And they sure made it.

It is funny how the Oklahoma had a story just 2 years ago about how these building were going lead the housing redevelopment of downtown OKC, and now they are decrepit. What happened in two years that these buidling went from prime redevelopment targets to 'decrepit'.

In the same editorial (unauthored but it sounds like how Ed Kelly would write), it also says,


And there are others along Automobile Alley, including a florist, a wine store and a steak house. An area that was once a stretch of abandoned and dilapidated buildings is now thriving ...
I'm wondering what the distinction is between "decrepit" (apparently OK to demolish) and "dilapidated" buildings which are now thriving?

And I'm wondering how the Braniff Building, which one would presume to be as "decrepit" (quite possibly more) as the Oklahoma S&L Building (I have referred to this building as the Oklahoma CITY Savings & Loan, but that is a mistake) is worth saving but the latter is not.

I got to tour the Kermac/S&L Building just before it was sold by Anadarko - and it was not on the verge of falling down. It was no more decrepit than the other building once named Kermac - the one at Couch Drive and Robinson (the one owned by Rick Dowell that is about to get more money from the city for asbestos removal so it can be reoccupied)

So few quality employers in the metro??? What?????

SR is not even one of Fortune's 100 best companies to work for, several of which we have in the metro. Devon, Chesapeake, and American Fidelity have all been listed before, all have well over 1,000 employees, too (SR has 300ish). Secondly, if you ranked the top employers in Central Oklahoma, SR would barely BARELY rank in the Top 50.

So they deserve the same respect that we would give to any company, basically. They do not call for special treatment. Have the same people just been begging to sell out to something for years or something? I would rather hold out and sell out to a bigger company if we have to play the "so few quality employers in the metro" card.

SR owns and fills one of the very limited number of high rise buildings currently existing downtown. They employ hundreds, are reposnsible for large amounts of OKC $$$, etc.

Don't downplay their importance to the CBD. It was be a heavy blow to lose SR from the CBD. Any company that can leave a high rise empty deserves special treatment.

Don't think they'll leave if they don't get their plaza. This is meaningless posturing. Realistically, SR is very likely going to be acquired by some bigger fish someday. The question is whether they leave behind a nice building surrounded by usable urban structures or a nice building surrounded by a decaying plaza.

Don't think they'll leave if they don't get their plaza. This is meaningless posturing. Realistically, SR is very likely going to be acquired by some bigger fish someday. The question is whether they leave behind a nice building surrounded by usable urban structures or a nice building surrounded by a decaying plaza.

Sadly, I am going to put $100 on decaying plaza. Quick question, when does a decaying plaza offically become a 'decrepit' one?

Wow. So apparently old buildings are decrepit. Jokelahoman sure nailed that one..

So, Steve, do you agree with your paper that the buildings are decrepit?

Take no offense with the "Jokelahoman" remark...I am sure no offense was intended by Spartan.

So, Steve, do you agree with your paper that the buildings are decrepit?

Take no offense with the "Jokelahoman" remark...I am sure no offense was intended by Spartan.

I don't want to speak for Steve, but I think he answered your question at the 9:11AM point.

So, Steve, do you agree with your paper that the buildings are decrepit?

Take no offense with the "Jokelahoman" remark...I am sure no offense was intended by Spartan.

Actually, offense was intended by Spartan to the editorial board of the Jokelahoman. Not personal offense, just my way of saying that their official comment is a joke. It has to be a joke. It is a joke, they are obviously not taking seriously the urban revitalization of downtown OKC while at the same time trying to lavish praise on it. It's very dangerous and very misguided because people do have a tendency to want praise for what they do. So when someone who is an average person opens the Oklahoman and reads this, and is thinking, yes downtown is doing so well and draws the faulty conclusion that it is because of our ability to throw out the old, they are formulating a very dangerous opinion that would not have happened without the role the Oklahoman played by praising demolition FOR ITS ROLE in bringing back downtown, when in reality we know that demolitions are one of the worst things we can do. What the Oklahoman is doing is ignoring decades of history and bad mistakes made, and playing the EXACT same card that they played in the 1960s when they fired up the editorial machine to get a few people on the side of urban renewal the FIRST time. For the first time we have as much gusto behind downtown as we had then and the words that those who do not STUDY, and I mean actually study, history are simply doomed to repeat are ringing very true here in OKC right now. I typically don't mean to sound as over the top as I do come off, but when talking about the official action here of the Oklahoman editorial board to ignore history, perpetuate a flawed and dangerous argument, and spread it around our city misinforming thousands of people who read it, yeah..that is worthy of their well-known nickname, the Jokelahoman.

My only hope is that people with half a brain will notice it, and actually think about those old decrepit buildings when shortly afterward in the same article it praises the work going on in Bricktown and in the Steve Mason District. Perhaps it will not only cause people to reconsider the merit of regular, every day historic buildings, but also cause them to question just exactly when is a building decrepit and no longer worth keeping around...

As for trying to get a direct, "I am pro-SR Commons" or "I am anti-SR Commons" answer out of Steve is unnecessary and also unlikely. All he is doing is getting facts out there, and I will admit that there are facts that I wish weren't so and certainly don't work to my advantage, just as there is a huge body of facts here that work to my advantage and have clearly convinced me that this plaza is unneeded. Those facts largely come from Steve's articles, they also come from discussing and debating the issue at lengths, they come from the excellent and well-thought out presentations by PO, and they come from other sources as well. Steve however is the only source that is held to a standard of journalist integrity and being fair toward both sides, and I know Steve takes that seriously. We all know journalists have their own personal opinions, but we also know that the good ones use their own understanding of the situation to seek out the best sources for what is the real issue. What I mean is, sure you could get someone who is new to covering downtown news and has no experience or ability to come to an opinion of their own to coverage the SandRidge Commons debacle, but because of their lack of familiarity with the issue they wouldn't know who to talk to for quotes. But they sure would be "unbiased."

Before everyone attacks the Oklahoman or ANYONE that dares have a differing opinion, understand that "decrepit" does not mean without value. It just means tired and worn from use. Something decrepit may be impaired because of its weakened state, but doesn't mean it is without merit. I may be decrepit but it doesn't mean I am ready to die or be exterminated.

I think decrepit fits these buildings as well as any description. So maybe the editorial writer at the paper wasn't so ignorant or stupid as some imply. It was an observation and not an opinion or judgement.

And I didn't really expect Steve to answer as much as to elicit the kind of responses I got....just pulling the chain, so to speak. :)

Before everyone attacks the Oklahoman or ANYONE that dares have a differing opinion, understand that "decrepit" does not mean without value. It just means tired and worn from use. Something decrepit may be impaired because of its weakened state, but doesn't mean it is without merit. I may be decrepit but it doesn't mean I am ready to die or be exterminated.

I think decrepit fits these buildings as well as any description. So maybe the editorial writer at the paper wasn't so ignorant or stupid as some imply. It was an observation and not an opinion or judgement.

And I didn't really expect Steve to answer as much as to elicit the kind of responses I got....just pulling the chain, so to speak. :)

And we all know that posters on here aren't biased or don't present facts to make their opinion seem more reasonable or intelligent, or representative of a constituency.

Before everyone attacks the Oklahoman or ANYONE that dares have a differing opinion, understand that "decrepit" does not mean without value. It just means tired and worn from use. Something decrepit may be impaired because of its weakened state, but doesn't mean it is without merit. I may be decrepit but it doesn't mean I am ready to die or be exterminated.

I just think decrepit is such a strong word to describe a state of disrepair.

What's interesting, that we keep ignoring, is that the city ordinance does not speak to whether the buildings are "decrepit" which makes that assessment virtually irrelevant, which goes to the root of the matter of the Oklahoman invoking that description for those buildings. The DDRC was directed to and failed to make their decision without consideration of the current state of the building, and city planning staff, such as Susan Miller, have reminded the BoA to do the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decrepit

Note definition 2b and definition 3 which used the same word which the editorial used to describe the previous condition of the now renovated Automobile Alley buildings.

A Google image search for decrepit..the top results:

http://www.worldiki.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/decrepit-building.jpg
http://gallery.multi-medium.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1630&g2_serialNumber=2
http://kejda.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/albania-decrepit-building.jpg
http://www.asylumeclectica.com/asylum/sightseer/us/mt/elkhorn/elkhorn13.jpg

Well no wonder we want to tear down our buildings then. LOL

Thanks Spartan!

Words do have an impact and lets face it, most aren't going to go running to their dictionaries to see which nuance the writer meant. Most, when they here the word decrepit, those images are what comes to mind. Can't help but be reminded during the Gasoline Sales Tax debate, they kept pushing phrases like "Structurally Deficient" and "Functionally Obsolete" (images of the Minnesota bridge collapse or the "skylights" that open up in the Crosstown from time to time) when describing the condition of Oklahoma Roads & Bridges. Putting the fear factor in the minds of the voter. Every once in a while they would let it slip that the bridges were indeed safe. That if they weren't ODOT wouldn't hesitate to reduce the load capacity or shut them down completely.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decrepit

Note definition 2b and definition 3 which used the same word which the editorial used to describe the previous condition of the now renovated Automobile Alley buildings.

Using the definition provided, surely you don't think these building are in a state of ruin. If the author only meant the disrepair portion of the definition then he should have just used the word 'disrepair'. Definition 3 isn't a definition - they are synonyms.

The fact is the editorial painted a picture that isn’t true. Everyone now knows it isn’t true. You have to have the courage to believe the truth.
Stop believing something you know is incorrect.

Sadly, I am going to put $100 on decaying plaza. Quick question, when does a decaying plaza offically become a 'decrepit' one?

All of our current city-maintained plazas are in worse states of disrepair than any of our unused buildings are. That should be at least something of a warning. SR's stock is VERY low. The company may have fine fundamentals, but there's a very real chance of a collapse or buyout. If Kerr-McGee can go the way of the dodo, this lesser being certainly can.

This is about the long term viability of the CBD, not just whether we can land one huge tenant who'll probably be around 20 years if we're lucky, or at least it should be.

This is about the long term viability of the CBD, not just whether we can land one huge tenant who'll probably be around 20 years if we're lucky, or at least it should be.

This is part of the point I have been trying to make all along. I am opposed to the destruction of any buildings if they are not being replaced by structures of similar or larger size. Want to tear down Kerr-Mac? No problem, just put something else back besides native plants in a flower bed. Downtown OKC is not a prairie reclamation site.

All of our current city-maintained plazas are in worse states of disrepair than any of our unused buildings are. That should be at least something of a warning. SR's stock is VERY low. The company may have fine fundamentals, but there's a very real chance of a collapse or buyout. If Kerr-McGee can go the way of the dodo, this lesser being certainly can.

This is about the long term viability of the CBD, not just whether we can land one huge tenant who'll probably be around 20 years if we're lucky, or at least it should be.

In other words we shouldn't be volunteering entire city blocks (2 actually) to be razed to make a company happy so that they will stay. That's the rationale of the pro-SR Commons crowd.

That has even worse lingering effects than the money we pumped into the black holes that were Great Plains Airlines and Rocketplane. Smart people, we Okies are, when it comes to selling out to gain some nice big corporations.

I have been silently observing the dialogue being posted, and hope we will succeed in our effort to appeal the demolitions. There are more cards to play before the hand is over.

The CBD is fine with Sandridge's plan...please...

Barrett, you might reconsider alluding to that, since I'm pretty sure that Frank Hill is posting on here as Dirt Law. Just a fair warning.

Thanks. I am aware that this is a public forum, and I will temper my comments accordingly. There have been a number of thoughtful comments that I appreciate which gives me hope for our future urban development, through an involved citizenry. We all hope for a peaceable resolution and a win/win for both SR and the City.

Barrett, you might reconsider alluding to that, since I'm pretty sure that Frank Hill is posting on here as Dirt Law. Just a fair warning.

What a fricken joke...

What a fricken joke...

Only partly..

Frank Hill is not Dirt Law , trust me Einstein...

Frank Hill is not Dirt Law , trust me Einstein...

Soonerus is.

I see you, Frank.

Weak....weak as the position against Sandridge...

okrednk:

Are you saying that a business or individual should be able to do what ever they want because they have made a hefty contribution along the way? That they don't have to follow the ordinances/statutes/laws because it is inconvenient for them to do so? To turn your last question, this is the way SandRidge "gives back" by tearing down buildings and replacing them with a plaza? (Some they are replacing with other buildings, and I haven't sen any opposition to those part of the plans)

What statutes are they violating?

I think Larry pretty much summed it up. Being a good neighbor doesn't mean you are free to paint your house pink. I volunteered to help plant some bushes on property owned by the subdivision I live in. They in-turn didn't give a free pass on a deed restriction of my choice. I still have to live and play by all the rules. If the Sandridge plan was playing by the rules why are they before the Board of Adjustments in the first place? It is because they are trying to do something that isn't allowed. All we are asking is for the Board of Adjustment to follow City Ordinances in this case. Is that too much to ask?

Now I would never paint my house pink. However, if someone purchased a home in a neighborhood with no home owners association who is to stop them? This is a free country. I guess the overall point was missed on Sandridge paying for the construction/demolition. Is it or is it not their property? Why should any business have to get the permission to tear down a building they own? Am I missing something?

Got thought, Otis?

Implying?

Where do you live? I have been scouting locations for a new strip club concept and I think your neighborhood might be great location, especially if your neighbors will let me do whatever I want with my money as well (so many neighborhoods have been opposed to this, even though I have the money and am a good local citizen). In fact, I think I can use my money to pay your neighbor whatever they want and build it next door to you.

Thankfully, it will have less of an impact on the city doing it there than if I tore down some buildings downtown to do it...

All because Sandridge wants to tear down some meaningless buildings. What a pitty!

Well, gotta start somewhere. Hopefully one day they will be the next Devon or Chesapeake. That's why I don't like the idea of trying to run them out of town based on a plaza. I don't like the plaza, but I do note the effort. I'm a person who believes it's the thought that counts. Hopefully they will change their decision on it, and hopefully they will remain in state, preferably in city as they grow. If a plaza is what gives them encouragement to grow, so be it I guess. That land is obviously more valuable to them as flat land than a building. But obviously selling that land would also not be good for future growth. It's a cost cutting procedure me thinks. The cost of maintaining the buildings outweigh the cost of building and maintaining a plaza, which could then be demolished and rebuilt vertical as the company grows. In 15 years I doubt the plaza would even be there, to be honest.

My sentiments exactly.

All because Sandridge wants to tear down some meaningless buildings. What a pitty!

You know, you do need some "meaningless buildings" in order to have a city.. just so you realize that. Unless we all go back to tents.


Now I would never paint my house pink. However, if someone purchased a home in a neighborhood with no home owners association who is to stop them?

Bad analogy. Downtown has a homeowner's association..you could say.

This is a free country. I guess the overall point was missed on Sandridge paying for the construction/demolition. Is it or is it not their property? Why should any business have to get the permission to tear down a building they own? Am I missing something?

Being a free country doesn't mean and has never meant that you have the freedom to do anything you please. There are rules and regulations that have to be followed even in a free society.

What statutes are they violating?

Zoning Ordinance Sect. 7200.2A Downtown Business District, Purpose and Intent

"...promote the development and redevelopment of the downtown area in a manner consistent with the unique and diverse design elements of downtown, ensure that uses are compatible with the commercial, cultural, historic and governmental significance of downtown, promote the downtown as a vital mixed-use area, create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities, enhance existing structures and circulation patterns, and preserve and restore historic features"

IMO: "Development and redevelopment" implies buildings, structures. Tearing down existing buildings and replacing them with nothing seems to be in violation.

How does tearing the building down "enhance existing structures"?

How does tearing the building down, "preserve and restore historic features"?

If you are going to violate the terms of the ordinance, there better be an extreme and overwhelming NEED to do so. Not SandRidge's stated WANT to improve the sight lines to their main tower.

What about the rest of the questions I asked? Your response to those?

"create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities"


LOL. So, public plazas ARE part of the mandate.

"create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities"


LOL. So, public plazas ARE part of the mandate.

There does appear to be a contradiction here but it says "public spaces" not corporate plazas. To achieve the one, means the destruction of the other. Which is needed more? Another underutilized plaza or more destruction of what little urban fabric is left? There are already 5 or 6 public spaces/corporate plazas in the immediate area that are underutilized. Why create another? Also, "public spaces and pedestrian amenities" could mean something as basic as a few park benches and landscaped sidewalks (not a full blown park or corporate plaza).

"create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities"


LOL. So, public plazas ARE part of the mandate.

The problem with your statement is that a corporate plaza is NOT a pleasant public space.

Barrett, you might reconsider alluding to that, since I'm pretty sure that Frank Hill is posting on here as Dirt Law. Just a fair warning.

I really do not understand you. You make very good points for your arguments in some posts, and then resort to childish type behavior in others. Any credibility that you gain from your posts are lost when you start calling names or post stuff like this in my opinion.

Zoning Ordinance Sect. 7200.2A Downtown Business District, Purpose and Intent


IMO: "Development and redevelopment" implies buildings, structures. Tearing down existing buildings and replacing them with nothing seems to be in violation.

How does tearing the building down "enhance existing structures"?

How does tearing the building down, "preserve and restore historic features"?

If you are going to violate the terms of the ordinance, there better be an extreme and overwhelming NEED to do so. Not SandRidge's stated WANT to improve the sight lines to their main tower.

What about the rest of the questions I asked? Your response to those?

Or maybe this ordinance is not as black and white as some want it to be. I see no phrase that says "existing structures shall not be removed for corporate plazas." Some of you are acting like that is what the ordinance says and that SR is directly going against the ordinance. The ordinance leaves plenty of room for interpretation, and it was written like that on purpose obviously.

You know, you do need some "meaningless buildings" in order to have a city.. just so you realize that. Unless we all go back to tents.



Bad analogy. Downtown has a homeowner's association..you could say.

Yes bad analogy, but we do. Urban Neighbors is Downtown's Resident's Association and then each owner occupied development has it's own HOA. Plus we have Downtown Design Review and other bodies to report to. Good things.

Metro, hate to break it to you but I was referring more to the DDRC/BUD/historic boards/etc which is a process we've LONG had established to review downtown development and hold them to supposedly stringent standards.


I really do not understand you. You make very good points for your arguments in some posts, and then resort to childish type behavior in others. Any credibility that you gain from your posts are lost when you start calling names or post stuff like this in my opinion.

I'm not trying to win credibility for myself, I don't really mind if you think I'm the biggest moron on the face of the planet. If I see an appropriate comment that needs to be said, I will say it. Likewise, if I can poke fun at the matter, I will do that too. I've been told by some of my friends on here that I get annoyed too easily, resort to name calling, and make jokes out of matters too often. I would be more concerned if I was striving toward some popularity contest on here, but fact of the matter is that people will either like me or hate me and I'm not Mayor Mick--in the sense that I'm not a populist that is going to make everyone's ideas feel welcomed, despite what I really think. I'm not a leader of any "movement" either, I just speak up. If you want "leaders" of the pro-urban folk, there are more impressive people..Steve L, Steve M, Blair H, Jeff B, Doug L, and so on and so forth.

I will take your post as a compliment, and thank you. I am surprised to hear that I make very good points (in some posts).

http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/6802/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA

“It simply does not work if you start peeling parts of it away,” Hill said. “I don’t know where we end up if we are sitting here with two buildings on the corner that are not part of the master plan.”

He added that if the plan did not go through as proposed, the company might find downtown is not the right place for its corporate campus.


I continue to be irked by their "all or nothing" stance and the attorney seems to have reaffirmed what many thought might have been a personal and knee-jerk ultimatum. It's clear this sentiment is now coming from the top of SandRidge.

I don't believe for a minute that leaving one or both of those two small buildings -- while tearing down three others -- would somehow undermine SandRidge's entire business model.


I'm not as tied to those structues as some here but what really concerns me is handing over demolition permits to a company that doesn't seem very interested in building relationships with the overall community and one that is also on at least somewhat shaky financial ground.

Get their way or not, I think a lot of people are going to have a bad taste in their mouth about SandRidge; especially when a company like Devon has gone way above and beyond the call to work with the city, various interest groups and businesses.

Anyone going to the 130 meeing?

I continue to be irked by their "all or nothing" stance and the attorney seems to have reaffirmed what many thought might have been a personal and knee-jerk ultimatum. It's clear this sentiment is now coming from the top of SandRidge.

It's not for real, IMHO, it's political posturing. He's backing the board members into a position to where they may be very reluctant to call his bluff.

SR has too much money sunk into the property at this point to abandon it. And now, to leave, they'll have to either sit there and pay the property taxes or sell it to someone else. I don't know anyone else in OKC in the market for a halfway renovated skyscraper.

I realize it's an empty threat... I just think it's very telling.

The fact they are trying to bully these various groups into getting their way speaks volumes about their leadership and THAT is what makes me nervous about all this demolition.

I realize it's an empty threat... I just think it's very telling.

The fact they are trying to bully these various groups into getting their way speaks volumes about their leadership and THAT is what makes me nervous about all this demolition.

You're reading a lot into it. Some lawyers, apparently this one, have a devil may care attitude when it comes to what they say when advocating for their clients. Obviously, he doesn't handle too many cases where corporate goodwill and image are at stake. That said, I think his style is effective, but maybe a little scorched Earth for my tastes.

It's not for real, IMHO, it's political posturing. He's backing the board members into a position to where they may be very reluctant to call his bluff.

SR has too much money sunk into the property at this point to abandon it. And now, to leave, they'll have to either sit there and pay the property taxes or sell it to someone else. I don't know anyone else in OKC in the market for a halfway renovated skyscraper.

This is why I wouldn't make a good politican. I would bring suitcases to the meeting to help them pack if that is the attitude they want to have.

As for people being interested in the property - I have no doubt they could sell it pretty quick. There is already a short list of people interested in both the older buildings and at least 5 different companies that have expressed interest in the current Devon tower that wont be calling it home someday. Let Sandridge move to Memorial Road, build all the plaza space they can afford, and let's try a different company in the downtown space. It is looking like Frank Hill is correct, downtown might not be the best fit for Sandridge or downtown OKC.

SR may or may not be bluffing. However, it is fully within their right to leave if the want. They may have miscalculated how things are done or controlled regarding their rights as property owners downtown. It is the city's right to allow or deny what they ask, and it is their right to stay or go. Betting they won't go is probably a mistake, but rolling over is too. This is now a high stakes poker game and oil companies like SR are experts at risk analysis.

If they leave, I hope the city is prepared to deal with a vacant tower for some time. In case everyone hasn't noticed, OKC is not drawing alot of growing companies to its core and they aren't lined up yet for downtown.

Those points (this is just lawyer bluster) were made when Hill first blurted this rhetoric at one of the commission meetings.

Since that time, no one from SR has said anything to the contrary. And now, with plenty of time to contemplate and consult with the client, it's all restated in an interview.


SandRidge is handling this all through their attorney and even when done with tact and graciousness -- let alone threats and ultimatum -- that is never a way to build bridges.

All this detracts from the impression they truly want what's best for the community, even though that is exactly what they expect us to believe.

Kerry, I don't think it will be oh-so-easy to fill.

If they leave, I hope the city is prepared to deal with a vacant tower for some time. In case everyone hasn't noticed, OKC is not drawing alot of growing companies to its core and they aren't lined up yet for downtown.

So long as you know this part of your post isn't true. How long has Sandridge themselves been downtown? Has it been two years yet? Devon Tower has 6 interested parties and Regency Tower just sold for a $6 million profit. But alas, SandRidge isn't moving. They can't afford to. Besides, the tower would still belong to SandRidge until the sell it so it isn't like it would add to the vacancy rate. The building is 2/3 empty even with SR in it.

Kerry, I don't think it will be oh-so-easy to fill.

Why not, it got filled the last time in less than a month.

The tower and all those buildings were largely vacant long before Kerr McGee finally folded in 2006. KM was down to a small amount of employees (less than 200) and had been for quite a while.

And for most of SR's ownership term, they haven't occupied much of it either.

Why not, it got filled the last time in less than a month.

Tell me who will buy it? If it goes vacant, then we have major vacancies when Devon's tower is done.

Honestly, I think your "it'll get filled, don't worry" attitude only hurts your stance.