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.

I do not believe I have once mentioned a word about winning anything. Also I did not view the debate as being between urbanist and suburbanist. It was more of an urbanist/preservationist versus realist debate. The reality of the question was based on what each side could provide the city and Sandridge was viewed as the greater provider of good, thus the business community rallied to their side. This type of situation occurs everywhere. To claim people lied, conspired or whatever is just a waste of time and comes off as sour grapes. There was never a doubt in my mind that Sandridge would prevail.

Doug, if the Braniff was not on the historic register Sandridge would probably have opted to take it down also. Not being able to take it down they are forced to do something with it, so why not throw the urbanist a bone and give them one of the things they clamor for, mixed use.

I do not believe I have once mentioned a word about winning anything. Also I did not view the debate as being between urbanist and suburbanist. It was more of an urbanist/preservationist versus realist debate. The reality of the question was based on what each side could provide the city and Sandridge was viewed as the greater provider of good, thus the business community rallied to their side. This type of situation occurs everywhere. To claim people lied, conspired or whatever is just a waste of time and comes off as sour grapes. There was never a doubt in my mind that Sandridge would prevail.

Doug, if the Braniff was not on the historic register Sandridge would probably have opted to take it down also. Not being able to take it down they are forced to do something with it, so why not throw the urbanist a bone and give them one of the things they clamor for, mixed use.

See, you start out by claiming you didn't say anything about winning and end the paragraph by saying there was never any doubt in your "mind Sandridge would prevail". We won't know if Sandridge prevails for many years because presumably, their intention is to make downtown OKC better. We will have to wait and see if that happens.

I have to deal with this kind of stuff all the time in my line of work. I can agree with my customer on the goal but we differ on the plan of action on how to get there. Maybe the problem is we don't all agree on the goal. I thought there was a general consensus that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core but maybe I was wrong about that.

Not sure where I got that crazy idea from...

http://www.downtownokc.com/


Downtown OKC Incorporated (DOKC), was created in 2000 as a not-for-profit organization formed to develop, manage and market Downtown Oklahoma City. DOKC serves as an advocate, coordinator, facilitator and communicator of downtown revitalization. As the community development organization with an exclusive downtown focus, DOKC works closely with partners in both the public and private sector to ensure that Downtown continues Going UP!


Take a look at the Staff and Directors and see if any of the names ring a bell. Many of them came out in support of tearing buildings DOWN.

See, you start out by claiming you didn't say anything about winning and end the paragraph by saying there was never any doubt in your "mind Sandridge would prevail". We won't know if Sandridge prevails for many years because presumably, their intention is to make downtown OKC better. We will have to wait and see if that happens.

I have to deal with this kind of stuff all the time in my line of work. I can agree with my customer on the goal but we differ on the plan of action on how to get there. Maybe the problem is we don't all agree on the goal. I thought there was a general consensus that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core but maybe I was wrong about that.

Not sure where I got that crazy idea from...

http://www.downtownokc.com/

Kerry, I think there is a difference between winning and prevailing. Sandridge prevailed but that doesn't necessarily mean they won. They are the entity rolling the one hundred million dollar dice here, so if they achieve what they are looking for they win, if not they lose.

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core. The only place I have seen that consensus suggested is at OKCtalk and that was from the numerous urbanists that have dominated this forum for so long.

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core. The only place I have seen that consensus suggested is at OKCtalk and that was from the numerous urbanists that have dominated this forum for so long.

If that is the only place you have seen it then I can't help you. My guess is you have not be paying attention for very long.

I certainly in didn't win or lose anything. I had no skin in this game. I just have a perspective and opinion that might not be as rigid or intellectually legalistic regarding urban design, development and use because of my experiences and observations.

I also am not a "suburbanist". I just didn't think SR's plan was the death of OKC. I love the true urban life. My wife and I have an apartment in New York City part of the year. I spend most of my working time outside of OKC in urban centers. My home office is on Wacker in Chicago. Because I wasn't as opposed to SR and I empathized with their business options, I am labled as not concerned about downtown OKC.....far from it.

Do I like the destruction of significant buildings in downtown....absolutely not. Do I think all buildings are significant...absolutely not. Do I think all plazas are evil...absolutely not. OKC will continue to develop but it won't look like Chicago, New York, Toronto, Vancouver. It will be unique and probably more different in 25 years than you will ever imagine. But it can be great.

Maybe we all can now focus on recruiting the types of developers and investors to do the kinds of things we would all love to see here. If we spend as much effort on trying to facilitate investment to DO things the right way from scratch as we do trying to KEEP PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS we will be ok. Let's find the right buyers for existing lots, buildings, etc. and make it possible for them to make some money while helping us all. Let's go put together an actual list of people who would lease or buy into a building if built. Let's put together petitions showing investors that there are markets and that they CAN make money while meeting our density and lifestyle objectives. Let's be positive to produce and we can get what we want.

If that is the only place you have seen it then I can't help you. My guess is you have not be paying attention for very long.

Does that mean you have not been paying attention also? I would think that if you were in the know as you suggest, you would be able to direct me to areas that would enlighten me about the general consensus of the community.

Does that mean you have not been paying attention also? I would think that if you were in the know as you suggest, you would be able to direct me to areas that would enlighten me about the general consensus of the community.

http://www.downtownokc.com/
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pei_Plan_(Oklahoma_City)
http://www.okc.gov/maps/index.html
http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/index.html
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11675458
http://www.okc.gov/planning/downtown/index.html
http://www.automobilealley.org/
http://www.bricktownokc.com/
http://www.maps3.org/welcome.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070713/ai_n19372716/

"We are thrilled to be part of the renaissance of downtown Oklahoma City," Ward said.

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core. The only place I have seen that consensus suggested is at OKCtalk and that was from the numerous urbanists that have dominated this forum for so long.

I'm not sure one can call it domination. This is a forum. If there were a large enough group of suburbanists, or whatever it is you designate yourself, they could quite easily "dominate" this forum themselves. It's all a matter of numbers, as I doubt people with differing viewpoints are excluded from this forum. Obviously the number of people who belong and post here is small compared to the population as a whole. So you have to ask yourself who seeks out forums in which city development is discussed, and the answer is that most likely people who look for forums that discuss city development are both computer literate and interested in discussing and/or actively working towards improving the place they live. Here, a larger number of people seem to be what you term urbanists. I don't know how much you can extrapolate the general feelings of the rest of the population, but there's certainly no overwhelming evidence that the majority of people interested in how Oklahoma City grows and develops are suburbanists.

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 am not claiming conspiracy or corruption. I am actually taking their comments at face value, but some don't want to accept it, which I can totally understand. However, one can NOT argue that what Ford Price said was hyperbole and at the same time say there was no collusion or effort to mislead the board. To do so would actually be an insult on Mr. Price's knowledge and expertise on Oklahoma City real estate, which, in my opinion is unrivaled in the market.

You can't have it both ways.

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core.

It clearly is not the consensus, at least among city leaders. I think if there was such a consensus there would be more effort to do it. However, many do want Oklahoma City to become viable enough that it can offer at least a small sliver of urban atmosphere in order to help its competitive advantage. I think anyone would agree that if Oklahoma City wanted to do that, downtown has the best potential and remaining infrastructure to provide that to the community. That is, as long as the city works to preserve that infrastructure and guide development in a way that helps facilitate that goal.

Maybe it's time to tear down all of those AT&T buildings. Could Sandridge use a surface parking lot? Maybe a baseball field?

Maybe it's time to tear down all of those AT&T buildings. Could Sandridge use a surface parking lot? Maybe a baseball field?

Sandridge might not have a use for those sites, but I bet the dynamic Moshe Tal could develop those properties if we could just give him the opportunity and enough money to do it with.

Sandridge might not have a use for those sites, but I bet the dynamic Moshe Tal could develop those properties if we could just give him the opportunity and enough money to do it with.

Randy Hogan could probably build a nice strip mall there, maybe stick a Big Lots in it?

Randy Hogan could probably build a nice strip mall there, maybe stick a Big Lots in it?

You might just well be on to something there. He could probably strip mall all the way around the block and leave a nice plaza with a fountain in the middle. If Big Lots could just add a few more groceries to their inventory the need for a grocery downtown would be met and residential urban living would explode. Just think about all the retail and mixed uses a strip mall could entail. I never dreamed that you would come up with the answer to exactly what the core needs, but you did it. Congrats.

You might just well be on to something there. He could probably strip mall all the way around the block and leave a nice plaza with a fountain in the middle. If Big Lots could just add a few more groceries to their inventory the need for a grocery downtown would be met and residential urban living would explode. Just think about all the retail and mixed uses a strip mall could entail. I never dreamed that you would come up with the answer to exactly what the core needs, but you did it. Congrats.

Your plan would be great except for one thing - Sandridge is tearing the building down for a plaza.

Your plan would be great except for one thing - Sandridge is tearing the building down for a plaza.

Kerry, Midtowner had posed the possibility of taking out the AT&T buildings for the possibility of Sandridge using that space for a parking lot or a basefall field. See post #650 and subsequent posts to see how we ended up with the strip mall post.

Naw, he's just a couple posts in the future, where Sandridge acquired the strip mall and is taking it out for another plaza.

Well I think Sandridge has a long way to go. They have a lot of buildings around them that still block views to their ivory tower. Gotta have those 100% clear site lines!

I thought we had moved on from the SR denigrating. This thread should die and people need to get on with their lives.

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

Doug, I'm pretty sure that SR is NOT proposing a mixed-use renovation of the Braniff. The only thing SR has offered up to "mixed-uses" is the "Corporate Activities Building" which is hardly mixed-uses in my opinion (corp restaurant, employee gym, auditorium). Devon is putting all of those things in their parking garage for the most part and hardly calling it "mixed-use" despite that Devon could actually end up being very mixed-use, with integration of the Colcord and street retail on Hudson.

Devon has accepted, embraced, and exemplified mixed-use and being a part of a connected urban fabric. SR has repudiated that idea at every turning point, and that's what my opposition to SR Commons was predicated on all along. I just hope in the future that the winners (SR) will recognize the need for mixed-uses downtown and include it in their vision, rather than spreading their thin corporate existence all over an unprecedented 2 entire city blocks.

Someone recently noted these threads are much more intelligent and civilized when just one or two people are put on the ignore list. It's interesting to see how that works out...

Steve

Can you see me...Steve...Steve????

(I kid)

I thought we had moved on from the SR denigrating. This thread should die and people need to get on with their lives.

As long as SandRidge takes the approach that destruction is the equivalent of "grow or die", they have no one to blame but them selves for that. They could have approached this in a very positive manner and seen as the protector...the White Knight. Instead they chose to take more of a Darth Vader approach (IMO)

The ironic part, is by posting "let this thread die", you are continuing to keep the thread active. if you really want it to die, ignore it and never post in it again.

Darth Vader is too kind. They're just deginerate thugs.

Darth Vader is too kind. They're just deginerate thugs.

You mean like Jabba the Hutt?

Steve

Can you see me...Steve...Steve????

That's random. Why did you mention Steve?

; )

That's random. Why did you mention Steve?

; )

Steve said the forum is better if you just add a few 'unidentified' people to your ignore list. Larry was just inquiring (and quite humors I might add) if Steve had placed Larry on ignore.

Oh wait - I get it now. You are implying you have Steve of ignore. Clever.

That's random. Why did you mention Steve?

; )

Haha..win.

Just found this interesting.

Sandridge hit new 52 week low today and is now being recommended as a takeover candidate. I wonder if that will happen before or after the buildings come down.

http://247wallst.com/2010/08/05/sandridges-pain-today-one-huge-opportunity-ahead-sd-xom-apa-me-bp-chk/2/

That is interesting that Chesapeake is being mentioned as a potential takeover company.

SR being taken over by an Oklahoma company really would be the best scenario for us. Lose SR Commons, keep the jobs.

I certainly don't think BP is in any position to buyout any American companies.

As corporations go, SandRidge is little more than an infant, corporately and in the community, but it has managed to get others in the community to put on rose-colored glasses when viewing it ... and in buying into what it proposes to do in downtown. In the DDRC procedures, only one voice, the chair of the committee, suggested bonds and/or other constraints or guarantees should be involved to insure that SandRidge actualy did what it said that it would do, but her voice was a voice in the wilderness. I truly hope, now that the municipal procedures are done, that SandRidge will DO what it said that it WILL DO and get this thing done. The worst case, but perhaps the best teaching case, is that it does not do that. Maybe then some lessons will really be learned. But, again, I'm hoping against that possibility.

From Bloomberg Businessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HDEE300.htm ...


A preservation group says it won't appeal a decision by a city board allowing SandRidge Energy Inc. to tear down five buildings as part of a planned development of its downtown campus.

The decision by Preservation Oklahoma announced Thursday removes a roadblock to SandRidge's plans to demolish the buildings, including one of Oklahoma City's oldest structures, the India Temple Building.
Also, see http://www.ksbitv.com/news/Historic-Metro-Buildings-Will-Be-Demolished-100069734.html

Haha. Gotta love it when Bloomberg is the first to break a big downtown (un)development story..

So that's it. We lost, now to move on to the First National I guess, and hopefully the SR backers were genuine in their concern for the next looming big battle.

Well, there are shades of gray, Doug. Best case is SR doesn't do any of it, of course. The worst case would be SR demo's the buildings and then does nothing, as you were alluding to.

Btw, I had responded to a quote of yours that I am keenly interested in your response to. Was there some reason that you alluded to the Braniff being mixed-use in the end?

Do we know how soon the buildings are coming down?

The right decision. Wasn't worth fighting any further. Sandridge was a bully, no doubt about it. Let them wallow in the wake of their shady practices. Ward should be ashamed. He's lost a lot of people's trust, and his legacy is tainted.

Well, there are shades of gray, Doug. Best case is SR doesn't do any of it, of course. The worst case would be SR demo's the buildings and then does nothing, as you were alluding to.

Btw, I had responded to a quote of yours that I am keenly interested in your response to. Was there some reason that you alluded to the Braniff being mixed-use in the end?
I don't know what you are referring to, Nick. Give me a link and I'll respond.

10 years from now I doubt too many people will even know anything happened.

We'll see about that.

It's hard for people to appreciate what's not there anymore.

Spartan, can you comment on the proposed retail on Hudson connected with Devon? Is it going to be on the street level of the parking garage?

Kris, it will be on the street level facing Hudson. You can go by the site right now and the individual retail bays are right there, it's the glass boxes. They closed them in with cinderblocks for the remainder of construction but it will be street-level retail. I also believe that SR wants to put street-level retail in the Braniff, but is staunchly opposed to any other mixed-use activity on their 2 blocks.

Doug:


Doug, I'm pretty sure that SR is NOT proposing a mixed-use renovation of the Braniff. The only thing SR has offered up to "mixed-uses" is the "Corporate Activities Building" which is hardly mixed-uses in my opinion (corp restaurant, employee gym, auditorium). Devon is putting all of those things in their parking garage for the most part and hardly calling it "mixed-use" despite that Devon could actually end up being very mixed-use, with integration of the Colcord and street retail on Hudson.

Devon has accepted, embraced, and exemplified mixed-use and being a part of a connected urban fabric. SR has repudiated that idea at every turning point, and that's what my opposition to SR Commons was predicated on all along. I just hope in the future that the winners (SR) will recognize the need for mixed-uses downtown and include it in their vision, rather than spreading their thin corporate existence all over an unprecedented 2 entire city blocks.

10 years from now I doubt too many people will even know anything happened.

You're probably right but that will be unfortunate. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

I think it will be remembered as long as we're painfully cognizant of how damaged our downtown streetscape is.

And we keep doing the OKC thing where we take one step forward and two steps backward, both in the name of progress.

If Ward adds 1000 more employees to downtown I doubt everyone will be as bitter as a few seem to be. I doubt he is worrying about this real estate deal destroying his legacy. He has bigger ambitions.

You're absolutely right Rover. I'll be waiting for those 1000 jobs.. (holding breath)

so they will be saving one building? anybody know what one it is?

I thought they wanted to tear down six buildings/garage, but now it's 5. Too bad for India Temple, would have made a killer boutique hotel (ala colcord).

Its on Bloomberg because it is a very bad, bad sign that a City boasting to be progressing, is allowing the destruction of this mass of building structure, polluting our air and filling our landfill to the high heavens ... the dust will never settle on this one. Everyone else but this city, these disgusting stakeholders, gets that that is the absolutelythe wrong thing to do. We're repelling the young professionals we say we are trying to attract.
Ward and his bullies(including the city management) are morally bankrupt .... but it looks like the company itself is treading water, now. We may not have to wait 10 years.

so they will be saving one building? anybody know what one it is?

I thought they wanted to tear down six buildings/garage, but now it's 5. Too bad for India Temple, would have made a killer boutique hotel (ala colcord).

They are keeping the Braniff Building, but only because they have to. Given the choice, it would be coming down also. When they are done an entire city block will be reduced to grass with a single building in the center (and Braniff on one corner).

Given the choice, it would be coming down also - I hope something doesn't go wrong during the demo of the other buildings causing irreparable damage to Braniff and it falls down all on its own.

They actually DON"T have to keep the Braniff - this is a common misconception, but a private entity can tear down a National Register property without getting any kind of approval from anyone - SHPO can't stop them. National REgister status only stops the federal government. My guess is they chose to keep that building to show that they care about preservation, and because they thought it was the right thing to do PR-wise.

You may well be correct, Nick. Maybe I just assumed the Braniff would be mixed use. In searching just before I write this comment, I couldn't find anything about the Braniff's intended use.

My guess is they chose to keep that building to show that they care about preservation, and because they thought it was the right thing to do PR-wise.

Um, they DON"T care about preservation and their P-R is shot to hell with anyone that could be swayed by 'saving' one building. If they care about preservation they sure have a a funny way to show it. I wish they cared about preservation as much as they do about improving sightlines.

I talked to a commercial real estate friend this week about this, and he chuckled about the ordeal. Basically said that the minority was very vocal and most everyone else loves it that SD is making progress downtown. I tend to agree with him. I would say their reputation is very mildly blemished overall and some of you have sour grapes tainting your image of SD. One thing I think there is to keep in mind is that yes, they are taking some property down to the ground. But who knows what could eventually take the place of the grass. Perhaps one day a building will be built that is taller and prettier than the SD main tower in one of those spots in the plaza. Who knows? It would be easy to construct a new building there wouldn't it?

I talked to a commercial real estate friend this week about this, and he chuckled about the ordeal. Basically said that the minority was very vocal and most everyone else loves it that SD is making progress downtown. I tend to agree with him. I would say their reputation is very mildly blemished overall and some of you have sour grapes tainting your image of SD. One thing I think there is to keep in mind is that yes, they are taking some property down to the ground. But who knows what could eventually take the place of the grass. Perhaps one day a building will be built that is taller and prettier than the SD main tower in one of those spots in the plaza. Who knows? It would be easy to construct a new building there wouldn't it?

How much easier is it to construct a new building on a vacant site than it is on one that already has a building on it. How long did it take Devon to tear down the Galleria parking deck, a month? Oklahoma Cit already tried the "clear everything so we can build on vacant lots" approch. It didn't work. Forty years later we still have most of the vacant lots. I hope Sandridge does eventually build a new tower and unless Tom Ward is a liar, that is the plan.

Um, they DON"T care about preservation and their P-R is shot to hell with anyone that could be swayed by 'saving' one building. If they care about preservation they sure have a a funny way to show it. I wish they cared about preservation as much as they do about improving sightlines.

I didn't mean to imply that they DID, just that I think the Braniff was the token to appease the preservation community and say "look at how much we care about downtown" - they've made a very big deal out of how economically challenging it will be to restore it (with hugely inflated numbers, in comparison to national averages for rehabs), and how they'll have to "subsidize" some use for the building, but they're keeping it out of their tremendous goodwill.

I'm guessing then that the Braniff will be SR's next office space expansion, so we can add that on top of the remaining half of Kerr McGee Tower to space that needs to be filled up before SR builds on Broadway.

I talked to a commercial real estate friend this week about this, and he chuckled about the ordeal. Basically said that the minority was very vocal and most everyone else loves it that SD is making progress downtown.

OH YEAH! What do you expect from a commercial realtor... everyone are those people Downtown that see their wallets being lined...those people that said Downtown Living is dead for two generations. They omitted several important financial variables which means they LIED but what the hell they'll say anything and did to make a point. If this demolition happens we will be taking several HUGE steps backward, this is not progress Downtown.

OH YEAH! What do you expect from a commercial realtor... everyone are those people Downtown that see their wallets being lined...those people that said Downtown Living is dead for two generations. They omitted several important financial variables which means they LIED but what the hell they'll say anything and did to make a point. If this demolition happens we will be taking several HUGE steps backward, this is not progress Downtown.

Like I pointed out earlier - Sandridge made the arguement that downtown OKC is so bad there wouldn't be anyway we will see development for 20 years. They did so as part of a plan to spend $100 million downtown. I don't know how they reconcile those two points of view.

We'll see what the future holds and we won't know if downtown OKC wins or losses for several years. If these lots are still vacant in 10 years I am going to call it a loss.

Has Sandridge ever said what they plan to do with the Braniff Building? A good time to ask was when their team was going through all the problems associated with Kerr-Mac and India Temple. What makes Braniff a better investment?

They actually DON"T have to keep the Braniff - this is a common misconception, but a private entity can tear down a National Register property without getting any kind of approval from anyone - SHPO can't stop them. National REgister status only stops the federal government. My guess is they chose to keep that building to show that they care about preservation, and because they thought it was the right thing to do PR-wise.

So you're saying we should be thanking SR for historic preservation?