We've explained it numerous times, in NYC open and park space is lacking not to mention 20 million people fighting to use it. Here in OKC open and park space is in abundance, with 99% of the population with their own yard and/or a park within walking distance. Downtown doesn't need more open space, it's the best shot we have at creating ONE dense area.

where did you get the number that 99% of people have their own yard and/ or park within walking distance? You say that we have an abundance of parks, but I really do not think that is accurate. The Forbes article that named us the fattest city states that we have a third of the parks of other cities. Just wondering if you found your numbers somewhere, or they were made up?

And why do you think SR is so willing to stand by their guns if there is so much value in keeping the buildings up? SR has otherwise been really supportive of downtown and of OKC in general. What is everyone's view of their motives - architect and client?

I think the architect has drawn up the plans to please the client. I think the client has made it clear that they want to wipe the block so that everyone can have an unobstructed view ("sightline") of their tower. The Braniff Building would also be a goner if it wasn't already on the National Register.

This is what I am wondering. Since I'm guessing there won't be ANY historical or structural analysis done between now and the next meeting--what is going to happen in the next meeting? Between now and then is Preservation Oklahoma going to try and present some new findings, is SandRidge going to do that, or are the committee members just going to "think about it some more" between now and then?

Wow, Google already cleared the whole block..lol

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Oklahoma+City,+OK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma&gl=us&ei=VPb7S-bTC5HWMJv4_cIB&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA&ll=35.470042,-97.514954&spn=0.002128,0.004823&z=18

I loved hearing the architect describe the plaza area as a place kids could play or have birthday parties.

Wow, Google already cleared the whole block..lol

Oklahoma City, OK - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Oklahoma+City,+OK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma&gl=us&ei=VPb7S-bTC5HWMJv4_cIB&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA&ll=35.470042,-97.514954&spn=0.002128,0.004823&z=18)

Wow... that's freaky!

Wow, Google already cleared the whole block..lol

Oklahoma City, OK - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Oklahoma+City,+OK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma&gl=us&ei=VPb7S-bTC5HWMJv4_cIB&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA&ll=35.470042,-97.514954&spn=0.002128,0.004823&z=18)
I don't get it ... everything looks normal when I click the above link.

This is what I am wondering. Since I'm guessing there won't be ANY historical or structural analysis done between now and the next meeting--what is going to happen in the next meeting? Between now and then is Preservation Oklahoma going to try and present some new findings, is SandRidge going to do that, or are the committee members just going to "think about it some more" between now and then?
In my opinion, it would be a good move for Preservation Oklahoma (via National Trust) to immediately hire someone qualified to make as much of a historical assessment as can be done without striping any exterior, immediately formally request permission from SandRidge for the assessment to commence including an inspection of the interior, with a copy of the letter to the Board of Adjustment.

Either a rejection or an acceptance by SandRidge would get Preservation Oklahoma some points with the BOA, I'm thinking.

RogersMarvel seems to have a pretty impressive projects history and won their share of awards. Being from New York City you would think they understand urbanism. So why do you all think they know so much less than the people posting here? And why do you think SR is so willing to stand by their guns if there is so much value in keeping the buildings up? SR has otherwise been really supportive of downtown and of OKC in general. What is everyone's view of their motives - architect and client?

There in lies the paradox Rover. New York City is urban and they are trying to create open space. OKC has open space and they are trying to create more open space.

I don't get it ... everything looks normal when I click the above link.

Click over to Map view instead of Satellite view. The only building shown on the block is the main tower.

I agree Kerry, but don't you think they would have taken that into consideration? This is not a fly by night architectural firm. That perspective could or should have been part of the basic evaluation, yet they still made the plans they did. I know people and firms are falible, but based on the ire expressed on this board it seems that most think they are just ignorant.

Architects cater to whomever is paying them, don't kid yourself Rover. There have been architects on this very board that come out and state that. It's almost all about the client, unless the client gives them lots of creative liberty, which Sandridge has not indicated to be the case.

Architects cater to whomever is paying them, don't kid yourself Rover. There have been architects on this very board that come out and state that. It's almost all about the client, unless the client gives them lots of creative liberty, which Sandridge has not indicated to be the case.

And no one is saying that the architects is ignorant of the issues and certainly not that they aren't accomplished. Look at what they have done and look at the buildings and plan that they came up with. Very few would be able to argue that it is not beautiful and well crafted. It is rather the fact that the erasing of structures with a significant contribution to our city and states history and others that are simply not being replaces with another structure to preserve the sense of urbanity and providing the continuity of the street wall. With the talent that the architect has given updated constraints with the significant structures being preserved, I have no doubt that they could produce an equally if not more creative and beautiful design solution. By doing so Sandridge would accrue significant goodwill with those who are most passionate about the City and who by and large desire to live work and play as a neighbor to them in downtown.

Let's do a case study, have Rogers Marvel created a corporate plaza that has been successful? If so, was that plaza in a moderate sized city such as OKC, or a thriving urban metropolis?

Also, I want to bring the following example as another case and point. The Society Hill Towers in the Society Hill district in Philly. They look almost IDENTICAL to the Sandridge Tower, and they are prominent as they are the tallest buildings in that district and have plenty of parkspace/plaza space around them to bring even more attention. I stayed across the street at a hotel not to long ago for 4 days. They were designed by IM Pei, they have a corporate plaza with statues, fountains and a park including native landscaping. Not one day (weekday or weekend) did I see anyone using the plaza other than workers going into the buildings. The only people I saw using it our out their pondering are the statues. These I found online, if I get time at home sometime I'll post my pics as well. The sad thing is, most of this area is hallowed ground and were the first streets in this country, the first street in America is just blocks from here. This is the area where our Founding Forefathers walked and built historic structures, many of which are thankfully still standing. Here are a few pics.


http://gawain.membrane.com/philadelphia_real_estate/properties_for_sale/4563290.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1275/1260067120_1105473951.jpg

http://www.thecondoshops.com/properties/property2.jpg

http://www.shawesome.com/images/DSC02050.jpg

http://441.mlsimages.movoto.com/008/tn/5470008_0.jpg

^^ So no children having birthday parties?

According to Rogers.

I am pro-Sandridge on this proposal but I have been fascinated by the good discussion on this board. I respect all opinions stated and have learned a lot here. Thanks.

^^ So no children having birthday parties?

According to Rogers.

...and no toga parties either. Moral to the story, if your plaza has more fake people than real people - you failed.

I am trying to think of an appealing plaza surrounding any building in any city and I'm failing. Devon has the right idea. If you want open space around your building buy or build one near a pre-existing park. It's hard to make concrete attractive.

I am trying to think of an appealing plaza surrounding any building in any city and I'm failing. Devon has the right idea. If you want open space around your building buy or build one near a pre-existing park. It's hard to make concrete attractive.

Betts, I tried this as well and I couldn't think of any. Even the plaza around the Transamerica Building in San Franciso was devoid of people when I was there. I also went on Google Earth and found as many corporate plaza as I could, and I could find a bunch, and all of them were empty except for people either walking thru them to get to the building or were of questionable economic status.

Even the plaza that surrounded the World Trade Center didn't have anyone it when I was there and it was smack dab in the middle of millions of people.

I am trying to think of an appealing plaza surrounding any building in any city and I'm failing. Devon has the right idea. If you want open space around your building buy or build one near a pre-existing park. It's hard to make concrete attractive.

You know SandRidge is across from Kerr Park, right?

You know SandRidge is across from Kerr Park, right?

Actually, I'd forgotten. Kerr Park doesn't seem like much of a park to me, but it basically would function just as a plaza does, which means it makes even less sense to create a plaza. I'd love to actually ask Tom Ward what his vision is for the plaza and why he wants one so much.

Seems to me that if just one person walks across the plaza during the day it would exceed the number of people walking in those buildings by 100 per cent. Sure, some of you will say "but, what if", however the liklihood of Sandridge selling any of those properties is extremely slim. Still, even if your effort fails it has to cause you to feel good about yourselves as you stood up for buildings that could not speak for themselves. I applaud you.

Popsy, if Sandridge couldn't demo those buildings, why wouldn't they sell them? Sure about that? Or, if they're going to demo them, why not sell the land so someone can build something on them? Those are my questions. What is so wonderful about a plaza? I'm honestly interested in an answer. I hear people saying Sandridge has a right to demo their buildings, but I have yet to read someone extolling the wonders of a plaza. There must be plaza lovers out there, since plazas certainly exist.

I like old buildings. Always have, always will. I love seeing buildings renovated. I don't really have an explanation. My son restored a hundred year old house in Jacksonville, taking it back to the studs, but preserving the old flooring and the floor plan. It was great fun for me to watch it evolve. I hate to see something torn down that can be restored to it's original shape. I've lived in two late nineteenth century townhouse in Denver, both renovated from dilapidation. So, that's why I have an interest in this subject.

Seems to me that if just one person walks across the plaza during the day it would exceed the number of people walking in those buildings by 100 per cent. Sure, some of you will say "but, what if", however the liklihood of Sandridge selling any of those properties is extremely slim. Still, even if your effort fails it has to cause you to feel good about yourselves as you stood up for buildings that could not speak for themselves. I applaud you.

Popsy, I want to understand you better...
Let's say that with the opening of Devon Tower that First National goes dark. And let's just pretend in this scenario that the owner of Leadership Square, Oklahoma and Corporate Towers buys First National Tower and wants to tear it down to make way for a parking garage.
What would your reaction to that be?

Betts. If I were sure about that I would not have said the chances are slim. Slim still allows for the possibility. As to why they wouldn't sell I can only guess and that guess would be that they want to improve the looks of their world headquarters. A plaza, in my opinion, basically is built because the owner wants it to stand out and upgrade the appearance of their building. Sandridge is a relatively new business and appearances have to be important to them. Being in the midst of empty and fairly unattractive buildings does not look good when you place a picture of the building on the brochures you send out to prospective stockholders. Sandridge is trying to do what is best for their company and current, as well as future, employees. Urbanists and preservationists are trying to save those buildings for the brick and mortar, plus a modicum of history and an urban canyon that is not an urban canyon. I can live with it either way it goes, but I have more empathy for Sandridge and what they might become than I am for the old unattractive buildings. Just another OKC enthusiast that is always enthusiastic.

Betts, I am studying to be a landscape architect and I love designing plazas. I must say I am really good at designing plazas. That being said there aren't any good plazas in the US because they are all in business areas and not historic residential areas.

Plazas are not destinations like Sandridge proposes. Buildings and their relationship to the street create a sense of place that people want to be.

Plazas are the big thing right now in redesign. There are so many being redesigned because they just don't work. So, all of the plazas of the 70s and 80s that drained life from cities are being redesigned. The thing is the only good plazas are in Europe because of the historic buildings and sense of place that surround them. Also the plazas are usually surrounded by residential. That is the key to a successful plaza. RESIDENTIAL nearby. Business buildings are not supposed to have plazas. Workers work. They don't have time to hang out in a plaza. When they are done with work they go home. They might go outside for a 30 minute lunch if you are lucky.

The only way that the Sandridge Plaza (Commons) would work is if there were at least 200 residential units within a block or two. Then there would be people in the plaza. Unfortunately that area is dead!

If only there were some nearby buildings that could be reused for residential.... Hmmm....

Popsy, Sandridge would look a lot better to the public if they restored the oldest building downtown than tearing it down to make their building have a better site line from the street.

Sandridge looks like a big corporation that doesn't care about anything but their image. That is what the general public thinks. Oil and gas already has a bad reputation and Sandridge is showing why.

Steve. I am trying to understand why you keep trying to understand me better. I am not going to try to answer your question because there is no possiblity that scenario will ever happen. Why? Because the cost of the building plus the cost of the demolition and the construction of the parking garage would be too great to cause there to be an expectation of having a return on the investment

I want to understand diverse views, and with you, I want to get a better feel for where you're coming from. Are there historic buildings that you do value? Do you place any importance in the difference between suburban design versus urban design? Do you spend much time downtown? Do you like visiting downtown? What are your likes and dislikes about downtowns in general?
You've spent a lot of time being a very unique voice in painting urbanism as being bad, radical or frowned upon (at least that's how others have interpreted your stance). So it would be interesting to understand how you reached that view.

Lasomeday. I have to respectfully disagree with you that restoring any of those buildings would have much of an effect on the general public as I do not believe the vast mojority of our citizens care if there are old buildings or a plaza. I would agree that it would be a positive with our urbanists and preservationists.

Popsy, if Sandridge couldn't demo those buildings, why wouldn't they sell them? Sure about that? Or, if they're going to demo them, why not sell the land so someone can build something on them? Those are my questions. What is so wonderful about a plaza? I'm honestly interested in an answer. I hear people saying Sandridge has a right to demo their buildings, but I have yet to read someone extolling the wonders of a plaza. There must be plaza lovers out there, since plazas certainly exist.

I like old buildings. Always have, always will. I love seeing buildings renovated. I don't really have an explanation. My son restored a hundred year old house in Jacksonville, taking it back to the studs, but preserving the old flooring and the floor plan. It was great fun for me to watch it evolve. I hate to see something torn down that can be restored to it's original shape. I've lived in two late nineteenth century townhouse in Denver, both renovated from dilapidation. So, that's why I have an interest in this subject.

Unobstructed views. Period.

Betts, I am studying to be a landscape architect and I love designing plazas. I must say I am really good at designing plazas. That being said there aren't any good plazas in the US because they are all in business areas and not historic residential areas.

Plazas are not destinations like Sandridge proposes. Buildings and their relationship to the street create a sense of place that people want to be.

Plazas are the big thing right now in redesign. There are so many being redesigned because they just don't work. So, all of the plazas of the 70s and 80s that drained life from cities are being redesigned. The thing is the only good plazas are in Europe because of the historic buildings and sense of place that surround them. Also the plazas are usually surrounded by residential. That is the key to a successful plaza. RESIDENTIAL nearby. Business buildings are not supposed to have plazas. Workers work. They don't have time to hang out in a plaza. When they are done with work they go home. They might go outside for a 30 minute lunch if you are lucky.

The only way that the Sandridge Plaza (Commons) would work is if there were at least 200 residential units within a block or two. Then there would be people in the plaza. Unfortunately that area is dead!

If only there were some nearby buildings that could be reused for residential.... Hmmm....

I agree completely. Or, how about a square? Squares are cool and urban and don't necessarily have residential around them. What they do have is something that makes people go there: mass transit stops, restaurants, retail. Walking through a square on your way to a restaurant or a shop is relaxing. Stopping by the fountain in the center of a square after a busy day is restful. Waiting for a bus on a bench is a square is relaxing. But, the whole key is people who don't work in the adjacent building having a reason to be there. Empty is barren and ugly. It's the people as much as anything that make an urban greenspace inviting.

Unobstructed views. Period.

Unobstructed views of what?

Popsy, I don't know if you know this. Most 20 and 30 year olds that are single don't want to live in the suburbs and commute to work. They want to live in the heart of the city and have a place with character and history. It is a different generation than yours. I know this is not your cup of tea but most 20 year olds that graduate from OU and OSU that don't get hitched usually move away to cities that have vibrant areas where they can ride mass transit to get to work or ride their bike to work.

I would love to live in one of those buildings and work at Sandridge. How convinent would that be! I could wake up at 7:30 and be at work at 8! I could go home for lunch and watch one of my favorite shows and eat and be back at work in under an hour. I could walk to bricktown on the weekends or Midtown for fun! This location is perfect for residential! I could also walk to Automobile Alley or The Myriad Gardens!

That is what most 20 and 30 years that are single think Popsy. Just thought I would let you know. I understand and respect your opinion but not everyone is like you and your generation is totally different.

Steve. By diverse views, do you mean views other than your own? Or do you mean my views are so much different than that of the preponderance of urbanist that have migrated to this forum since it's inception? Are you going to write a story to be published about people that apparently don't know the differences between suburban design and urban design? I will answer your questions if you will answer mine. In my early life I was a reporter for a newspaper and even owned a weekly at one time, so that might be fun even if I am rusty. Then you could have both articles published in the Oklahoman. Deal?

Unobstructed views of what?

Of Sandridge's new investment:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2529/4198366513_2922deff40.jpg
source (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2529/4198366513_2922deff40.jpg)

I would love to live in one of those buildings and work at Sandridge.

Did you recently decide this? :Smiley233

Let's do a case study, have Rogers Marvel created a corporate plaza that has been successful?

Sheesh, I would rather not do a case study on Rogers Marvel architecture..lol

If they offer me a job. Just waiting on that phone call.

Popsy, I don't know if you know this. Most 20 and 30 year olds that are single don't want to live in the suburbs and commute to work. They want to live in the heart of the city and have a place with character and history. It is a different generation than yours.

I'm 40 and I would love to live in downtown OKC (or downtown Jax) and walk to work. However, I don't want to raise my kids in an urban environment, but that is just me. My sister-in-law lives in downtown Chicago and she has two children and they seem to enjoy it.

Popsy, I don't know if you know this. Most 20 and 30 year olds that are single don't want to live in the suburbs and commute to work. They want to live in the heart of the city and have a place with character and history. It is a different generation than yours. I know this is not your cup of tea but most 20 year olds that graduate from OU and OSU that don't get hitched usually move away to cities that have vibrant areas where they can ride mass transit to get to work or ride their bike to work.

I would love to live in one of those buildings and work at Sandridge. How convinent would that be! I could wake up at 7:30 and be at work at 8! I could go home for lunch and watch one of my favorite shows and eat and be back at work in under an hour. I could walk to bricktown on the weekends or Midtown for fun! This location is perfect for residential! I could also walk to Automobile Alley or The Myriad Gardens!

That is what most 20 and 30 years that are single think Popsy. Just thought I would let you know. I understand and respect your opinion but not everyone is like you and your generation is totally different.

Well said :congrats::congrats:

I too would like Popsy to give some logical reasoning as to opposition other than "it's their property, they can do what they want". No one has provided a successful case and point to the Sandridge side either.

Steve. By diverse views, do you mean views other than your own? Or do you mean my views are so much different than that of the preponderance of urbanist that have migrated to this forum since it's inception? Are you going to write a story to be published about people that apparently don't know the differences between suburban design and urban design? I will answer your questions if you will answer mine. In my early life I was a reporter for a newspaper and even owned a weekly at one time, so that might be fun even if I am rusty. Then you could have both articles published in the Oklahoman. Deal?

Wow ...
OK. Diverse means I've expressed a similar interest in Spartan and others. I was complimenting you. I'm not doing any story on this thread. If you don't want to answer, forget it. There are hundreds of other people on this board who are more interested in having conversations rather than being combative.

I love listening to Rob Rogers describe the SR plaza during his presentation.

It is like a little slice of heaven being placed in downtown Okc.

Metro. Not trying to place you in a position of trying to trace where I said "it's their property, they can do what they want", as I do not remember having written that combination of words. I do feel however that I have given some logical reasons for the Sandridge case, however I also understand that one person's logical reasoning is not that of another. I also understand that when people are extremely passionate about a subject their minds can become so small and closed off that there is no reasoning contrary to their own that will seem logical to them. I do not feel passionate for any of the issues in this debate. Which category do you fit in the most accurately?

No your still dodging the questions, you can disagree, but you're not providing an answer as to why the demolition is beneficial and I've seen no supporter give a case and point of a successful example.

Yep, some folks like to say a lot of things but definitely don't like questions.

No your still dodging the questions, you can disagree, but you're not providing an answer as to why the demolition is beneficial and I've seen no supporter give a case and point of a successful example.

I think it would be beneficial because their plan for the park area, etc. I understand that there are those that do not agree with that position, but I think that it is the best chance for something useful to happen at those locations. If they are not allowed to demolish, the buildings will sit there and continue to be an eyesore for the conceivable future.

I have asked this question before.

Were any of the outlying buildings actually for sale prior to the KerrMac-Anardarko / Sandridge deal?

If so what was the asking price?

okclee, they were never offered up for public sale. Kerr-McGee CEO Luke Corbett confirmed in 2005 he had numerous parties approach him about buying and/or developing the buildings, but he declined to consider any of them until the Triangle Group came up with the proposal to buy the Braniff/Kermac/India Temple Buildings, turn them into housing, and use tax increment financing to tear down the original YMCA building and build a parking garage in its place that would have served the residents and the tower's occupants. The deal was on the verge of being completed when Anadarko bought Kerr-McGee and called it off.

That is what I was thinking.

Thanks

If they are not allowed to demolish, the buildings will sit there and continue to be an eyesore for the conceivable future.

Eyesores? I think the biggest eyesore on the block is the tower, but that's just my opinion. If they tore it down to build a building that actually suited their needs (read: smaller) and then saved the ones with character, that'd at least be better than just thinning out downtown this way. And at least it would make sense from a utilitarian perspective. Instead, they're just tearing down buildings because they think no potential is better than the potential to have an iconic block of mixed used historic properties like Kerr McGee had planned.

Steve and Metro. Apparently you have read little of what I've posted because the reasons for my support for Sandridge have been detailed over and over, just the same as the U/P have reiterated their opinions. There is only so much that can be said about the subject and it has become very redundant on both sides of the debate. I am not suggesting that my argument is any more compelling than the U/P arguments. It is just individual opinions being discussed and I doubt either side will change their opinions from hearing those of another. My motive for sticking with the debate was to attempt to give another face to the debate as it was mostly one sided until myself and a few others started chiming in with our opinions. You still have us out numbered by about ten to one or greater. Chill guys, you know what I have to say means nothing to you.

Metro, do you think the demand for rental housing downtown is dead?

Not at all, but I too would like to see some more AFFORDABLE (around $120K or less) housing options downtown, I think if we could get some in the $80K-$100K range, they'd sell like hotcakes.

Eyesores? I think the biggest eyesore on the block is the tower, but that's just my opinion. If they tore it down to build a building that actually suited their needs (read: smaller) and then saved the ones with character, that'd at least be better than just thinning out downtown this way. And at least it would make sense from a utilitarian perspective. Instead, they're just tearing down buildings because they think no potential is better than the potential to have an iconic block of mixed used historic properties like Kerr McGee had planned.

I think the vacant building with the cement facade of some of those are pretty bad looking.

Tulsa World: Downtown building to become condos (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20100526_298_0_Morean652490)

Tulsa World: Downtown building to become condos (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20100526_298_0_Morean652490)

Ah crap, more real world examples that will only cloud the picture. They are even in the right price range.

Tulsa World: Downtown building to become condos (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20100526_298_0_Morean652490)

As interesting as it is hearing a developer talk about some great project they are going to do I do not see this one happening as it is described. Someone that is willing to spend up to a million dollars on a home is not going to want to be in the same building as someone who is only spending 135K on their home. Those numbers do not make sense.

I agree with you Popsy...

As interesting as it is hearing a developer talk about some great project they are going to do I do not see this one happening as it is described. Someone that is willing to spend up to a million dollars on a home is not going to want to be in the same building as someone who is only spending 135K on their home. Those numbers do not make sense.

It happens all the time here in Florida.

Here are condos for sale in Mayfair in midtown Atlanta. Penthouse goes for nearly $600,000 while other units go for $110,000.

http://www.atlantacondoadvisor.com/search_results.cfm?qryvar=&qrytype=neighborhood&pagenum=1&qryuser=60FB7A16-FCDB-D8FB-49DED837124325C0&FrameBreak=0