spring from the prairie overnight; we don't have 'old, historic' buildings that date back several centuries. Time to quit acting like every building over twenty years old has some "historic" nature! Our history is that of an expansion mentality; there is nothing wrong with it. "New" buildings can be built with style, class, taste, & unique architecture [we have a few around on the outskirts that fit such a description], and yes, if you must have a 'classic' look, build 'new' to look 'old,' but with new benefits such as energy efficiency.

Are we trying to run Sandridge out of town because of some derelict group of eyesores?

If you really want OKC to be a top-notch place, then get rid of the eyesore, derelict, boarded up garbage buildings!!!

I have been downtown 33 years and nothing is lost if these dogs are put out of their misery...they have been vacant eye sores for years....totally useless...thank you Sandridge for the vision....

I work 2 blocks from these buildings. Tear em out. I agree we need urban, pedestrian friendly density, but lets be honest - the BUILDINGS ARE EMPTY. These impede pedestrian flow because there is nothing in them. When I walk to Italian Express, I will enjoy walking through a nicely landscaped green space more than walking around old rotting buildings.

Granted - we are losing quite a few square feet of potential office/retail space. But there is a reason these buildings have been vacant. Nobody wants to rent them. Downtown OKC has too much office space, and we will have a huge surplus once Devon employees move to the new tower. Even if we left these buildings, they would be the LAST thing to ever be rented out because of all the NEW office space being put in.

I see downtown growing to the south & west in the coming decades.

That said - everybody who is so gung-ho over saving these buildings, I wish you luck for no other reason than you seem to be very passionate about it.

So - what happens if you DO overthrow Sandridge's decision to demolish them?

Imagine the possibilities! Old rotting buildings nobody will rent, right in the middle of our downtown!

Oh, the splendor!

The grandure!!

Pffffttttttt....

If you really want OKC to be a top-notch place, then get rid of the eyesore, derelict, boarded up garbage buildings!!!

Have you read Doug's posts? They're far, far from garbage...Check out those photos what lies beneath the facade of the India Temple and the old Ymca. Same logic could have been applied to the Skirvin, and check it out today.

Just want to add a hearty "AMEN" to your statement! The 'blighted' buildings in OKC are a disgrace. OKC isn't like other cities; we truly did spring from the prairie overnight; we don't have 'old, historic' buildings that date back several centuries. Time to quit acting like every building over twenty years old has some "historic" nature! Our history is that of an expansion mentality; there is nothing wrong with it. "New" buildings can be built with style, class, taste, & unique architecture [we have a few around on the outskirts that fit such a description], and yes, if you must have a 'classic' look, build 'new' to look 'old,' but with new benefits such as energy efficiency.

Are we trying to run Sandridge out of town because of some derelict group of eyesores?

If you really want OKC to be a top-notch place, then get rid of the eyesore, derelict, boarded up garbage buildings!!!


They are abandoned garbage that have been eyesores for years. The insides are total wreck...get rid of them...

Just want to add a hearty "AMEN" to your statement! The 'blighted' buildings in OKC are a disgrace. OKC isn't like other cities; we truly did spring from the prairie overnight; we don't have 'old, historic' buildings that date back several centuries. Time to quit acting like every building over twenty years old has some "historic" nature! Our history is that of an expansion mentality; there is nothing wrong with it. "New" buildings can be built with style, class, taste, & unique architecture [we have a few around on the outskirts that fit such a description], and yes, if you must have a 'classic' look, build 'new' to look 'old,' but with new benefits such as energy efficiency.

Are we trying to run Sandridge out of town because of some derelict group of eyesores?

If you really want OKC to be a top-notch place, then get rid of the eyesore, derelict, boarded up garbage buildings!!!

Thanks for the input, Cletus.

Old Okie. All buildings are older than 20 years. A lot older. Even if that was smart-ass sarcasm, it seemed ignorant. This argument has popped up tons of time from the supporters of the demolition, but I'll argue my point again. I don't think everyone who opposes it does so because the buildings are 'old' or 'historic'; rather, it's because they are tearing them down and replacing it with a park. I would be ecstatic if they were tearing them all down and had some equal replacements, but they're not. We want a structure to replace it and maintain the density, while also promoting mixed-uses, and additional development and life into downtown. No. They want to build a park. There's a park across the street, that's btw about to be expanded; there's a plaza at BOK next block over; There's the green triangle of grass northeast on EK Gaylord; there's Leadership Square's Plaza; Chase's Plaza; and all 17 acres of Myriad Gardens. The only one that is truly functional is the Myriad Gardens.

A lifeless, underutilized, stagnant park being built downtown for the sole purpose of line-of-sight is not acceptable for the cost of 4 buildings. The history of the buildings is just a noteable perk.

I think many people are arguing that the buildings that stand there could be a vibrant, and not to mention smart urban-planned, addition to downtown if they were renovated. If they are truly not viable, then they should explore the options of replacing those buildings with mixed-use structures that could also add to the vibrancy of the campus and to life downtown. A park is just an easy and very suburban way out. It's not something that has been proven to work in urban landscapes, it is actually very anti-urban.

Plaza at BOK, bawha...triangle of grass on E.K. Gaylord, double bawha...Chase's Plaza, triple bahha...Leadership Square plaza, quad bawha....These are the poorest examples ever if you are actually Downtown and I am evert day...the sum : BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.................What a poooooooooorrrrrrr example... These dog building define blight....

As I said in the other thread, get rid of that parking garage that can't really be used and fix up Kerr/Couch park real nice. That's about all the park space you need there. But if the other buildings can be fixed, then fix em or sell them to someone who wants to fix them. There is no need for some huge park surrounding their building.

I walk through that area every day, it would be great to be ride of those eyesores...

Soonerus, I agree that the parking garage is a HUGE eyesore and the others..well, it takes some imagination to see them being viable (though it is possible). But are you sure that you would include the KerMac building along with the ones that really do need to be demolished? I really don't think anyone can call that building an eyesore..were the Colcord and Skirvin bldgs also "eyesores" until they became high-end hotels?

As I've been musing this stuff (and updating my article), I was struck by something, actually, some one, that I'd not given due thought to earlier on: Dean A. McGee.

Even while developing the present Kerr McGee Tower and campus in 1970-1973, he was earnestly the leader in seeing that the Myriad Gardens project, as we know it today, would be accomplished. His corporate aims for his company's new campus preserved his own company's, and the city's legacy, in old stuff but also gave the new. His personal drive to see that Myriad Gardens, not even close to his company's campus, got done wasn't linked to his company's ego or presence in any way. He just saw it as the right thing to do.

In a section of the revised article, I said,


As a reminder, the Myriad Gardens would most probably not have been accomplished as it exists today but for the singular efforts of Dean A. McGee for a project on the south-central side of downtown that wasn't remotely near his own company's campus or associated with his company's identity. Create green space and a park for downtown? McGee was committed and determined to see that happen. Did it need to be part of his company's identity and campus? No, not at all. Speaking from an Oklahoma City history vantage point, a humble suggestion to Oklahoma City's corporate leaders might be, if you're looking for a role model, think about trying to fit into Dean A. McGee's shoes when you get up in the morning.

This man deserves a prominent statue downtown somewhere.

Thanks for the input, Cletus.

Don't quite know what to make of this comment, as I have no clue to whom you are referring. Please clarify.

As I've been musing this stuff (and updating my article), I was struck by something, actually, some one, that I'd not given due thought to earlier on: Dean A. McGee.

Even while developing the present Kerr McGee Tower and campus in 1970-1973, he was earnestly the leader in seeing that the Myriad Gardens project, as we know it today, would be accomplished. His corporate aims for his company's new campus preserved his own company's, and the city's legacy, in old stuff but also gave the new. His personal drive to see that Myriad Gardens, not even close to his company's campus, got done wasn't linked to his company's ego or presence in any way. He just saw it as the right thing to do.

In a section of the revised article, I said,


As a reminder, the Myriad Gardens would most probably not have been accomplished as it exists today but for the singular efforts of Dean A. McGee for a project on the south-central side of downtown that wasn't remotely near his own company's campus or associated with his company's identity. Create green space and a park for downtown? McGee was committed and determined to see that happen. Did it need to be part of his company's identity and campus? No, not at all. Speaking from an Oklahoma City history vantage point, a humble suggestion to Oklahoma City's corporate leaders might be, if you're looking for a role model, think about trying to fit into Dean A. McGee's shoes when you get up in the morning.

This man deserves a prominent statue downtown somewhere.

Agree about Dean McGee; totally a visionary; reminded me also of the concepts espoused by Robert S. Kerr about needing to keep Oklahoma's water & woods available for future generations.

As to the argument that many are making here that BUILDINGS are better than "PARKS": why? Buildings are only beneficial to a downtown part of a city if they are filled with tenants, well-maintained, and attractive to visitors. The buildings Sandridge wants out are none of these.

Besides, what place jumps to mind when you think "BIG city"? I always think of NYC...............which has a gigantic PARK right in its heart! Central Park is huge, but it provides valuable benefits to that city: namely 'green' in a heart of concrete, a mechanism for cleaning the air--NYC would be worse if not for that park, and an attractive place for its residents and visitors.

A "park" should be viewed as a positive. Kudos to Sandridge for thinking of doing that; they could just demolish and concrete over the area....or worse, just let the derelict structures become more derelict.

Dean McGee was right; Robert S. Kerr was right. Trees, grass, flowers, etc. in the heart of a city are good things--and honestly, not something a city can ever have too much of! We have plenty of room in OKC, sprucing up downtown with green to go with the Myriad Gardens would make us look environmentally conscious--and bring "pretty" to an otherwise barren concrete cavern.

Good comments, Old Okie. I think that there are good points to either position on this. I'll just keep on being a building hugger for now, though.

Economy may take care of the problem.

As someone that worked in facilities at Kerr McGee for 17 years, there is something that not very many people are aware of. Back in the 80's before the bust, Dean McGee was considering tearing down the same buildings to build a second tower. It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.

As someone that worked in facilities at Kerr McGee for 17 years, there is something that not very many people are aware of. Back in the 80's before the bust, Dean McGee was considering tearing down the same buildings to build a second tower. It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.

The difference is that he was going to replace the demolished buildings with a tower. Sandridge is proposing replacing them with grass.

Not to mention Al Gore invented the internet since then, so we're all more connected to what's going on in real time.

As someone that worked in facilities at Kerr McGee for 17 years, there is something that not very many people are aware of. Back in the 80's before the bust, Dean McGee was considering tearing down the same buildings to build a second tower. It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.
I guess that I missed that SandRidge was proposing to build a 2nd tower ... where?

I didn't mean that Sandridge was proposing another tower, just that the amount of plaza area would've been about the same and that it would've eliminated the street wall along Robinson.

Economy may take care of the problem.

Unfortunately, for the KerMac, we dodged that bullet..