Oh, right. Well I wasn't attempting to correct you or anything, Doug--just attempting to take this revelation in the full context of the SandRidge demolitions. Beyond the KerMac bldg I can't begin to predict what this new development might be..so I'll just stick to what I can reasonably extrapolate on.

Well, then, extrapolate on a name that has not (as far as I'm aware) been heretofore mentioned in this thread.

Anthony McDermid. Maybe Marva Ellard. Dick Tanenbaum. Narrowing it down to a name is a lot harder to pinpoint than the general fact that the Robinson bldgs possess a ton of redevelopment potential.

Without further comment, keep in mind what I earlier said,


As I already alluded to in replying to Spartan/Nick, above, the possible new development I referenced hasn't got anything to do with new people in the wings who are willing/able to develop parts of the SandRidge properties ... maybe they are present, I don't know, but my own remark has nothing to do with such a possibility.

I can always tell the difference people that work for their money and the silver spoon crowd. The silver is always caught up in movements like this one.

The working class crowd agrees with concept of private property. When something is private property the owner has the right to do whatever they wish provided it does not create a safety/health hazard or a logical nuisance to the people who own property adjacent to the property.

OKC is not NYC. I would prefer to see some green space downtown. The highrise district always seems to look dirty to me everytime I am downtown. It reminds me of the floor of a mechanics garage or a ballpark bathroom.

My question is What happens to the buildings if they are destroyed by a Tornado, Fire or Explosion. Do we go back and sink millions into them to save them? NO. We tear them down.

To me as long as something attractive takes its place I do not see a problem with it. Those that have a problem with should rally together, pony up the cash and offer to buy the buildings for market price.

I just can't wait until the time comes when we are saving old Big Box stores.

"No, You can't tear down the old Best Buy..... I bought my kid their first PC in there not to mention Toby Keith used the mens room during an autograph signing, He wrote a litte less talk a lot more action while he was using the toilet in stall 2."

I can always tell the difference people that work for their money and the silver spoon crowd. The silver is always caught up in movements like this one.

The working class crowd agrees with concept of private property. When something is private property the owner has the right to do whatever they wish provided it does not create a safety/health hazard or a logical nuisance to the people who own property adjacent to the property.

OKC is not NYC. I would prefer to see some green space downtown. The highrise district always seems to look dirty to me everytime I am downtown. It reminds me of the floor of a mechanics garage or a ballpark bathroom.

My question is What happens to the buildings if they are destroyed by a Tornado, Fire or Explosion. Do we go back and sink millions into them to save them? NO. We tear them down.

To me as long as something attractive takes its place I do not see a problem with it. Those that have a problem with should rally together, pony up the cash and offer to buy the buildings for market price.

I just can't until the time comes when we are saving old Big Box stores.

"No, You can't tear down the old Best Buy..... I bought my kid their first PC in there not to mention Toby Keith used the mens room during an autograph signing, He wrote a litte less talk a lot more action while he was using the toilet in stall 2."

This is ridiculous, self-defeating, and condescending. Yuck.

wow, if they demolition FOUR buildings downtown our skyline would look pretty silly with huge gaps in it.

I can always tell the difference people that work for their money and the silver spoon crowd. The silver is always caught up in movements like this one.

The working class crowd agrees with concept of private property. When something is private property the owner has the right to do whatever they wish provided it does not create a safety/health hazard or a logical nuisance to the people who own property adjacent to the property.

OKC is not NYC. I would prefer to see some green space downtown. The highrise district always seems to look dirty to me everytime I am downtown. It reminds me of the floor of a mechanics garage or a ballpark bathroom.

My question is What happens to the buildings if they are destroyed by a Tornado, Fire or Explosion. Do we go back and sink millions into them to save them? NO. We tear them down.

To me as long as something attractive takes its place I do not see a problem with it. Those that have a problem with should rally together, pony up the cash and offer to buy the buildings for market price.

I just can't until the time comes when we are saving old Big Box stores.

"No, You can't tear down the old Best Buy..... I bought my kid their first PC in there not to mention Toby Keith used the mens room during an autograph signing, He wrote a litte less talk a lot more action while he was using the toilet in stall 2."

I give you.. Myopia.

OneForOne,

Do you not have a sense that there might be something different involved when comparing a Best Buy shop (in any part of town) with a downtown 1902-oldest-remaining-downtown-building-which-served-as-the-Oklahoma-legislature-from-1913-until-1917?

I understand and appreciate the position you are expressing. Boiling it all down to street speech and posturing an example of the other side of your position, though, the Skirvin was closed and downtrodden from 1989 until it reopened 2007 in large part due to our city's (and that means our citizens') collective will that it not be destroyed but be renewed.

Was that a mistake, or, if not, how does the Skirvin fit into your description.

Are you saying that it would have been just fine for the intervening owners to raze the building and let this city landmark pass away?

I would like to make one thing clear regarding the law. SandRidge purchased the property which has laws (called zoning ordinances), that control the use of the land. This law is in place in part to keep compatible uses clustered, and to provide value to both the owner, the adjacent property owners, and the public, who pay the taxes that provided the infrastructure, including streets, water, and other utilities. Zoning keeps landfills and other less desireable legitimate uses from occurring next to downtowns, hazardous waste recyclers from next to hospitals, and so forth. The zoning ordinance in downtown encourages mixed use, high density developments, not an wide open "campus". The law is against the SandRidge proposal, the body that approved the demolitions made a decision that was based on incomplete information, which will hopefully be rectified Thursday.

OneForOne,

Underneath the false facade it really is a beautiful building, despite how hard it may be to believe. You know how Vesuvius ironically preserved Pompeii? If it turns out that it is possible to delicately remove the false facade on the India Temple, that may be the case with this building.

You can say what you want about it but, I believe this descision by Sandrige was probably a finanical one. Corporations are tightening their budgets. Chances are more than likely they can tear it down and rebuild an exact replica of the same building for less what it will cost to remodel.

Remodels are not cheap. Each building probably needs electrical and plumbing upgrades, a new fire supression and alarm system, new communications wiring and equipment, new elevators, CCTV/Alarm system, Your also going to have to make the entire building ADA compliant. All that is going to be one big fat price tag on top of what it will cost for construction and design for each area rather it be an office, apartments or condos.

Thanks to the housing crisis banks are not willing to lend unless they know they are going to get their money back in a reasonable time frame. The days of businesses carrying long term debt are over. Not to mention investors want the money they put into the company to go to something that will make a profit.

Every high rise residential building in Oklahoma City has had to switch to apartment leasing either partial or completely. The only people that want that kind of living are young singles, childless couples and empty nesters. People with familes want a house with a backyard and a garage.

Why would you want to live in a shoebox that costs $130,000 when you can live in a three bedroom home with a large backyard and your own two car garage.

Let's be realistic here, If somebody really wanted these places they would have bought them from Sandridge or Kerr McGee years ago. Kerr McGee was struggling way before the Anadarko Days and they would have jumped on the idea of selling the building if someone made them a reasonable offer. They would not have just left it untouched all those years.

I will agree the Skirvin made since because it started producing money they day it opened. If they are renovated they will probably sit empty or partially empty for years to come and maybe recoup less then half the money that was spent.

Just because someone has a desire to save something does not mean they should throw good money after bad just so it can be saved for history's sake. Sometimes you have to clean house and toss the junk regardless of it's sentimental value otherwise you turn into nothing but a hoarder.

You can say what you want about it but, I believe this descision by Sandrige was probably a finanical one. Corporations are tightening their budgets. Chances are more than likely they can tear it down and rebuild and exact replica of the same building for less what it will cost to remodel.

Problem is, for the most part, they are tearing it down and NOT replacing it with a building.


Let's be realistic here, If somebody really wanted these places they would have bought them from Sandridge or Kerr McGee years ago. Kerr McGee was struggling way before the Anadarko Days and they would have jumped on the idea of selling the building if someone made them a reasonable offer. They would not have just left it untouched all those years.

There were plans to do just that and then Kerr-McGee left and the deal fell though. SandRidge wants that land for their corporate campus and they don't want to sell the buildings. SandRidge has been just as much to blame here for the buildings remaining empty. One of the reasons given for them tearing the buildings down is to improve the sight lines of their tower. If they sold the buildings to someone else, that wouldn't happen.

To me as long as something attractive takes its place I do not see a problem with it. Those that have a problem with should rally together, pony up the cash and offer to buy the buildings for market price.

I here by make a formal to offer purchase these buildings for what Sandridge says they are worth - $0. When can I pick up the keys?

I hear a lot about how expensive it is to bring these building up to code, but Sandridge is planning to spend $100 million to tear them down and put in a plaza. Will it cost more than that to redo these buildings?

I can always tell the difference people that work for their money and the silver spoon crowd. The silver is always caught up in movements like this one.

The working class crowd agrees with concept of private property. When something is private property the owner has the right to do whatever they wish provided it does not create a safety/health hazard or a logical nuisance to the people who own property adjacent to the property.

OKC is not NYC. I would prefer to see some green space downtown. The highrise district always seems to look dirty to me everytime I am downtown. It reminds me of the floor of a mechanics garage or a ballpark bathroom.

My question is What happens to the buildings if they are destroyed by a Tornado, Fire or Explosion. Do we go back and sink millions into them to save them? NO. We tear them down.

To me as long as something attractive takes its place I do not see a problem with it. Those that have a problem with should rally together, pony up the cash and offer to buy the buildings for market price.

I just can't wait until the time comes when we are saving old Big Box stores.

"No, You can't tear down the old Best Buy..... I bought my kid their first PC in there not to mention Toby Keith used the mens room during an autograph signing, He wrote a litte less talk a lot more action while he was using the toilet in stall 2."

Wow, just wow. :doh:

I can always tell the difference people that work for their money and the silver spoon blah blah blah

Oneforone... your name says it all, man.

Problem is, for the most part, they are tearing it down and NOT replacing it with a building.

There were plans to do just that and then Kerr-McGee left and the deal fell though.
As Larry said, lest we forget ...

Oklahoman, November 10, 2005
In the article below, note the statements, below,

“A lot of exciting things are happening downtown,” Corbett said. “This will be upscale housing. This particular group came forward with what we thought is a viable plan, a plan they can accomplish. And it met the criteria we want: Something that is very nice for downtown and will continue the momentum.” * * * Corbett said his company has fielded numerous offers for the properties over the past decade, but he said the ideas or timing was never quite right.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/condotransaction_2005_11_10.jpg


Oklahoman, March 10, 2006

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/condotransaction_2006_03_10.jpg

Wait wait wait - back the truck up.

According to this story it will cost $40 million to turn these three buildings into housing but $100 million to turn it into a corporate plaza. This blows that hell out of the used car anaolgy used earlier.

The story is dated in 2005 so it might cost more than $40 million today. No?

I believe this descision by Sandrige was probably a finanical one.

It is not. Sandridge does not need to do this in the way that a Devon might. At this point, it really is a project of vanity. It is not something that is necessitated by size or operational factors. They really just want to create as much of a campus feel in the middle of downtown as they can. I actually think they would tear down more if they think they could get away with it.

I'm not sure if this issue is divided neatly between the silver spoon crowd and working class folks. I know for a fact it is not a liberal v. conservative one, as I know some of the people very involved on both sides.

I think the real division is between people who view the city as a community, both culturally and economically, and people who view it simply as a venue to get their own.

The reality is that these types of developments have a very broad impact on the city, in terms of its ability to position itself economically and culturally. City centers, more than any other part of a city, define what a city is and paints an image of what kind of business climate and culture the city has. The city centers are usually the source of first impressions when a prospective tenant is gauging the city's size, health, and vibrancy. There is no doubt that preserving historic buildings goes a lot farther towards projecting a positive image than empty blank space in the heart of a small city center does. One only needs to compare the impacts of the Skirvin and Bricktown have on the city's image to the contribution that the current Kerr plaza has made over time.

The reality is that the plaza that is already there is rarely used and, more often than not, is void of life. Sandridge is proposing an expansion to the that vacant and unused space that we already know doesn't work at the expense of buildings that one day could be icons of the city's rebirth and newly found vibrancy. This affects every person in the city that in some way is affected by its overall economic and cultural health. There really is no way around it. As one of Oklahoma City's long time boosters, Kerr McGee actually recognized this and had concrete plans to rejuvenate the area without demolition. Tearing it down was a step backwards in their mind.

Seriously, no matter what anyone tries to tell you, everyone understands city planning and the reasons why companies and individuals don't just get to always tear down what they want or build what they want. An example would be tearing down houses in the middle of neighborhood to put in a gas station, or tearing down city icons to put in a strip club. I just don't buy that even the strictest laissez faire poster here would simply shrug their shoulders at such developments and say "it's their money... it's their property, etc..." Now, while these examples may seem silly, the reality is that what Sandridge is doing has a much greater and broader impact on the future and health of Oklahoma City than tearing down your neighbor's house and building a strip club would, mainly because you're not talking about the face of the city like you are when you talk about downtown.

Just as you would want some say in what goes into your neighborhood, many businesses and downtown people want some say in what is happening in their neighborhood. The only difference is that what happens in that neighborhood has a greater impact on the overall health of the city than what happens in any other neighborhood of the city.

The story is dated in 2005 so it might cost more than $40 million today. No?

Maybe, but people keep saying construction costs are down and 2005 was a big time for construction nationally. If it has gone up, I doubt it went up by 150%.

I think people keep forgetting that tearing down buildings and building a completely new plaza isn't a "cheap" solution.

In fact the cheapest solution, is that was in fact a motivation, would be to do nothing. Clearly Sandridge does not NEED this space. They are tearing it down. It is completely a vanity project. The thing is, they could sit on these buildings and sell them along with the Kerr McGee plans to another developer and actually get some cash out of it.

The story is dated in 2005 so it might cost more than $40 million today. No?

It could actually cost less.

2005 was before economic correction and costruction costs were at their peak.

Wait wait wait - back the truck up.

According to this story it will cost $40 million to turn these three buildings into housing but $100 million to turn it into a corporate plaza. This blows that hell out of the used car anaolgy used earlier.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/jodievdw/funky%20squad/funk1explosion.jpg

The $100 million includes the new 120 RSK building and renovation of the tower

if the building huggers win this one, I hope Sandridge lets these building sit and rot while they build a big new campus out on the Kilpatrick or something

Renovation would actually cost SandRidge $0. Sell it to the downtown developers who have been trying for years to get their hands on the Robinson buildings. The awesome design of the 120 Robert S. Kerr bldg planned by SandRidge, in my opinion, makes the Robinson buildings even more valuable for redevelopment.

On a side note, I have never been more embarrassed to be an OU Sooner than this thread. What are we at now, 5 or 6 posters with "sooner" in their screenname making myopic pro-demo comments?

if the building huggers win this one, I hope Sandridge lets these building sit and rot while they build a big new campus out on the Kilpatrick or something

Really???? You think it would be better for Oklahoma City for Sandridge to relocate on the outskirts of Oklahoma City than to preserve some buildings downtown? That confuses me.

I'm not going to chain myself to one of the buildings in question to keep it from being torn down, but I certainly think there are enough questions about whether it's the right thing to do to keep talking about it. And, I don't really think having a park surrounding their building will make quality of life for the Sandridge employees so great because of its existance that it's a given that demolition is the right thing to do.

Really???? You think it would be better for Oklahoma City for Sandridge to relocate on the outskirts of Oklahoma City than to preserve some buildings downtown? That confuses me.

I'm not going to chain myself to one of the buildings in question to keep it from being torn down, but I certainly think there are enough questions about whether it's the right thing to do to keep talking about it. And, I don't really think having a park surrounding their building will make quality of life for the Sandridge employees so great because of its existance that it's a given that demolition is the right thing to do.

I see ultimate's point. Everyone wants SandRidge downtown, but only how THEY want it done without regard to SandRidge's preferences.

Basically, ultimate is saying they wouldn't mind seeing SandRidge take their ball and go home since everyone's seving them with so many crap sandwiches on the whole deal.

I see ultimate's point. Everyone wants SandRidge downtown, but only how THEY want it done without regard to SandRidge's preferences.

Basically, ultimate is saying they wouldn't mind seeing SandRidge take their ball and go home since everyone's seving them with so many crap sandwiches on the whole deal.

exactly

Why do we seem to live in this black and white world of what the gosh darn urbanists want and what SandRidge wants? Why can't we work together? I just don't understand why we have a process that pits us against each other instead of has us working together for the good of downtown.

Yes, we want more corporations to move downtown. But no, you can't tear down buildings to make your building more visible.

Yes, I would like a job that pays well. But no, I will not work 70 hours a week and on weekends with no insurance benefits.

Why do we seem to live in this black and white world of what the gosh darn urbanists want and what SandRidge wants? Why can't we work together? I just don't understand why we have a process that pits us against each other instead of has us working together for the good of downtown.

Because the two don't have the same interests and therefore don't want the same thing. Urbanists care about the downtown core, Sandridge cares about how awesome their campus will be and whether they'll be able to recruit as well as Chesepeake and Devon, both of which have lots of green space adjacent to their structures.

Another point I'd like to bring up, Sandridge employees RARELY use Kerr Park or the Kerr Plaza now. Why would we let them have a free pass to tear down and put some tall Oklahoma native grass up and think their employees are going to frolic around all day in the park or become philosophers? Heck, at least Chesapeake's green space is actual athletic fields that their employees basically use all day long or their new community garden which is heavily used.

Another point I'd like to bring up, Sandridge employees RARELY use Kerr Park or the Kerr Plaza now. Why would we let them have a free pass to tear down and put some tall Oklahoma native grass up and think their employees are going to frolic around all day in the park or become philosophers? Heck, at least Chesapeake's green space is actual athletic fields that their employees basically use all day long or their new community garden which is heavily used.

Kerr Plaza/Park isn't exactly the most pedestrian friendly/well maintained space in the city.

True, but it's not horrible either. Sandridge could help with the maintenance. They do concerts in the Park there and the DT Farmer's Market was there, it's not exactly a slum either, it's still in a good area, right across from the Skirvin, heck, the CoC backs up to the park as well, no reason they couldn't do more events/promotion for the park that's on their doorstep.

Basically, ultimate is saying they wouldn't mind seeing SandRidge take their ball and go home since everyone's seving them with so many crap sandwiches on the whole deal.

Well not everyone, the Downtown Design Committee approved.

Well not everyone, the Downtown Design Committee approved.

Have they ever not approved something?

Because the two don't have the same interests and therefore don't want the same thing. Urbanists care about the downtown core, Sandridge cares about how awesome their campus will be and whether they'll be able to recruit as well as Chesepeake and Devon, both of which have lots of green space adjacent to their structures.

Well I think in good faith you have to assume that SandRidge really does want the best for downtown and the community, in order for the public process to work at all..

If SandRidge can grow by attracting the best and brightest to leave Dallas and Houston and move to OKC, then all the strict urbanists will get their wish of more highrises and more downtown residents. If they fail, then downtown fails.

If SandRidge can grow by attracting the best and brightest to leave Dallas and Houston and move to OKC, then all the strict urbanists will get their wish of more highrises and more downtown residents. If they fail, then downtown fails.

I thought downtown would fail if C2C failed, or was it MAPS3? It's now Sandridge?

ok, got it...

... If they fail, then downtown fails.

:omg: chicken little much?

The story is dated in 2005 so it might cost more than $40 million today. No?

At first glance one might think so but with the economy the way it is, reportedly, construction costs are way down right now. Even if they are up some, would have to be up more than double from 5 years ago.

Thanks to Doug for posting the articles and to Steve for writing them!

Noticed in the article that there wasn't just one developer wanting those buildings but several. Given the economy, right now the developers may not be able to do it, but the fact seems to be that SandRidge isn't interested in selling at all.

Perhaps there is a middle ground. One hypothesis, and not necessarily the only, is being developed in this blog post, Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Commons — What About Door #3? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-about-door-3.html), still not quite done. But the bones of it are in place.

No need exists for either side to find their matching Jack Bauer counterparts and let them duke it out (love, as I do, my hero Jack Bauer).

Perhaps there is a middle ground. One hypothesis, and not necessarily the only, is being developed in this blog post, Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Commons — What About Door #3? (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-proposal-what-about-door-3.html), still not quite done. But the bones of it are in place.

No need exists for either side to find their matching Jack Bauer counterparts and let them duke it out (love, as I do, my hero Jack Bauer).

Doug,
There is always a way when both sides walk in the others shoes. My understanding is that SandRidge wants it their weay only. They have had opportunities to revise or adjust their design and chose not to.

Doug,
There is always a way when both sides walk in the others shoes. My understanding is that SandRidge wants it their way only. They have had opportunities to revise or adjust their design and chose not to.
That may well be so. SandRidge may be waiting to see what happens on Thursday at the Board of Adjustment hearing before showing a crack in their position. We shall see. But, you are absolutely correct ... it takes two to tango.

Sandridge should be able to put this plan in place...you guys are single-minded...be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

Sandridge should be able to put this plan in place...you guys are single-minded...be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

Maybe they will create a better development. One that is in keeping with the zoning ordinances and goals as set by numerous plans, studies, and citizen groups...

Read Doug's compromise linked above. It seems VERY reasonable.

What standing does Doug have to offer a compromise ???

If SandRidge can grow by attracting the best and brightest to leave Dallas and Houston and move to OKC, then all the strict urbanists will get their wish of more highrises and more downtown residents. If they fail, then downtown fails.

I don't think downtown hinges in the balance depending on whether or not SandRidge Energy can be successful...


Sandridge should be able to put this plan in place...you guys are single-minded...be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

Who are you calling a pansy?

In this compromise, do those saved buildings remain empty? If not, will preservations and urbanists expect Sandridge to rehab or sell them? Will the preservations take the facade off the India Temple to expose the old exterior and if the old facade is not as hoped will they ask Sandridge to demolish it? Many more questions could be asked, the answer to these would be a good start.

In this compromise, do those saved buildings remain empty? If not, will preservations and urbanists expect Sandridge to rehab or sell them? Will the preservations take the facade off the India Temple to expose the old exterior and if the old facade is not as hoped will they ask Sandridge to demolish it? Many more questions could be asked, the answer to these would be a good start.

Sandridge doesn't have to do anything. They could put them on the market for others to do improvements on...A young and vibrant recruitment tool might be to actually create some urban energy that can't be developed with a park...

Login | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=116586928380065&index=1)

Please join us at the hearing!

Sandridge should be able to put this plan in place...you guys are single-minded...be glad they are downtown doing some more positive development...what if they were to leave downtown over this pansy-fight...

Then they probably aren't the type of tenant we want downtown if they are going to be "pansies" (your term), and move over such an issue they knew they would meet resistance to. Just curious but do you live or work downtown? What part of town do you live?

wow, if they demolition FOUR buildings downtown our skyline would look pretty silly with huge gaps in it.

Are the proposed demo buildings even visible in the OKC skyline?

Then they probably aren't the type of tenant we want downtown if they are going to be "pansies" (your term), and move over such an issue they knew they would meet resistance to. Just curious but do you live or work downtown? What part of town do you live?

worked downtown for 32 years, does that spoil your immediate prejudice ??

This is not simply a binary decision. It's not do it exactly as planned or not at all.

Most large developments -- especially in downtown areas -- involve compromise.

All SR has to do is replace/renovate the one building just south of Braniff and thus preserve the urban canyon along Robinson, and I bet 98% of all concerns would go away.

totally agree with this. :yourock:

So, saving an urban canyon that is not really an urban canyon would satisfy every one but Doug and the preservationist. Interesting that you would sell them out so easily.

The reality is that the India Temple may or may not (probably not, but could be) be beyond saving. I still say we need to -actually- try saving it. Noone has actually tried saving it. People have looked it over with the foregone conclusion of deeming it non-salvageable before ever showing up. It has challenges, yes.

So if the India Temple truly is "beyond saving" contrary to what the guy who installed the false facade himself said, then that would be a terrible shame and I would understand the need to tear it down and build something else in its place. But we haven't arrived to that point yet.

So yes, if they would JUST save the KerMac bldg -- I would feel a lot different and more supportive of the overall SandRidge Commons plan. I would be inclined to let the India Temple go due to the small likelihood that it is beyond saving and move on.

One more point. The really cool modernist bloc building projected to go on Robert S. Kerr -- why are they putting it on RSK? Nobody will see it there. Why don't they move that building to face Broadway which would make it more visible, reinforce the flimsy Broadway side of SandRidge, and it would also VASTLY improve the commons area by extending it against a straight edge which would thus give it the sense of being a well-defined space. Or they could even move the building to the KerMac site and at least be replacing the building with something, and accomplish the same thing for the most part save making Broadway better (just not making Robinson worse).