Spartan, that's not the plan. I'll explain later. For now, see my latest post on this at OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com)

Well Ms. Floyd's website says that her design WON and will be implemented. Are you second-guessing the Cottage District Queen? (I take that back, she's done a lot of awesome projects.)

And it bothers me that these buildings are being torn down when there are developers who would buy these buildings in a heartbeat and be ready to go with loft apt conversion despite all of the faltering projects elsewhere downtown. The KerMac at least needs to stay. They would tear it down for what, a plaza? How about..no. They don't need a wider moat around the SandRidge fortress. What we need to do instead is bring quality urbanism back to this part of downtown.

Alright. Here's the short answer, Spartan: Way back when, Downtown OKC Inc. hosted a contest for architects to submit a redesign for the park. Someone screwed up - there wasn't funding available for this redesign.
Flash forward several years, and the Kerr-McGee tower sells to SandRidge and the company, along with Chesapeake, plan their own makeover of the park, but it doesn't involve the designs by Floyd. Needless to say Randy ain't too happy about this, and there were some conversations, but to my knowledge, her plans are not going to proceed.

Decious, the Chamber hq building project is on hold and is, from everything I know, totally unrelated to the SandRidge plans, and vice versa. I think I understand your question - but I just don't see any linkage, at least right now. SandRidge is, I think, a block south of the chamber site.

I think Decious was thinking about the debate around the street configuration, perhaps and not necessarily the chamber site plan itself. I would contend that the chamber's street configuration options are highly dependent on what SandRidge does, as well.. unless there's something I'm just overlooking. (Aside from the fact that the Chamber doesn't think they can get the configuration changed to something better.)

I like how Decious brought up the chamber, because he we basically have two very glitzy and nice-looking projects that just are anti-urban from a planning paradigm, right next to each other. They would literally be effecting the walkability of a huge corner of downtown, for better or for worse. That's why it's so important that we get these projects thinking more urban. Do we want to make A-Alley even more detached, or do we want to bring in the districts north of downtown?

Alright. Here's the short answer, Spartan: Way back when, Downtown OKC Inc. hosted a contest for architects to submit a redesign for the park. Someone screwed up - there wasn't funding available for this redesign.
Flash forward several years, and the Kerr-McGee tower sells to SandRidge and the company, along with Chesapeake, plan their own makeover of the park, but it doesn't involve the designs by Floyd. Needless to say Randy ain't too happy about this, and there were some conversations, but to my knowledge, her plans are not going to proceed.

Oh alright. Shame, I liked her plans. The idea of the lit-up sections of fiberglass insets was unique and cool.

Instead they brought in some horrific New York firm with no OKC connections..and some pretty poorly designed public space projects in their portfolio.

http://www.rogersmarvel.com/publicspaces.html

I'm with you Spartan about the planning of both these projects (chamber and sandridge). How about we put the Chamber building on this block?? Density, density, density!

the timing of this info is, uh, interesting. at least no one has brought up MAPS yet...

oh, wait...

MAPS 3 makes it all better. Now that we got that out of the way..

Count me among those who would prefer to maintain the historic streetwall and preserve the last remaining vestiges of historic downtown. Yes, the buildings in question may need work. And yes, if it's Sandridge's property, they have the upper hand. But OKC's CBD does not need another open air plaza. Sandridge's wants a clean campus. But downtown is not Memorial Road or NW Highway. The suburbinazaton of our downtown is a shame.

They shouldn't have bought that campus if they thought they could take the urban out of it. What, did the realtor say, "oh don't worry, you can tear down anything that you don't need."

An equally ambitious makeover involving the demolition of four buildings, construction of one new building, a new entrance for the 29-story tower, and a redesign of Kerr Park across the street.

SandRidge will file an application with the city next month to tear down the one-time home of the YMCA at the corner of Robert S. Kerr and Robinson, the 111 Robert S. Kerr Building, which was built in 1902 but was covered with a false concrete facade in the mid-20th century, and the 11-story "KerMac Building" at 135 Robert S. Kerr.

By doing so, Ward said, the company will be able to create a new main, consolidated tower entrance opening up to the southwest corner of Robert S. Kerr and Robinson -- into the heart of the central business district.

"We'll be putting back new buildings where old buildings are now," Ward said.

All together, Ward estimates the campus makeover will top $100 million.

As the company prepares to makeover its own campus, Marsha Wooden, vice president of administration, has been working to coordinate its improvements with plans for a downtownwide makeover dubbed Project
180.

Source (Dec 06, 2009 (The Oklahoman - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX)

I'll tell you the truth -- I'm a little confused by your tactics.

Isn't it actually the demolition of 5 buildings?

I like how the historic India Temple is referred to as the "111 Robert S. Kerr Building."

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/20059-sandridge-plans-kerr-mcgee.html

It must just really piss you off that someone other than you is starting a new thread that is simply rehashing an old press release..

The suburbinazaton of our downtown is a shame.

You only have to look at downtown San Jose to see what too many plazas will do to an area. It is too far to walk anywhere in downtown San Jose. Just to get from one building to the next you have to walk across a large park and a major street.

http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/san-jose-casj1.jpg

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles9598.jpg

http://www.sjeconomy.com/publications/photolibrary/full/AERIAL_DOWNTOWN.JPG

I am still open to this. I don't take a couple of plaza's as being "too many."

Mug - I only posted a few examples. Downtown San Jose sucks if you have to go anywhere else downtown other than the building you parked your car at. It might be nice to look at but you can't walk it without getting tired (and I am not one that minds walking).

Which looks more walkable to you? We need more OKC and less San Jose.

Downtown San Jose
http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles19142.jpg

Downtown OKC
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2242065757_dee5ed32da.jpg

No offense, but I don't see Sandridge's plans endangering OKC in any way. Those pics of San Jose are nothing what OKC is like. The CBD of OKC is separate from The Myriad Gardens or C2S, and the space that Sandridge is making doesn't add that much. IMO, they are keeping the good buildings and ditching the bad ones.

Those pics of San Jose are nothing what OKC is like.

That was the point of posting the two photos. OKC can keep the urban core urban or they can start bringing in suburban elements that will spread out downtown. If you ask me which cities downtown looks more impressive - it is OKC's by far. I am not syaing I am against the Sandridge plan because I haven't seen it yet, but I do know I like my downtown buildings pushed out to the sidewalk.

Are any of the buildings proposed for demolition occupied by anyone or are they empty old class C buildings that contribute to the downtown vacancy numbers, while sitting there deteriorating and posing a fire threat to neighboring buildings?

Are any of the buildings proposed for demolition occupied by anyone or are they empty old class C buildings that contribute to the downtown vacancy numbers, while sitting there deteriorating and posing a fire threat to neighboring buildings?

They are empty old class C buildings that contribute to the downtown vacancy numbers, while sitting there deteriorating and posing a fire threat to neighboring buildings. There is no question about that.

What a joke. I think we should look at this whole discussion as Sandridge's corporate responsibility to maintain what historic vesitages there ARE of OKC instead of thinking only about corporate image. That class C office space would probably be ideal (after historic renovation) for retail, restaurant space, living space, or even a museum dedicated to the City itself (as opposed to the State). THAT would be a good contribution from Sandridge which would put it in the heart's and minds of OKC's citizens. Not (with all due respect to the valiant effort of Devon over an existing parking lot), another people-less plaza.

David - I think the problem is that the buildings can't be saved. The best you can do is construct a new building that looks exactly like an old building. That is not really preservation.

I'll give you an example - the Bridge of Lions in St. Augustine, FL is being rebuilt. People are proud of their 75 year old bridge so they are spending millions to 'save it'. The problem is they removed 95% of the bridge during renovation. The only thing they left were some of the pilings - everything else was gone and crushed into dust. Now they are almost done rebuilding the bridge but when they get done will they have an historic bridge? No they won't. They will have a brand new bridge that looks 75 years old.

What a joke. I think we should look at this whole discussion as Sandridge's corporate responsibility to maintain what historic vesitages there ARE of OKC instead of thinking only about corporate image. That class C office space would probably be ideal (after historic renovation) for retail, restaurant space, living space, or even a museum dedicated to the City itself (as opposed to the State). THAT would be a good contribution from Sandridge which would put it in the heart's and minds of OKC's citizens. Not (with all due respect to the valiant effort of Devon over an existing parking lot), another people-less plaza.

David is right and so is Kerry. Maybe not all of the buildings can be saved but we should look at options to save them before destroying more of our history!

These buildings are in the best location in the city! They are vertical and not horizontal. We need to do what we can to save them! There are many people that want to live downtown in a highrise! They have grow frontage that can be converted to retail or restaurants. These buildings if restored can add so much culture to the city that Kerr McGee and Sandridge have kept from happening. Sandridge is a good company, but it is not as financial stable as people think it is.

IF THEY TEAR THE BUILDINGS DOWN, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SANDRIDGE WILL BE AROUND IN FIVE YEARS TO DO THEIR PLAN!

SAVE THE BUILDINGS!

David is right and so is Kerry. Maybe not all of the buildings can be saved but we should look at options to save them before destroying more of our history!

They already did that and they can't be saved, at least according to the report mentioned on this site. Personally, I would tear them down and build residential building on the sites. I'm not in favor of large downtown plazas at every building.

I agree that not every building should have a plaza! It can destroy the continuity that is necessary in creating vibrant and dense urban streets. We need more infill projects that make use of the vertical space not just attempt at filling the area because the corporation owns it feels they need a welcome mat to their headquarters. The Plaza has a place but it needs to be employed very judiciously and carefully so as not to do more harm than good to the city.

I certainly understand the cries for preservation, however if the building cannot be feasibly saved then Sandrige needs to make sure that what they are replacing it with adds to the diverse urban fabric and is appropriate in both scale and form.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/BurjDubai22.08.07.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/BurjDubai22.08.07.jpg

Yeah HAhaha!! Exactly!

:LolLolLol

No offense, but I don't see Sandridge's plans endangering OKC in any way. Those pics of San Jose are nothing what OKC is like. The CBD of OKC is separate from The Myriad Gardens or C2S, and the space that Sandridge is making doesn't add that much. IMO, they are keeping the good buildings and ditching the bad ones.

Ditching the bad ones - what does that mean? Do you know what buildings they want to tear down? Why do we need to tear down these buildings? Do you know what is wrong with these buildings? Do you know that these buildings can't serve another purpose?

Do you know the history of these buildings? Did you realize that one of them, the KerMac building (which is ripe for loft conversion), was the building where Kerr McGee was founded in? KMG is no longer here but there legacy still is, for now. Did you realize another building was the home of the old Braniff Airlines corporation? That building is also ripe for loft conversion. Did you realize that one of the other buildings used to be the site of the state seal when they were in between the Guthrie state house and the new one on Lincoln? That building might be beyond saving sadly, but it needs to be considered more--that building is too important to just assess as a lost cause without a closer look.

The only building that I can honestly say demolition might be warranted is the old YWCA and the high-rise parking garage, but the site needs to remain in scale with the urban environment..we don't need to take any more chunks out of downtown's swiss cheese urban fabric.

Absolutely. Forcing Sandridge to save those buildings would be a great way to reward their expenditures in taking over an office tower that was about to join their neighbors in being empty. Sandridge could put plaques on each building noting that it is a monument to failed OKC businesses. There could even be a plaque noting that the state seal was stored there while the new capitol was being built. Should attract tourists from all over the country.

Popsy, you might be interested in joining the Urban Renewal Authority board. Mail your resume to Citee Hawl. Don'ttown development is a dirty zero-sum game!

Spartan, should I take it that you are a guidance counselor also? From all the ramblings you post in these forums, it seems you want to be numerous things. Seems that you claim to be a student however. Being a student is a good thing, but remember, it does not prepare you for the shock of entering the real world when you finish. I think I will pass on applying to the URA because it involves a lot of politics and politics is a lot dirtier than don'ttown (your spelling) development.

Why don't you share with us your dreams and aspirations, Popsy?

Sure thing Spar. In four words: Been there, done that. Achieved my major dreams and aspirations by the age of 45. Acquired enough real estate and other investments that have provided me with a six figure retirement income for the past 18 years. All dreams and aspirations now are minor in nature. I have made the most out of my retirement. Thank you.

Isn't it actually the demolition of 5 buildings?

I like how the historic India Temple is referred to as the "111 Robert S. Kerr Building."

Why do you think it is the demolition of 5 buildings, rather than 4?

Ditching the bad ones - what does that mean? Do you know what buildings they want to tear down? Why do we need to tear down these buildings? Do you know what is wrong with these buildings? Do you know that these buildings can't serve another purpose?

Do you know the history of these buildings? Did you realize that one of them, the KerMac building (which is ripe for loft conversion), was the building where Kerr McGee was founded in? KMG is no longer here but there legacy still is, for now. Did you realize another building was the home of the old Braniff Airlines corporation? That building is also ripe for loft conversion. Did you realize that one of the other buildings used to be the site of the state seal when they were in between the Guthrie state house and the new one on Lincoln? That building might be beyond saving sadly, but it needs to be considered more--that building is too important to just assess as a lost cause without a closer look.

The only building that I can honestly say demolition might be warranted is the old YWCA and the high-rise parking garage, but the site needs to remain in scale with the urban environment..we don't need to take any more chunks out of downtown's swiss cheese urban fabric.



Do you not know the history of the old YWCA building? How can you honestly say it is okay to go. Did you read any studies about it or know which people stayed there? Do you know what kind of condition it is in? Could there be another use for it?

Kerry, there really isn't anything left of the old YMCA - it was gutted, stripped and turned into a 1950s international style structure. What may make the argument moot on this building is I'm told it's hopelessly broken - critical beams were cracked by the 1995 Murrah bombing.

Steve - I am not trying to save the old YMCA building. I am just pointing out how self-absorbed it is of Spartan to consider himself the arbiter of what should stay and what should go when he himself hasn't done any more research than anyone he questioning.

For myself, I am a property-rights guy. If SandRidge owns them and wants to tear them down then they should be able to do it. I don't have to like it and I can voice my concern, but at the end of the day, if someone wants to save these buildings then they need to pony up some money and buy them. Until then, all we can do is offer suggestions to anyone that might listen.

On a personal note – I do get kind of tired of architects, architect students, and architect wannabes thinking their creations are so important that we have to spend millions trying to save them. I develop complex software application security models but I don't think anything I worked on should be preserved at other people's expense. But that's just me.

I develop complex software application security models but I don't think anything I worked on should be preserved at other people's expense. But that's just me.

Do you? I'm in software security as well. At least from a coding perspective. I am in the middle of developing an NT account analysis application.

Just out of curiosity... what platform and what language do you use if you write code?

Do you? I'm in software security as well. At least from a coding perspective. I am in the middle of developing an NT account analysis application.

Just out of curiosity... what platform and what language do you use if you write code?

I am actually an SAP Security Architect. I do very little coding. If I am involved with code it is just reading it to see what authorization checks are being performed in the programs. The code we use is ABAP (Advanced Business Application Programming).

I never really got into coding but I decided to start teach myself awhile back. I have also been teaching my two boys to program and giving them more guidance and opportunities than I received as a child. I have been using Small Basic to begin with.

On a side note - for those that want to try their hand at writing programs but don't have any idea how or where to begin try Small Basic. It was written for beginners and children and it is free from Microsoft.

Small Basic (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/cc950524.aspx)

I'll keep that in mind for my son, who is 2 and is already crazy about electronics.

I write C# code and use Visual Studio 2008. Didn't mean to get this off topic.

Um Kerry, if you're working for SAP, you should be warned there might be some folks out there still hurting from painful mainframe transitions! It may be safer to admit working for AIG.
(I kid, I kid! Well, maybe not totally...)
Anyway, you have an interesting question - should property owners be allowed to do with their buildings as they wish, or is there an overriding community interest that should be taken into consideration?

Steve, I would like to share my opinion on that by asking you what percentage of the OKC population would look at it as an overriding community interest for it to be a valid overriding community interest. It seems to me that there are only a small percentage of OKC residents that like to be huggers of old buildings. Like Kerry mentioned earlier if you want to save a building create a REIT amongst other building huggers and raise enough money to buy that building instead of taking the socialist route of having other people pay for your desires.

Um Kerry, if you're working for SAP, you should be warned there might be some folks out there still hurting from painful mainframe transitions! It may be safer to admit working for AIG.
(I kid, I kid! Well, maybe not totally...)
Anyway, you have an interesting question - should property owners be allowed to do with their buildings as they wish, or is there an overriding community interest that should be taken into consideration?

That is no joke about SAP (BTW - I work for myself, not SAP). I actually don't work on the implementation side. I work on the "clean up the mess after the implementation" side. The bottom line is, if I am at your company it is because you already have huge problems. I make a good living just following Accenture and PWC around.

Now back to topic. Are there community interest concerns? Sure there are. Are they overriding? I don't think so. Companies might have a self imposed community responsibility but it only extends as far as companies are willing to allow it. Anadarko had no problem vacating the Kerr McGee building and putting it up for sale - zilch, nada, none. Companies that want to be considered 'pillars of the community' do so for their own reasons, and I thank them for their efforts. I am sure you can find thousands of companies in OKC that don't do anything for OKC other than pay taxes and that is okay too.

However, at the end of the day companies have to do what is in their best interest and I understand that. You can't be 'community responsibility' 24/7. At that point all we can do is make suggestion and offer alternative views with the understanding that we probably don't have all of the information available to us that the decision makers have (i.e. studies on which building can be saved).

Kerry, I could attack you too, but I'm just going to mention that I find it highly unlikely that you have ever had classes on anything to do with urban planning, urban design, architecture, architectural history, etc etc.. unless it was from the University of Phoenix Online or Wikiversity. I believe strongly, and it is a common understanding among those who have taken classes on these things, that there is a public interest in a positive cityscape.

The reality that I don't think many developers realize, or planners who are in the pockets of these developers, is that we the people have to live amongst the creations of these developers. Private development, while the responsibility of the private sector, still defines the public element, so the private sector has a responsibility to churn out projects that benefit the public good. Back in the day developers used to take pride in their buildings and they truly were community builders, but today that clearly isn't so. Everything is disposable, so now we have to resort to minimum requirements to get by.

A municipal planning commission has the right to intervene in development and withhold a construction permit until all of the community's basic needs are satisfied and the project can be proven to be "community building" rather than "community harming." If people in Moore can prevent Incahoots from opening up a club in the middle of Moore, then people in Oklahoma City can require solid urban planning and quality design from developers.

Development will happen. It's not like if the city stopped issuing permits for crappy projects that all of a sudden nothing would ever happen. The only thing that would ever happen from the city no longer permitting crappy projects is that everyone's lives benefit from OKC becoming a better urban environment. The people of OKC are who development will ultimately affect, and we have a right to look out for that huge vested public interest. So in that regard you can take your property rights fundamentalist principles bull**** and shove it, you know where.

Oh to hell with it.. I suppose it's 100% spot-on to accuse me of being a building-hugger lol.

Spartan - To my knowledge I am the only one here that had a business card that had the words City Planner on it. I think you are greatly mistaken about the role of a city planner. City planners are not developers and planning commissions don't get to decide willy-nilly about what they will approve or not approve. A development could be the ugliest piece of crap but if meets design standards and zoning requirments it gets approved. The only group that has authority over design would be if the lot is subject to an ARC commettee.

The city has a set of design standards and 95% of what city planner does is review those development plans to ensure they meet requirements. A city planner is not a real-estate developer that works for the city. Once you get out of school and start working as a city planner don't be surprised if you spend a lot of your time reviewing applications for putting up signs.

Take the new boulevard in OKC as an example. When the plans for that are drawn up it will not be a city planner doing that. It will be someone at an engineering company contracted by the city. At most, a city planner will check to make sure the sidewalks are the correct width, parking spaces are the correct dimension, and landscaping is properly spaced.

I think we have a misunderstanding here..

A Downtown ontheRange: Cheapo urban design example (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/01/cheapo-urban-design-example.html)
I'm actually all for the ugliest pieces of crap that just conform to the minimum urban planning standards. This is what I look for: Building, sidewalk, street. That's it.

Are we talking about the right of SandRidge to do whatever the hell they want or the specific case here? Because the SandRidge site IS subject to aesthetic requirements, and that's not even a debating point. It's downtown, there are downtown design requirements.

There is also a city ordinance requiring buildings come right up to the sidewalk. This city ordinance should prevent SandRidge from being able to tear down buildings that come right up to the sidewalk for plazas and open black hole space.

I think we have a misunderstanding here..

A Downtown ontheRange: Cheapo urban design example (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/01/cheapo-urban-design-example.html)
I'm actually all for the ugliest pieces of crap that just conform to the minimum urban planning standards. This is what I look for: Building, sidewalk, street. That's it.

Are we talking about the right of SandRidge to do whatever the hell they want or the specific case here? Because the SandRidge site IS subject to aesthetic requirements, and that's not even a debating point. It's downtown, there are downtown design requirements.

There is also a city ordinance requiring buildings come right up to the sidewalk. This city ordinance should prevent SandRidge from being able to tear down buildings that come right up to the sidewalk for plazas and open black hole space.

I think we ended up talking past each other and lost track of where we were going. I do that sometimes.

Ok, so here is my take on the Sandridge deal. Those building 100% belong to Sandridge. If they are governed by a set of city ordinances or design standards then whatever they do with them must conform to those standards. I am nearly 100% rule oriented, which is probably what made me a good city planner (at least according to my annual reviews from my manager). If you don't like a rule you don't ignore it, you work to get it changed.

I know downtown OKC requires buildings to be moved out to the sidewalk and I like that. If Sandridge proposes something different I would be against that, but I haven't seen their plan yet. Do I hope they do something that will increase the urban feel of downtown OKC? Sure I do 100%, but if they don't then my only recourse is to be disappointed. That is pretty much where my influence ends because Sandridge didn't grant me anymore control over them than that.

Right, I was taking for granted that you knew specifics of what they're doing.

I believe the plan is to demolish the KerMac and Braniff buildings for an open plaza space, which isn't going to fly. I have only seen what Steve's reported though.

I thought they were keeping the Braniff (NW corner) but demolishing the YMCA/KerMac building on the SW corner and the India Temple on the SE corner.

I don't see why they need a plaza entrance from Robinson. There is already a plaza facing Kerr Park and there will be expanded visibility to Broadway. Do they really need an entire block of open plaza from Broadway to Robinson??

Spartan, you seem to state factually that Sandridge's plaza is not going to fly and I am wondering where you got your fact. Did you apply aeronautical principles to the plaza. I also noticed in another post that you are very proud of the classes you are taking or have taken in the past. I wish I could remember the old adage that stated something to the effect that doers do and failures teach. If that is true does it bother you that you are being taught by failures?

Spartan - To my knowledge I am the only one here that had a business card that had the words City Planner on it. I think you are greatly mistaken about the role of a city planner. City planners are not developers and planning commissions don't get to decide willy-nilly about what they will approve or not approve. A development could be the ugliest piece of crap but if meets design standards and zoning requirments it gets approved. The only group that has authority over design would be if the lot is subject to an ARC commettee.

The city has a set of design standards and 95% of what city planner does is review those development plans to ensure they meet requirements. A city planner is not a real-estate developer that works for the city. Once you get out of school and start working as a city planner don't be surprised if you spend a lot of your time reviewing applications for putting up signs.

Take the new boulevard in OKC as an example. When the plans for that are drawn up it will not be a city planner doing that. It will be someone at an engineering company contracted by the city. At most, a city planner will check to make sure the sidewalks are the correct width, parking spaces are the correct dimension, and landscaping is properly spaced.

Kerry: no, you're not the only one here who has had the title of City Planner on their biz cards. I know of several posters here who do so, including me.

While I agree that Spartan doesn't understand the reality of the Planner's role, or know the limits to what they can and can't do, or at least he doesn't seem to, they are much more than glorified paper pushers. Planners compose, draft and administer zoning regs and design codes to which the developers must then adhere. They also meet on a consistent basis with these developers, at least in this city, in order to find the best possible solution in getting a project completed. That takes lots of knowledge of the legal ramifications of their application of the municipal code.

Much more thought goes into that job than merely reviewing a set of plans.

Spartan, you seem to state factually that Sandridge's plaza is not going to fly and I am wondering where you got your fact. Did you apply aeronautical principles to the plaza. I also noticed in another post that you are very proud of the classes you are taking or have taken in the past. I wish I could remember the old adage that stated something to the effect that doers do and failures teach. If that is true does it bother you that you are being taught by failures?

Popsy, riddle me this: The city ordinance requires development to have the buildings come right up to the sidewalk. SandRidge is proposing to demolish buildings that come right up to the street for the purpose of a lovely plaza. If you're the city planners assigned to review the file, and give an up or down recommendation based on the existing city codes, what is your recommendation going to be?

The Planning Commission will then act upon the recommendation. The only way it will pass is if they get a variance which is like saying, "Yes we know the city code is against this, but here's a special certificate to get you around that pesky city code." So the question isn't whether it will pass, but rather, whether it will be given a variance. This is completely aside from the planning lessons I have attempted in this thread. Whether you agree with me on what is good urban planning, the city code is more simple than that. It simply says development must come right up to the sidewalk, no exceptions.

By the way, why do you guys have business cards that say "city planner" on them? Seriously.. I know that "everyone has a business card" but it just sounds bad to say, as if you're soliciting "customers" for special favors with the City Planning Dept. My advice is to not brag about your business cards that say city planner on them.

Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

:LolLolLol:LolLolLol
Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

You two get a room!

Kerry: no, you're not the only one here who has had the title of City Planner on their biz cards. I know of several posters here who do so, including me.

While I agree that Spartan doesn't understand the reality of the Planner's role, or know the limits to what they can and can't do, or at least he doesn't seem to, they are much more than glorified paper pushers. Planners compose, draft and administer zoning regs and design codes to which the developers must then adhere. They also meet on a consistent basis with these developers, at least in this city, in order to find the best possible solution in getting a project completed. That takes lots of knowledge of the legal ramifications of their application of the municipal code.

Much more thought goes into that job than merely reviewing a set of plans.

I guess it depends on your position in the City Planning department as to what your responsibilites are. I didn't do what my manager did, and she didn't do what our planning director did. Mostly I reviewed applications for signs, reviewed development plans, helped developers and residents with zoning questions, wrote the 20-year comprehensive plan, and set up the towns initial GIS system. It was a fun job while I was there.

Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

What gives you the impression that a plaza is "development" in the first place? It's not. It's the anti-development. It's taking something that once was development and turning it into an urban black hole. The code doesn't allow for buildings to be setback and surrounded by these huge plazas that just serve as moats to fend off the downtown elements, which is why the Chamber building actually got a reject recommendation.

When you bring up political clout you might have a point because again with that example, Planning recommended reject, but a variance was given anyway despite a totally unfriendly design towards pedestrians.

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly". Things like the chamber are amazing projects that SHOULD be built. And just because they don't butt up to the road, doesn't make it a bad project. Downtown would be much more interesting if there were gathering places here and there rather than a solid wind tunnel of walls everywhere.