Which is what I said. It won't be astronomical, but it would be expensive. Only 66.67 hours of work at $150/hour puts you in the five-figure range. Which isn't cheap when you're not getting anything out of it in the end other than "your way."

It seems to me that the result of this process and the comments by those who have supported Sandridge's plan has provided a very good picture about where Oklahoma City and downtown stands in terms of development and its viability for the immediate future. It has served as a wake up call to me and I no longer really have hopes for Oklahoma City to achieve a real viable and functioning downtown with a true and complete urban atmosphere as a way to diversify itself and attract businesses that would create an economic portfolio which provides consistent gains. This is mainly due to Sandridge's reasoning for why they want to do this and how that reasoning was found to be sound, as it ultimately convinced to board to approve destruction of the block.

Contrary to most typical urban areas across the nation, we do not have an area of densely configured functioning buildings of varying design and use, both historical and modern. According to Sandridge it seems that our economy is not viable for such a district to exist and won't be for a very long time:


"When you look at the details of this, the merits, the numbers don't work,” Price said. "There is no chance any of these buildings will be developed in my lifetime, your lifetime or our children's lifetimes.”

Although this has happened and does happen all over the country, it seems it will be generations or more before it will be viable in Oklahoma City. This is not good a sign.


Lingo, meanwhile, estimated each building would cost about $9 million to turn into offices and housing.

$9 million? How much are they spending to tear it all down? The fact that Sandridge and the city feels that prime downtown real estate in our core is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations screams that we have a serious problem and that core to shore should be placed on immediate and indefinite hold. We can't afford to blindly develop more downtown real estate that competes with our current portfolio that is already worth more as empty space than the $9 million it would take to renovate and restore buildings that create density and character.


"We know from 2006 to 2010 we've grown fairly dramatically,” Ward said. "I learned by watching Aubrey we need to be prepared for future growth because you don't know when that will come. … I have to look forward to where that future growth can go and how we can move forward with it.”


Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core. Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban. Clearly, at $9 million, renovation of these buildings would be cheaper than building new towers, but Ford Price, who knows our real estate market as well as anyone I've met, has stated that this will not be viable for generations. So, Sandridge is saying they think they will have to build new towers in place of the $100 million plazas they're going to build now, while the same properties are not worth a $9 million investment that would take generations before its justified? That's either a lie or they are more misguided than I thought.

I was as bullish on OKC and downtown as anyone, but this is a real sell indicator. Not so much because they are doing it, but because of the justification for doing it that has been placed on the record and accepted as justification for demolition. Basically, OKC's downtown is not viable enough for $9 million restorations, when in many markets these types of renovations are actually necessitated by the market itself. According to these qualified experts, it seems Oklahoma City is only viable for disposable short term development rather than a long term focus of diversification and reallocation. I beginning to think this is true, especially now that the city will only consider action that reinforces this state of our city, rather than taking action to solidify and strengthen the value of our urban assets, and in turn, our city's competitive advantage.

Bottom line is that this has shown that if our downtown is not viable enough for $9 million renovations of some of our historic structures, then it sure as hell isn't viable enough for anything that has been proposed for core to shore until at least 2 generations from now.

Quotes taken from: http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-commons-project-cleared-to-proceed-by-board-of-adjustment/article/3479885?custom_click=lead_story_title

Wow. Talk about a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response.

The sky is falling....the sky is falling.

In the information presented, did anyone announce the camping rates for the plaza?
Be a shame to have all that open space and not permit camping.
8^)

Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core.

I disagree. Why couldn't he be suggesting that 'future growth' could mean that a plaza is not forever. They might eventually build another building in the spots the demolished building were.


Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban.

I might have agreed with you at one time, but the more and more 'Chesapeake City' expands (to include all they have helped develop ... Classen Curve... Whole Foods) that area is becoming ENTIRELY urban. If you think about it, it is sort of 'Downtown Nichols Hills' anyway.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm alone on the preservationist side in wanting to get along now that the heavy ordeal is past. Granted, SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments, but that's what one the day. Can we stop bickering now that the matter is inevitably settled?

No Spartan, you're not alone on this... but there are some very raw emotions out there still as well, partially due to some hardball allegedly played before the vote. Time will tell how things go from here.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm alone on the preservationist side in wanting to get along now that the heavy ordeal is past. Granted, SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments, but that's what one the day. Can we stop bickering now that the matter is inevitably settled?

How typical of you. You ask if the bickering can stop, but in the previous sentence you claim that the SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments. This is laughable in my opinion as I see you as the master of moronic and inaccurate comments. You should take that as a compliment as at least one person has recognized your mastery of something. Also what is it that "one" the day means? Did you mean won the day?

It seems to me that the result of this process and the comments by those who have supported Sandridge's plan has provided a very good picture about where Oklahoma City and downtown stands in terms of development and its viability for the immediate future. It has served as a wake up call to me and I no longer really have hopes for Oklahoma City to achieve a real viable and functioning downtown with a true and complete urban atmosphere as a way to diversify itself and attract businesses that would create an economic portfolio which provides consistent gains. This is mainly due to Sandridge's reasoning for why they want to do this and how that reasoning was found to be sound, as it ultimately convinced to board to approve destruction of the block.

Contrary to most typical urban areas across the nation, we do not have an area of densely configured functioning buildings of varying design and use, both historical and modern. According to Sandridge it seems that our economy is not viable for such a district to exist and won't be for a very long time:



Although this has happened and does happen all over the country, it seems it will be generations or more before it will be viable in Oklahoma City. This is not good a sign.



$9 million? How much are they spending to tear it all down? The fact that Sandridge and the city feels that prime downtown real estate in our core is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations screams that we have a serious problem and that core to shore should be placed on immediate and indefinite hold. We can't afford to blindly develop more downtown real estate that competes with our current portfolio that is already worth more as empty space than the $9 million it would take to renovate and restore buildings that create density and character.



Again, this is another tip that our economy can not support a true urban downtown. Tom Ward is talking campus here, not urban core. Chesapeake is his blueprint and it is anything but urban. Clearly, at $9 million, renovation of these buildings would be cheaper than building new towers, but Ford Price, who knows our real estate market as well as anyone I've met, has stated that this will not be viable for generations. So, Sandridge is saying they think they will have to build new towers in place of the $100 million plazas they're going to build now, while the same properties are not worth a $9 million investment that would take generations before its justified? That's either a lie or they are more misguided than I thought.

I was as bullish on OKC and downtown as anyone, but this is a real sell indicator. Not so much because they are doing it, but because of the justification for doing it that has been placed on the record and accepted as justification for demolition. Basically, OKC's downtown is not viable enough for $9 million restorations, when in many markets these types of renovations are actually necessitated by the market itself. According to these qualified experts, it seems Oklahoma City is only viable for disposable short term development rather than a long term focus of diversification and reallocation. I beginning to think this is true, especially now that the city will only consider action that reinforces this state of our city, rather than taking action to solidify and strengthen the value of our urban assets, and in turn, our city's competitive advantage.

Bottom line is that this has shown that if our downtown is not viable enough for $9 million renovations of some of our historic structures, then it sure as hell isn't viable enough for anything that has been proposed for core to shore until at least 2 generations from now.

Quotes taken from: http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-commons-project-cleared-to-proceed-by-board-of-adjustment/article/3479885?custom_click=lead_story_title

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

OH. MY. GAWD.

All this "doom-and-gloom" lamenting in the wake of this decision is truly unbelievable. I wasn't excited about the Sandridge plan and frankly didn't understand the thought process. But the bitter, hyperbolic, "sky-is-falling" overreaction to its approval is even more mind-boggling. Seriously. This is not the end of the world nor the death knell of downtown OKC development.

Take a cue from Spartan. This battle is (essentially) over. Let's see how we can move past this controversy and continue to move Oklahoma City forward rather than forecasting its demise.

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

I disagree. No one is saying that downtown OKC as a whole isn't worth the investment. The concern is centered around the adjoining properties to their tower which most were fugly to begin with. If I were a property investor, I wouldn't put my money into those buildings. I would go for First National, City Place, The Oklahoman's former home, and many of the buildings on the northwestern quadrant of downtown, but not those near Sandridge.

In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing. Oftentimes I avoid that area by walking the Park Avenue corridor (the TRUE urban garden, IMO) and then turn north on Harvey for the Memorial. (Okay, getting homesick again).

Not all of us agree with Sandridge's plans, but I believe that feelings will change once Devon, Project 180, Sandridge Commons and Ford Center renovations are complete.

I disagree. No one is saying that downtown OKC as a whole isn't worth the investment. The concern is centered around the adjoining properties to their tower which most were fugly to begin with. If I were a property investor, I wouldn't put my money into those buildings. I would go for First National, City Place, The Oklahoman's former home, and many of the buildings on the northwestern quadrant of downtown, but not those near Sandridge.

In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing. Oftentimes I avoid that area by walking the Park Avenue corridor (the TRUE urban garden, IMO) and then turn north on Harvey for the Memorial. (Okay, getting homesick again).

Not all of us agree with Sandridge's plans, but I believe that feelings will change once Devon, Project 180, Sandridge Commons and Ford Center renovations are complete.

I hope you are right but if you watched the meeting you would have seen that the main subject of Sandridges defense was that downtown OKC couldn't support ANY redevelopment, and by a vote of 3 to 1 the BofA agreed. By that I mean that every vacant downtown building is in the exact same condition KerrMack and India Temple are in. Oddly enough, Braniff has the same primary problem - no parking - but Sandridge is going to renovate that building. I wonder if Sandridge is going to get a 4% return on the Braniff investment? If so, how and why couldn't they do the same thing for the other 2 buildings.

Wow, I didn't think so many people would go jump off a cliff when the decision came down.

I was against the demo of the buildings from day 1, but not just because I wanted to keep the buildings. I still don't feel like there was enough effort put into analyzing the buildings to accurately determine their sustainability. SR could have sold the things if they wanted to get rid of them....ugh. India Temple is a perfect example of a huge screw up. Under that facade....is the old building still there? No one will say if the old facade still exists under the new one. If it does, then we just lost a priceless gem. If it doesn't exist, then it really is just another box.

I'm not a preservationist for the purpose of keeping things just to keep them. I feel there really does need to be something special about the place to make it significant. The current state of these buildings are such that they aren't special. BUUUUUUUT, what about original facades? Why can we not get a straight answer on that, it's always cryptic.

I do feel that should someone wish to buy the land later, they can now build something with less work to be done. So that does open a door for the future. But at the same time, I feel like even $20 million to restore the buildings would have been worth it, and the ROI would have come back. If those buildings had been wiped clean to the structure, new Class A facilities could have gone in. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. Even if you wait 10 years and watch the market downtown, class A is something that is always going to be good. And being that close to the courthouse with class A....uh how many law firms and the associated stuff do you think would be looking that way? Turn ground floor into some shopping. There are too many possibilities.

Right now, the point I get from SR is that they didn't want to do the work and didn't want to become a landlord. It's unfortunate, and I feel like the decision was made for the wrong reasons. But I'm also not going to say it's all SR's fault and they are evil or anything. And I ABSOULTELY would NOT say downtown is doomed because of this either. If anything, our occupancy rates will look better now...duh.

I feel the exct same way and it is very depressing. Sandridge essentially said that creating a high-density downtown isn't worth the effort and far too many people bought that line of thinking. I can understand Sandridge making the claim because they wanted to build their plaza, but why so many people in Oklahoma City agreed to it is what concerns me. OKC has passed MAPS1 and MAPS3 to help rebuild downtown, while at the same time supporting a plan whose main argument is that downtown OKC isn't worth the investment. Sad sad sad. I really question whether C2S is now a good idea.

I understand why people agreed. Partly it happened because Tom Ward is part of "the group", which includes a bunch of major players in Oklahoma City, and the city sees benefit in keeping those major players happy. But also, by threatening to leave, he frightened those in charge into giving him what he wanted. People are hopeful, not certain, that downtown development will occur, and so to some, the thought of Sandridge leaving was too terrible to entertain.

MAPS1 and MAPS3 are all new construction. That's what people around here primarily understand, and I see tearing down these buildings, while extremely shortsighted and sad, as being completely unrelated to many people's hopes and plans for downtown OKC.

Wow, I didn't think so many people would go jump off a cliff when the decision came down.

I was against the demo of the buildings from day 1, but not just because I wanted to keep the buildings. I still don't feel like there was enough effort put into analyzing the buildings to accurately determine their sustainability. SR could have sold the things if they wanted to get rid of them....ugh. India Temple is a perfect example of a huge screw up. Under that facade....is the old building still there? No one will say if the old facade still exists under the new one. If it does, then we just lost a priceless gem. If it doesn't exist, then it really is just another box.

I'm not a preservationist for the purpose of keeping things just to keep them. I feel there really does need to be something special about the place to make it significant. The current state of these buildings are such that they aren't special. BUUUUUUUT, what about original facades? Why can we not get a straight answer on that, it's always cryptic.

I do feel that should someone wish to buy the land later, they can now build something with less work to be done. So that does open a door for the future. But at the same time, I feel like even $20 million to restore the buildings would have been worth it, and the ROI would have come back. If those buildings had been wiped clean to the structure, new Class A facilities could have gone in. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. Even if you wait 10 years and watch the market downtown, class A is something that is always going to be good. And being that close to the courthouse with class A....uh how many law firms and the associated stuff do you think would be looking that way? Turn ground floor into some shopping. There are too many possibilities.

Right now, the point I get from SR is that they didn't want to do the work and didn't want to become a landlord. It's unfortunate, and I feel like the decision was made for the wrong reasons. But I'm also not going to say it's all SR's fault and they are evil or anything. And I ABSOULTELY would NOT say downtown is doomed because of this either. If anything, our occupancy rates will look better now...duh.

The occupancy rates for these buildings were never on the rolls, so actually it won't affect DTOKC's occupancy/vacancy rates...... #fail

Wow. Talk about a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response.

The sky is falling....the sky is falling.

I knew some would take it that way, but all I did is reconcile the statements made by key experts that led to the decision. It was not an emotional response, it was simply a summation of what these people told us: Downtown property is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations to historic properties.

It is interesting for Ford Price to say to say it wouldn't be feasible for these buildings to be renovated for at least two more generations. If Kerr McGee was still here, those buildings would probably already be half way towards just that, but cooler heads have prevailed and we now know that property never was and won't be viable for decades.

If this is the case, then how can the hundreds of millions of dollars of core to shore investment be justified when it is just a few blocks away? That's not me crying that the "sky is falling", that is exactly on what what this decision was based.

Look, anyone who has been to any other city or actually looked around our downtown at bircktown and the Skrivin knows that, given the right model, thee buildings are not beyond saving. However, it is just not viable in Oklahoma City to do it. That is a key down market indicator any way you look at it.


In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing.

Bricktown 1985. Well, actually it was worse over there at that time.

They have the means to bring life back to the area for less than this project will cost. Instead we will have more plaza space in an area that already has dead plaza space. Apparently, so they can later spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build towers in a district that isn't currently viable.



I disagree. Why couldn't he be suggesting that 'future growth' could mean that a plaza is not forever. They might eventually build another building in the spots the demolished building were.

I know that is what they have said, but they are much farther away from that than they are trying to indicate at this point. So, bascially they have said we will spend $100 million to tear down buildings and build a plaza instead of the $9 million per building to renovate, only to go back and spend hundreds of millions of dollars later on the same exact spot. That makes zero sense.


I might have agreed with you at one time, but the more and more 'Chesapeake City' expands (to include all they have helped develop ... Classen Curve... Whole Foods) that area is becoming ENTIRELY urban. If you think about it, it is sort of 'Downtown Nichols Hills' anyway.

It's still far from urban. It will not be pedestrian based and there isn't much space for housing anymore. Their actual campus is not urban and has not been developed in a way that it can achieve that. The examples that you gave that may at least create some community traffic are retail developments that will be primarily accessed via one stop park and go. Sandridge is converting infrastructure to empty space, not commerce or housing. So, it is less urban than Chesapeake's barely urban plan. So in one respect you are right that Chesapeake has begun to fill in the area a bit, but Sandridge is going in the opposite direction and doing so in the middle of one of the few areas that actually had the infrastructure to be urban at some point.

Guys, I am not making anything up. This is what we have been told. If downtown real estate will not be able to support $9 million investments for years to come, how can hundreds of millions of dollars be justified? Knowing those involved, this conclusion surly considered Project 180, Maps 3, Devon Tower, etc. According to the Oklahoma City real estate experts and the BofA, none of those projects will create enough interest or value in that block of downtown to support a $9 million investment into any of the properties for decades. That is NOT me talking. That is what this decision was based upon.

Honestly, that is exactly what I voted on when I voted on MAPS 3. I thought that it would bring value to the city. I was under the impression that we did it to get us to a point where our city was worth enough to make our current assets viable and that we could preserve its character and build upon our assets instead of create more disposable ones. In fact, it sounds like these plazas may have already been earmarked for replacement if Sandridge ever grows.


This is not the end of the world nor the death knell of downtown OKC development.

Maybe not, but we have been given a clear picture of its current state and a very disappointing forecast for at least another generation.


I hope you are right but if you watched the meeting you would have seen that the main subject of Sandridges defense was that downtown OKC couldn't support ANY redevelopment, and by a vote of 3 to 1 the BofA agreed.

Exactly. And given the people who were involved, I think it would be pretty "pie in the sky" for me or anyone else to disagree with them.

Maybe not, but we have been given a clear picture of its current state and a very disappointing forecast for at least another generation.


Is it possible that our expectations and dreams are a bit unrealistic?

Is it possible that our expectations and dreams are a bit unrealistic?

Mine were for sure. I had seen it done elsewhere and thought, with the right mix, we could do it too. I even thought we were on our way, but I think I agree now that it will be generations before we see any kind of viable urban development in OKC. It may be that long before we see any desire for it from the city. It is certainly not a pretty picture relative to so many other markets that can viably offer urban options.

I still kind of think if Mid-town's empty spaces are filled in correctly, we may see some urban life come to OKC. Mid-town's redevelopment has kind of been done outside of the city's standard disposable development model to date and it is now screaming potential. But again, it's going to take some angels, given what downtown real estate will be worth for a long time. I just don't think the city, be it its leaders or community, feel that an urban district in downtown is viable or that it would be an asset in marketing the city for growth and in attracting new businesses.

In the end, we just don't have the community support for it or much interest in it from those with the means to make it happen, which seems justified given the long time it will be before it is viable here.

According to the Oklahoma City real estate experts and the BofA, none of those projects will create enough interest or value in that block of downtown to support a $9 million investment into any of the properties for decades.

But, do you honestly believe those statements? I don't think anyone has enough vision to talk about what will be needed in or feasible for two generations from now. That's such hyperbole that it's laughable, especially coming from anyone involved in real estate. Two generations ago, did anyone have any idea what would be going on in Oklahoma City right now? To me, these are a bunch of statements by people in cahoots, using unprovable projections to get Sandridge what it inexplicably wants.

If nothing else, downtown Oklahoma City could easily support several more rental properties, and the sky seems to be the limit on restaurants. I agree that it's disheartening to see what are probably great old buildings torn down in Oklahoma City, but I think it's WAAAAY premature to say that it will be generations before we have an urban environment downtown.

BDP - your last three posts have been awesome. Thank you for taking the time to write them.

But, do you honestly believe those statements? I don't think anyone has enough vision to talk about what will be needed in or feasible for two generations from now. That's such hyperbole that it's laughable, especially coming from anyone involved in real estate. Two generations ago, did anyone have any idea what would be going on in Oklahoma City right now? To me, these are a bunch of statements by people in cahoots, using unprovable projections to get Sandridge what it inexplicably wants.

If nothing else, downtown Oklahoma City could easily support several more rental properties, and the sky seems to be the limit on restaurants. I agree that it's disheartening to see what are probably great old buildings torn down in Oklahoma City, but I think it's WAAAAY premature to say that it will be generations before we have an urban environment downtown.

Betts - did you watch the meeting? Sandridge, using local experts, clearly painted the picture that the highest and best use of downtown real-estate is a plaza. The BofA agreed. Do you think they were all lying just to get the Sandridge Commons approved? They didn't even just limit their comments to the two building under consideration. They identifed the failure of the Park Harvey as a reason to pursue demolition. I didn't even know the Park Harvery was viewed by the downtown money people to be a failure.

Truth, in situations like these, is different to different people. Perhaps they honestly believe what they were saying. I don't know if the Park Harvey is a failure or not, but if people exist who wanted to develop the India Temple, then at least those people disagree with the "experts". And my point is that absolutely no one can predict what will happen in two generations. A lot of people failed to predict the housing market collapse months before it happened. If these experts had said five years, I'm still not sure I agree with them, but it's at least a bit more believable. Anyone who exaggerates like that opens their statements to question, IMO.

How typical of you. You ask if the bickering can stop, but in the previous sentence you claim that the SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments. This is laughable in my opinion as I see you as the master of moronic and inaccurate comments. You should take that as a compliment as at least one person has recognized your mastery of something. Also what is it that "one" the day means? Did you mean won the day?

Annoyed, agitated rant self-deleted.

There sure are a lot of gaps and leaps in the logic used to prove that downtown is a lost cause because a few people lost on this issue. Some people just don't get it.

Because THESE projects weren't viable doesn't mean ALL projects are not viable. Because downtown might develop somehow different than this urbanist-elitist narrow view doesn't mean it won't develop.

I started out thinking the urbanists were truly interested in this city and am now convinced most are just interested in being confirmed that they are the smartest, wisest people in town and everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is either corrupt, stupid or both.

Spartan, I exclude you as you seem to be reasonable about now getting busy and going on from here to make OKC the best place possible to live that it can be. I may disagree with you some but I don't find you disagreeable. I hope others can get past this without the hissy fits.

There sure are a lot of gaps and leaps in the logic used to prove that downtown is a lost cause because a few people lost on this issue. Some people just don't get it.

Because THESE projects weren't viable doesn't mean ALL projects are not viable. Because downtown might develop somehow different than this urbanist-elitist narrow view doesn't mean it won't develop.

I started out thinking the urbanists were truly interested in this city and am now convinced most are just interested in being confirmed that they are the smartest, wisest people in town and everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is either corrupt, stupid or both.

I can certainly understand the viewpoint, and it should be noted that Ford Price and Michael Dunn didn't ever have any intention of making a blanket statement that could be applied to downtown residential as a whole.

I think what we're talking about though is the difference between a residential project in Deep Deuce, and the implied parking situation there, and a residential project in the CBD core, and the implied parking situation there. The CBD's parking situation is the same for Bricktown, as well. So I think Ford Price is in fact an advocate of downtown housing and wants to see more, he just thinks it should be confined to Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc. I think what we need desperately is mixed-uses especially residential IN the CBD and in Bricktown itself, not around those areas--that's what Price and Dunn discounted altogether it seems.

Because you will likely never be able to have attached parking in the CBD or in Bricktown, not at least until the downtown market matures in another 20 years or so, and by then we'll all be driving space cars.

Popsy, you are the absolute worst poster on here, and I can not stand reading your posts. If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble. And what's more is that I hope you cross over from just minor rude nagging and trolling, to actual transgressions against the TOS that get you banned from here so that you can just go away altogether. That's what I think about you, as a person, as a commentator, and more--and I'm not someone who usually gets personalities mixed up with political differences..but I've seen the way you conduct yourself and share what you have to say on this forum and it's a disgrace, and if you as a person are anything like you are on here, then you as a person are pretty pathetic as well, and that certainly seems to be the case. You would probably be doing thy own self a service by just going back to your chess group and only nag them all day, or did they stop putting up with you as well? You don't even have anything to say that benefits SR Commons in anyway, you're just on here making insults and throwing bombs and watching reactions. The last thing you ever want is for the dust to settle, because you're thriving on controversy. I just hope you realize what a jerk you look like as always and realize that any controversy you can stir up will mostly be about what a jerk you are to people on this forum. Just freaking go away already, or stop being such a jerk. /endrant

There, done venting. Carry on rehashing the same argument that's been playing out for the last 6 months. There couldn't be any more pressing issues to move on to or anything.

Well Spar you're immaturity really came through on that one. It really bothers you to be called out on your excesses. I will grant you that when I get my fill of someone I will take a shot or two, but I really think you need it. I would love to quit posting and just read but when I read some of the things you post something compels me to call bovine excrement on it. I am sure I have ruffled other feathers as well, so maybe, as a group, you could get Pete to take away my ability to post.

Sorry to have skipped the above discussion, but I've been thinking about what happened on Monday. Earlier, I stated my observations about my (and perhaps POK's) procedural naivete, but I've now added a new concluding section to my final SandRidge post, this dealing with matters of substance. It is here (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-cut-cuts.html#substantive_conclusions) but it reads,


CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: SUBSTANTIVE. Unless common sense and logical thought processes be completely abandoned, a fair conclusion is that something occurred between the last BOA hearing and the one which occurred this past Monday. Earlier, there were serious concerns raised by some of the commissioners about various aspects of the DDRC decision. But, on Monday, following the presentations, in a 3-minute time span, the board discussed the matter for about 2 minutes, only 2 members making any comments during that time, and then in an additional minute a motion was made, seconded, and adopted by a 3-1 vote –– all of that occurring in just 3 minutes of time.



How did it happen that the previous concerns of the board suddenly became condensed to a 2 minute discussion and 1 minute for a motion to be made, seconded and voted upon?
Opinions may vary, but here are mine. In retrospect, there are a few things that can be looked at, and one of them is the report made by Suzette Hatfield on July 24, the Saturday before Monday's BOA meeting. You'd need to read her full comments (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/07/sandridge-cut-cuts.html#hatfield) to get the full picture, but one of the most important pieces of information centers around Ralph McCalmont, 1st president of Preservation Oklahoma and a person with established historic preservation credentials — in other words, someone that Preservation Oklahoma had good reason to trust.

On SandRidge's behalf, he invited POK representatives to come to SandRidge for a meeting which would include a tour of the buildings involved — which POK had long sought and been denied — and at which meeting the long hoped-for compromise would be discussed.

Now, I'm not a member of POK and am not privy to more information than anyone else about them. BUT, were I Katie Friddle or Suzette Hatfield, I would have taken hope in Ralph McCalmont's invitation — the invitation came from a friend who conveyed the message, at long last, that SandRidge was willing to discuss compromise with Preservation Oklahoma.

According to Ms. Hatfield, the "compromise" discussion proved to be anything BUT that. After the tour and in a meeting held in SandRidge's executive conference room with courteous refreshments provided, POK was told in no uncertain terms that SandRidge was completely unwilling to vary one iota from its plan. More, Ralph McCalmont (not SandRidge, but instead its envoy, McCalmont) insisted that POK drop its appeal, right at that moment, else it would suffer the consequences of being marginalized, seen as extremists, and suffer loss of financial support.


Some offer of compromise — quit or die.

Ms. Hatfield also reported that after the meeting that POK board members were receiving calls from Mr. McCalmont and others who had been friends and contributors to POK asking them to pressure POK to stop. POK also learned that at least one business relationship it has had over a lengthy period of time would terminate if POK pursued the matter to district court.



Thinking back on that pre-BOA hearing knowledge and after the fact, was the loss before the BOA a foregone conclusion?

What was the corporate sponsorship that would be lost if an appeal was filed? Now, I won't express an opinion about who that business contributor might be ...


... but I will note that McCalmont is a director of Bank First Corporation ...

One question that occurs to me to wonder about is this: Where was Mr. McCalmont during all of the preceding months that this matter had been under discussion and consideration before the DDRC and then by the BOA? If his concerns in fact existed earlier than last week, why was he reticent about saying so much earlier than then? If his new wisdom was only found last week, what and who was the source of his epiphany?

It is also a concern of mine during Monday's meeting while one POK speaker was addressing the board that commissioner Michael Dunn interrupted the speaker and made a factual statement that Park Harvey Apartments had suffered an occupancy decline from 92% to 49% after Devon acquired the city parking garage for use with its new office tower. Now, I don't know whether those alleged facts are true or false. I do know that I have followed these proceedings closely and IF there has been any testimony or presentation by anyone to such facts I have certainly missed it and I don't think that I have.

IF THAT BE TRUE, where did the information that Michael Dunn reported come from? From evidence presented during the proceedings? If it wasn't from that evidence, it came from somewhere else and from someone outside the record of the proceedings.

Then, consider the remarks by board member Jim Allen during the 2-3 minute discussion by the board on Monday. He said, with regard to the India Temple building,



After further looking at that, I think I made a mistake. After looking at what we've got here, I would say that we need to move forward.

Holy-About-Face, Batman! Allen offered no reasons for why he'd reversed his position; he merely gave as his only reason, "We need to move forward."

Investigate as you will and reach your own conclusions. If my opinions are incorrect, on fair evidence being submitted I'll be glad to reconsider — I am just an outsider trying to look "in" to a very non-transparent process about which I'm an outsider, but, as it stands, the "in" doesn't strike me as being very pretty, not very pretty at all.

The odd thing in all of this, as I've said from my very beginning post in the SandRidge posts in this forum, is that I can easily see that the SandRidge Commons can be a very good thing for the city ... even though I hedged my initial post upon the potential viability of the India Temple ... but ... the thing is, the underhanded manner, in my opinion, in which this has been carried forward by SandRidge is, to me, wholly abhorrent and brings shame upon our city, to its municipal processes, and, since I'm a part of this city, to me.

It seems to me that in most developed urban areas that people live in "areas" that offer amenities or cultures appealing to a semi-homogenous group. So, Bricktown appeals to a certain younger urbanized group. I think that is why the higher priced hill, Bloc 42, etc. has had a difficult time. You have floor plans and location appealing to one group and price points they can't afford. Midtown has appeal to a different kind of resident. I would like to be there if there were nice flats available that would be suitable and appealing to 50-60 year olds (don't want to run up 3 floors to go to bed). The restaurants, entertainment, etc. needs to be comensurate with who is in the neighborhoods. Therefore, the argument that plopping a residential tower in a business neighborhood where the other amenities don't already exist is a difficult proposition is valid. In product development we take market requirements and turn them into products. To build a product as a good idea and to expect the market to find it is very risky.

It seems to me that in most developed urban areas that people live in "areas" that offer amenities or cultures appealing to a semi-homogenous group. So, Bricktown appeals to a certain younger urbanized group. I think that is why the higher priced hill, Bloc 42, etc. has had a difficult time. You have floor plans and location appealing to one group and price points they can't afford. Midtown has appeal to a different kind of resident. I would like to be there if there were nice flats available that would be suitable and appealing to 50-60 year olds (don't want to run up 3 floors to go to bed). The restaurants, entertainment, etc. needs to be comensurate with who is in the neighborhoods. Therefore, the argument that plopping a residential tower in a business neighborhood where the other amenities don't already exist is a difficult proposition is valid. In product development we take market requirements and turn them into products. To build a product as a good idea and to expect the market to find it is very risky.

Fair enough Rover. So here's the million dollar question I suppose. How do we take the central business district and develop a residential product as economically viable there, enough to make a difference in the vitality of that area?

Popsy, you are the absolute worst poster on here, and I can not stand reading your posts. If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble.

The word is drivel.

The word is not dribble, which is something you can do with a basketball, but drivel, which refers to careless or uninformed bloviation.

They were pretty clear that if on-site parking isn't available there is no way anything other than office use will ever work downtown, and to add the cost of parking to a project makes it cost prohibitve in OKC. That pretty much rules out ANY downtown conversion of class C office space to residential. I'm not so much 'down in the dumps' about losing these two buidlings to a plaza as I am the bleak outlook for downtown that these people seem to have (unless they made it all up to get their project passed).

Fair enough Rover. So here's the million dollar question I suppose. How do we take the central business district and develop a residential product as economically viable there, enough to make a difference in the vitality of that area?

Do we have to, really? We've got enough land around our fairly small downtown, in which you can live and walk to work, still feel as if you're living in an urban environment. I was more interested in saving the buildings than necessarily having to use them as a residential product. I'd like to see more stores and restaurants, open at night, in the CBD, but I don't really feel our downtown will fail if we don't have more residential there.

If I lived in Bricktown, I'd still feel as if I lived downtown. I live in Maywood, and yet consider myself a downtown resident. I hate to keep bringing up Chicago, but since I was just there, I saw lots of what I would call urban living within two miles of downtown, and there's far more residential in close in areas than downtown in among the highrises.

I'd like to see more density downtown and I'd like to see buildings preserved. I'd like to see people walking around the CBD at night in greater numbers than we currently have (although there are people out and about downtown at night, I can guarantee you). But I don't think we have to have strictly high rise living to feel like we're living in an urban area.

I'm not sure what I said that led you to believe I meant high-rise living, which I recognize isn't really economically feasible unless someone extraordinary steps up.

The word is drivel.

The word is not dribble, which is something you can do with a basketball, but drivel, which refers to careless or uninformed bloviation.

It's kinda funny cause when I read the rant, I read drivel, even though it is dribble. Funny how your eyes can be...

I'm not sure what I said that led you to believe I meant high-rise living, which I recognize isn't really economically feasible unless someone extraordinary steps up.

Perhaps I misstated and used high rise living as a generalization for living strictly within the CBD. People who live in any CBD have parking issues. It's no different here than anywhere else. The difference is that, in Manhattan, you don't have to have a car to get around. Here, it's tough to do without one and so parking is a bigger issue. I don't see that changing, and that's one of the reasons why I said we may need to focus more on residential immediately adjacent to the CBD, which can still be an urban experience and the population of which can still make the CBD a busier, livelier place in which to spend time. I think it's important to keep and utilize buildings, but I'm not so focused on housing, per se. We have all the Triangle land, as well as land north of it. We have all of the Core to Shore land, Midtown and SoSA land that can be developed for residential, allowing better access to parking, but still having an urban feel. Alternatively, people who really want to live in the CBD or Bricktown may have to accustom themselves to parking a bit farther away than we're accustomed to parking. My daughters in Chicago usually can find a parking space within a four block radius of their apartment and they count themselves lucky if they find one closer in than two blocks. If you want to live in Bricktown, there's a lot of parking between 2nd and Main, and any housing created in Bricktown could offer monthly or annual parking passes to that lot.

If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble.

There is an http://www.okctalk.com/images/site_icons/ignore.pngAdd to Ignore List (http://www.okctalk.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=1283) link on every regular poster's profile page.

Well Spar you're immaturity

Well, if we're going to be the grammar police now..

And thanks David.


Perhaps I misstated and used high rise living as a generalization for living strictly within the CBD. People who live in any CBD have parking issues. It's no different here than anywhere else. The difference is that, in Manhattan, you don't have to have a car to get around. Here, it's tough to do without one and so parking is a bigger issue. I don't see that changing, and that's one of the reasons why I said we may need to focus more on residential immediately adjacent to the CBD, which can still be an urban experience and the population of which can still make the CBD a busier, livelier place in which to spend time. I think it's important to keep and utilize buildings, but I'm not so focused on housing, per se. We have all the Triangle land, as well as land north of it. We have all of the Core to Shore land, Midtown and SoSA land that can be developed for residential, allowing better access to parking, but still having an urban feel. Alternatively, people who really want to live in the CBD or Bricktown may have to accustom themselves to parking a bit farther away than we're accustomed to parking. My daughters in Chicago usually can find a parking space within a four block radius of their apartment and they count themselves lucky if they find one closer in than two blocks. If you want to live in Bricktown, there's a lot of parking between 2nd and Main, and any housing created in Bricktown could offer monthly or annual parking passes to that lot.

Well I think we're fixing to have to combine our efforts as a city to save the First National once and for all. This parking thing is going to become an issue again. Check out the Mercantile Building in Downtown Dallas' business core, which was a great project that put a lot of new life in DTD. Being mostly residential, they had to find a parking solution too, and I don't think it has any attached parking.

There are other examples of making it work in the middle of the CBD as well. Kansas City is a great example of this. I never intended to say that you can't have an urban environment in the fringe areas, I would argue that those areas are ALREADY becoming an urban environment. I would argue that they can be a better urban environment than the skyscraper core...just because something is 500 feet tall doesn't make it urban in my book.

What I'm saying is just.."OK, now what CAN we do with the CBD core?" I'm not even saying I know the way, because I don't. I think betts' idea that it doesn't need residential, and can pick off business from other areas building up residential, is an interesting point as well, and could be right. I think that perspective still needs to overcome the fact that Bricktown and MidTown are developing as the hubs for what betts presumes could go downtown and that will need to be overcome.. right now if downtown is the CBD, then Bricktown is the CED (Central Entertainment District) to invent a new term.

Spartan, the difficulty in the core is that there aren't enough services (grocery, other general retail, etc.) to make a complete lifestyle. I think the scale of the absolute core is so small that we first need to fill it up with high density business activity and fully develop more urban lifestyle areas like is being attempted in deep deuce and mid-town. The development that was proposed by Funk a couple of years ago would have been great. Living deep in the core does not eliminate the need for a car in OKC like in other larger cities because you can't do everything in the core or even get there by public transit. Once the light rail is in and core residents can easily travel out to areas of shopping, medical, etc., I think the demand for residences in the core goes way up and from people who will pay to make it viable. I think this is realistically 10 years out. In the meantime, if we concentrate on finishing Midtown and DD with mid-rise residences and make them affordable to the target audiences then we will build the momentum. Out there you can park a car and use it. Commuting a few blocks to work once out and once back is a lot easier to do than commuting OUT to get to a drug store, laundramat, clinic, coffee shop, etc. every time you need or want to.

I have commented that I am trying to move 2 companies to OKC. We likely won't consider moving to the core until the current 180, Devon, light rail, etc. is complete because of the commotion downtown and the current lack of class A contiguous space. However, in a couple of years it becomes a perfect spot for world headquarters we are planning. I just hope at that time I am young enough and someone has developed the kind of downtown residences that is fitting my age and style choices. And, I want life simpler, not harder.

I think pretty much the whole downtown area is a blank slate right now. At least the CBD has cleaners and more clothing retail than Bricktown or elsewhere. Now I would agree that the CBD is pretty dead and obviously the side districts are much more vibrant. I think for a coffee house, the north side districts are the only ones with true coffeehouses. There's not a drug store in any of the downtown districts, or a grocery store.

So I guess what I'm saying it that again, you can apply that to the entire downtown area. Aside from there being a central business district and a central entertainment district that clearly do not have mixed-uses, the other areas that are emerging for mixed-uses I think are all on a completely even playing field.

I think pretty much the whole downtown area is a blank slate right now. At least the CBD has cleaners and more clothing retail than Bricktown or elsewhere. Now I would agree that the CBD is pretty dead and obviously the side districts are much more vibrant. I think for a coffee house, the north side districts are the only ones with true coffeehouses. There's not a drug store in any of the downtown districts, or a grocery store.

So I guess what I'm saying it that again, you can apply that to the entire downtown area. Aside from there being a central business district and a central entertainment district that clearly do not have mixed-uses, the other areas that are emerging for mixed-uses I think are all on a completely even playing field.

There is a pharmacy that has some general drug store items on the ground floor in the First National tower.

When there is a CVS, a Barnes and Noble, and a small grocery in the core you'll attract people more eager to live there. People want normal things in their neighborhood, not just restaurants and bars. Lifestyle is not just partying and shopping. It's about conveniently doing everyday things everyday. In many cities where condos are existing in central business districts it is heavily second homes for highly paid executives who want to leave the office and walk a few blocks to their condo and then they leave for the weekend. Those are now empty, but the affordable lifestyle areas surrounding them are still pretty strong.

When there is a CVS, a Barnes and Noble, and a small grocery in the core you'll attract people more eager to live there. People want normal things in their neighborhood, not just restaurants and bars. Lifestyle is not just partying and shopping. It's about conveniently doing everyday things everyday. In many cities where condos are existing in central business districts it is heavily second homes for highly paid executives who want to leave the office and walk a few blocks to their condo and then they leave for the weekend. Those are now empty, but the affordable lifestyle areas surrounding them are still pretty strong.

This is puzzling to me, but I recognize that you're privy to a completely different viewpoint on this, and that may be what urban living means to you--but I would point to the number of cities including OKC to a much lesser degree where urban living has taken root despite the lack of amenities. Kansas City, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston, Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis..basically all the major cities around us have a larger degree of residential downtown, and it is viable. People move there not because they are attracted by partying, but for the sake of living there itself. Sometimes where you live is not about what's convenient but sometimes people are willing to assume some inconvenience to have the lifestyle they want. People are attracted to urban living for the sake and style of urban living itself and nothing else. Yeah, in NYC it is convenient..but in OKC it is anything but, and that's okay for the small group that are willing to put up with that.

I agree wholeheartedly that once we get a CVS, a bookstore, and a grocery store that it will make downtown residential far more attractive for a larger number of people, that's not debatable. I just don't think it completely cancels out the opportunity, though--you have to look at it as a microcosm at a time where urban living is becoming so popular, and is becoming one of the main things that cities are being judged on.

I just think we need to sit down again and have a discussion about the values of mixed-uses and downtown residential. Apparently a lot of people tuned it out when we first grappled with the concept and when I thought everybody accepted it, but apparently I was wrong. We all need to just have a downtown powwow where we talk about the need for mixed-use and downtown residential, how we do it, and how it really is possible.

Just curious, what would be considered the area in which residences need to be available to be considered "downtown" and part of the urban community? If we follow national consensus on what would constitute a sustainable urban core of 2% of the area's population, I assume we would have to have demand for 26,000 people living in that area. Would that include deep deuce and midtown? If not, then I think it is improbable we will have that many people wanting to live downtown without other amenities of groceries, shopping, etc. and without more jobs there.

By the way, you mentioned cities like Tulsa. I lived in downtown Tulsa at Center Plaza some time back. It was across from a full size Safeway which was there before the high rises I lived in was. It was one of the things the owner touted when showing me the properties. It had secure parking, shuttle services to the business buildings, close to athletic facilities, a social club, etc. It made it possible to live full time downtown. It was very nice but reasonable. I loved living there. When somebody invests to do something similar in downtown OKC, with something that has real amenities and not just high costs and the only real "amenities" being granite counter tops then people will want to live there. Too many of the new developments down there now are high priced and not suitable for the people who can afford them and not close to what they really need to live there everyday. Give me ONE good mid-high rise with real flats and reasonable prices and amenities that are really proper for the target audience and I think it will be popular. Not lofts with industrial looking ceilings. Not 3 or 4 level townhouses 4 ft wide and 50 ft tall. Not $500,000 condos with no views. If people will build LIVEABLE projects they will do okay. If they build for specific types of buyers they will do okay. Most of it is just common sense. You can't fake the urban experience. It needs to develop.

But, do you honestly believe those statements? I don't think anyone has enough vision to talk about what will be needed in or feasible for two generations from now. That's such hyperbole that it's laughable, especially coming from anyone involved in real estate. Two generations ago, did anyone have any idea what would be going on in Oklahoma City right now? To me, these are a bunch of statements by people in cahoots, using unprovable projections to get Sandridge what it inexplicably wants.

I wouldn't have believed them coming from Sandridge, but we're talking about Ford Price here who has probably as much interest amd knowledge in the value of Oklahoma City commercial real estate as anyone I have ever met. If he was sandbagging downtown and Oklahoma real estate to help Sandridge, he did it at a great personal cost.


There sure are a lot of gaps and leaps in the logic used to prove that downtown is a lost cause because a few people lost on this issue. Some people just don't get it.

Because THESE projects weren't viable doesn't mean ALL projects are not viable. Because downtown might develop somehow different than this urbanist-elitist narrow view doesn't mean it won't develop.

I started out thinking the urbanists were truly interested in this city and am now convinced most are just interested in being confirmed that they are the smartest, wisest people in town and everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is either corrupt, stupid or both.

Oh, come on. Let's stop this "elitist" type accusation BS. That's ridiculous. It's not about saying that urban lifestyles are the best or in some way better than any other lifestyle and no one has even said that. What it is about is diversifying the city's lifestyle portfolio so that it can be more competitive. Just about every single major market in the country can offer some option of urban living. We can not. While YOU may not prefer urban living, many do. That doesn't make them better or snobby or elitist, it's just a way a living that many many people really enjoy. Why would it not be in the city's best interest to take a few block that account for a speck on the Oklahoma City map and try and preserve it and develop it with urban living in mind? That's not elitist. That's simply a common sense approach to elevating the city's attractiveness by making it more appealing to a greater number of people in a way that has zero effect on any of the other living options available to people who currently live or are looking at living in Oklahoma City. It is stupid, narrow, and self defeating to think that the city is better off without offering a way of life that millions of people in the country prefer. The only elitist attitude is the one that says we shouldn't make any effort to offer varying living options because the ones we have are good enough for us.

Downtown may still develop, but this has been a clear indicator that it can not support reinvestment in its current assets. That is a statement on the value and viability of downtown's real estate going forward. Maybe I am missing something, and I hope I am, but I am not sure what kind of investors you are thinking about that wouldn't consider these events as a down market indicator for all of downtown. If current downtown real estate is worth more as empty space because the assets currently occupying that space are not viable for a $9 million reinvestment, how much sense does it make to invest much more than that on new development or in renovating other properties? I'm not going to do it. Would you?

Downtown may still develop, but this has been a clear indicator that it can not support reinvestment in its current assets. That is a statement on the value and viability of downtown's real estate going forward. Maybe I am missing something, and I hope I am, but I am not sure what kind of investors you are thinking about that wouldn't consider these events as a down market indicator for all of downtown. If current downtown real estate is worth more as empty space because the assets currently occupying that space are not viable for a $9 million reinvestment, how much sense does it make to invest much more than that on new development or in renovating other properties? I'm not going to do it. Would you?

There's potentially a fallacy in your statement, however. If it is true that there were people interested in multiple properties that Sandridge owns, they clearly thought they were viable for investment. If I had $9 million, I believe I'd consider them worth investing in. The Legacy is new development, and I believe it's been successful, and there are certainly rumors of other new development being considered, even in these less than certain economic times. Again, how much credibility does anyone have who is making blanket statements that cover multiple generations? I don't know why Price said that, but his family is certainly cosy with people involved. I'm having a lot of trouble buying his projections, which makes me think they were either calculated or he's got a working crystal ball.

Of course, the decision was made well before the meeting, it always has been and always will be the case everywhere, that is definitely not something unique to OKC. Those who have the money can buy influence, with influence you can get what you want. That is what happens on small town Main Street and all the way to Washington DC, just the way that it has always been...nothing is going to change. What happened today was what I expected from the start.

This is NOT the way it happens everywhere, and having that attitude is fatal for the city. Yes, people with money and with friends in high places get away with things, but in the many other cities where I've lived, that kind of thing is not tolerated by the public and if they are exposed, people get in massive trouble. Not saying it doesn't happened, but it's not accepted as the norm. I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the outcome of the appeal, but just sitting back and acknowledging that people or entities got away with something, and that the city didn't hold them to the same standard as the general public, is never going to fix the system. Our leaders need to know that they will be leaders no more if they act as if they and their buddies are above the law.

There's potentially a fallacy in your statement, however.

It's not my statement. It's Ford Price's, the BofA's, and the current property owners. If there was collusion to fallaciously sandbag downtown's real estate status for the benefit of Sandridge's development plans, then that in and of itself is a reason to stay out of the market. Then, not only would you have a weak commercial real estate market, but a corrupt one as well. No thank you. I think if I had to deal with corruption, I'd at least do it where my development would actually add value to the property.

Until someone has evidence of real corruption the accusations on here sound more like crying because somebody didn't like the outcome. If you actually knew some of the people whom you all are accusing you would know their character. It is just easier to blame the boogie man when your ideas don't dominate. Cry, blame, throw a fit, threaten to leave, blame everyone else. Ridiculous. Can't we have real discussions without the hysterics and unproved allegations?

I'm not hysterical at all, or crying about the outcome. I think it's a shame, but at this point it's water over the dam and like Spartan said or implied, it's time to move on. I'm just saying that no one, be he or she the supreme real estate guru or anyone else, knows what will happen over the next two generations. Anyone who thinks they do either has an ego or intelligence problem and thus, their statement is suspect to begin with. I have no idea whether Price's statement is his own opinion or was designed to tip the scales in Sandridge's favor. I just know there's no way he can know what he is stating he knows, anymore than can any of us. Which is good. Because if he's right, we all might as well just give up any hopes and dreams we have for the downtown and surrounds and retire to Florida.

Being in architecture and working on development projects for the past 20-25 years I have seen it happen first hand and been on both the "winning" and "losing" sides of the shenanigans, it's just a fact of life everywhere. OKC is definitely not as bad as some places or as bad as it used to be but if the power brokers want something pushed through, they usually get their way. Those not as well connected (or don't hire those well connected) usually struggle to get something different or controversial through the system and typically have to jump through a few more hoops. Most of the time the politicking/lobbying has been done well before any public hearings occur, I have seen that happen everywhere....that kind of stuff is nothing new. It is why I never doubted that Sandridge would get their way and yes, it is time just to move on.

I'm not hysterical at all, or crying about the outcome. I think it's a shame, but at this point it's water over the dam and like Spartan said or implied, it's time to move on. I'm just saying that no one, be he or she the supreme real estate guru or anyone else, knows what will happen over the next two generations. Anyone who thinks they do either has an ego or intelligence problem and thus, their statement is suspect to begin with. I have no idea whether Price's statement is his own opinion or was designed to tip the scales in Sandridge's favor. I just know there's no way he can know what he is stating he knows, anymore than can any of us. Which is good. Because if he's right, we all might as well just give up any hopes and dreams we have for the downtown and surrounds and retire to Florida.


Hmmm, if land is worth more as bare land with grass and trees on it, wonder what, if any, impact that has on the city's intent to buying up land to turn it into grass and trees a few blocks to the southwest?

(yeah, I played with matches as a child ... shows, huh?)

Or maybe
Not saying it would happen

Bluedog an Betts. I appreciate your comments. I just thought the talk of corruption was getting out of control. Playing hardball to win is one thing, but it isn't the same as being corrupt. The people involved on the SR side are used to winning. It should be no surprise they know how to play the game and they do it better than most. On the other side of this is the fact that most all of them are investing 100s of millions of $s in this city and it is part of the reason there will be 100s of millions more invested here.

Rover, in the main, as I see it you've been inclined to be very forgiving, if not apologetic (in the academic sense), to and about SandRidge's tactics, and that's fine since it's your province you to state your own opinions. But you really shouldn't expect everyone to share your willingness to forgive or accept your point of view. As I've already said, my view is that the BOA proceedings, particularly from the prior hearing to the last, presents a dark chapter of Oklahoma City history ... and that's fine, too, since it's my province to state my own opinions. You evidently don't see that what I said above (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=22237&p=348639#post348639) is persuasive about the dark side, and that's your assessment to make.

Losers always claim conspiracy...

Losers always claim conspiracy...

There was no conspiracy. It was all out in the open.

Here is the deal. The people representing Sandridge lied in the meeting. There is no way around that. They painted a dim picture of the future of downtown OKC so they could tear down some building to put in a corporate plaza as part of a $100 million project. If they REALLY thought what they were saying was true then there is no way they would be sinking $100 million into the 'will never be developed in 2 generations' downtown OKC. They said what they had to say to get over this hurdle, but they didn't really mean it. I expected more from this group of people.

Losers always claim the other side lied...

Losers always claim the other side lied...

Out of curiosity, why do you think I lost? I only want to see downtown OKC grow and become a true urban center. If the Sandridge Commons plan does that in the end, it makes me wrong, but I still win. I only lose if downtown OKC loses.

I think this is where the 'urbanist' and 'suburbanist' part ways. This isn't about Sandridge and their plan - it is about seeing downtown OKC succeed. If the Sandridge Commons turns out to be a total disaster are Rover, Soonerus, Popsy, and others still going to be running around saying they won? If so, they might be fighting the wrong battle.

There was no conspiracy. It was all out in the open.

Here is the deal. The people representing Sandridge lied in the meeting. There is no way around that. They painted a dim picture of the future of downtown OKC so they could tear down some building to put in a corporate plaza as part of a $100 million project. If they REALLY thought what they were saying was true then there is no way they would be sinking $100 million into the 'will never be developed in 2 generations' downtown OKC.

Thank you for pointing out the second reason the statement was illogical. I hadn't thought of it, but you are right. If the future of downtown was as grim as depicted, Sandridge should be running the other direction. I'm not going to go so far as to say they lied deliberately. People can convince themselves of all sorts of things if they have a compelling reason to do so, and sometimes it's subconscious.

I think this is where the 'urbanist' and 'suburbanist' part ways. This isn't about Sandridge and their plan - it is about seeing downtown OKC succeed. If the Sandridge Commons turns out to be a total disaster are Rover, Soonerus, Popsy, and others still going to be running around saying they won? If so, they might be fighting the wrong battle.

Well said. I echo these sentiments.

About the claimed lack of viability of downtown housing, why, then, is SandRidge planning on a mixed development for the Braniff?