I saw the S&L this morning, thought about taking a phone-photo, but didn't because it was so ugly. It was mostly demolished, with only a little left on the 1st & 2nd floors, as I recall.

Hmmmm, can they go down to the Mummer's theater now? ;).

I assume that building is now completely demolished?

Anyone have pictures?
I took several photos this morning. Here they are.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_01.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_02.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_03.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_04.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_04_crop.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_05.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_06.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_07.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_08.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_09.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_10.jpg

Also, see today's blog post, A Tale of Two Energies (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/12/tale-of-two-energies.html).

Wow. This is almost as hideous as those botched abortion billboards that the religious nuts drive around. It's the abortion of downtown. Drove by today and I couldn't even bear to look, and I second Doug's sentiments toward the people who let this happen, along with my choice words to describe what I am seeing.

Then I wanted to throw objects at the TV the other night when I saw SandRidge's new commercials during the Thunder game, bragging about how SandRidge is improving the environment by planting trees in downtown Oklahoma City (I think that's the claim, verbatim). Absolutely unbelievable. I just sort of stared and was at a loss..

But look at the improved sight line to the Tower!

Oh wait, this is where they are going to build their fitness center?

Never mind.

Though I think you know, Larry (and were merely being appropriately facetious), the photos I took don't show the south side of R.S. Kerr, where the old Petroleum Club building is located and where the fitness center is set to be built.

When I contemplated SandRidge's own billboard slogans in the photo below, a mix of thoughts and emotions were experienced ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge_2010_12_18_04_crop.jpg

... energy to teach ... energy to challenge. Oh, the irony.

Deleted

Ironic that Mark Beffort was one of the experts that testified that the KerMac didn't have large enough floorplates to be economically feasible as apartments...and I'm pretty sure City Place's floorplates are even smaller.

For the first time in a long time, I am ashamed of OKC for allowing this to happen. Despite the valiant efforts of many people on this blog, the power of corporate greed and apathy has won again. 50 years from now, (or maybe just 5 if Sandridge is bought out and assigned to the dust bins of history), those responsible for allowing this travesty will say "what did we do?". To no avail.....

Usually I'm a pretty good sport and not an asshole, but when that happens, whether I'm 50 or 26, I intend to seek out all of SR's enablers and give them a pretty big dose of told ya so..

I worked at Kerr-McGee for about seven years. I worked in the IT department. Our data center was in the Plaza building which was directly North of the 111 building (the India Temple building). To get to the data center we had to go through the 111 Building. Boy I had a lot of bad times in that 111 Building. The 111 Building was in pretty bad shape. Whenever Kerr-McGee moved heavy computer equipment in or out of the data center they had to put in temporary floor supports in the 111 Building so the floor wouldn't fall in. My opinion about the 111 Building is that it was ruined a long time ago. It was seedy and depressing. That was where they officed the IRS Auditors if that tells you anything.

I worked at Kerr-McGee for about seven years. I worked in the IT department. Our data center was in the Plaza building which was directly North of the 111 building (the India Temple building). To get to the data center we had to go through the 111 Building. Boy I had a lot of bad times in that 111 Building. The 111 Building was in pretty bad shape. Whenever Kerr-McGee moved heavy computer equipment in or out of the data center they had to put in temporary floor supports in the 111 Building so the floor wouldn't fall in. My opinion about the 111 Building is that it was ruined a long time ago. It was seedy and depressing. That was where they officed the IRS Auditors if that tells you anything.

I'm not an OKC resident but work down here...but to me in most cases there are none on this board that would support tearing down anything. It seems that the sentiment is that we made mistakes in the past tearing down buildings, so any further demolition must be a mistake too. I would think that would not be true. Obviously you have to take some you have to leave some. I'll be crucified for saying this but oh well..

But you never take into account that most here aren't just straight up opposed to demolition 'just because' like you make it seem. Rather, they're opposed to a demolition that's going to result in a loss of urban fabric and a lower use than what it potentially could be. A plaza instead of a building just isn't equal. Whether they decided to build a new structure in it's replacement or somehow managed to revitalize the original building itself, no matter how unrealistic that was. They selfishly shed the urban fabric of downtown OKC and they have no intention of replacing it but with yet another un-needed park downtown. The decrepit buildings just kind of conveniently fit into their plan to make a suburban campus out of what they inherited.

Crucified? You decide. I think not.

But you never take into account that most here aren't just straight up opposed to demolition 'just because' like you make it seem. Rather, they're opposed to a demolition that's going to result in a loss of urban fabric and a lower use than what it potentially could be. A plaza instead of a building just isn't equal. Whether they decided to build a new structure in it's replacement or somehow managed to revitalize the original building itself, no matter how unrealistic that was. They selfishly shed the urban fabric of downtown OKC and they have no intention of replacing it but with yet another un-needed park downtown. The decrepit buildings just kind of conveniently fit into their plan to make a suburban campus out of what they inherited.

Crucified? You decide. I think not.

I'm not stating my opinion on this project....I honestly don't know enough about it to weigh in....I was more commenting on KellyC's post. I just disappoints me sometimes that it seems that a lot of the arguments go one way on here on some of this stuff.

I will comment on your "un-needed" park comment though...it seems that many of the people who were against this demolition were for maps 3...which creates a park or two. I'm not sure what constitutes an "un-needed park". Could you clarify this?

I'm not stating my opinion on this project....I honestly don't know enough about it to weigh in....I was more commenting on KellyC's post. I just disappoints me sometimes that it seems that a lot of the arguments go one way on here on some of this stuff.

I will comment on your "un-needed" park comment though...it seems that many of the people who were against this demolition were for maps 3...which creates a park or two. I'm not sure what constitutes an "un-needed park". Could you clarify this?

Yes, I would like to know as well. This building was not on the National List of Historic Buildings. It's been run down and dilapidated so I don't see any difference between it and the buildings that will be torn down to make way for our new super park in the Core to Shore project! The only argument that I can find is that it's in the CBD so therefore it makes it look less filling from certain angles. I think it will be nice to have some green space in this part of downtown and I think a 21st century design will look a lot better in this spot then the ugly duckling that is being demolished now.

Many urbanist in this forum are so extreme about their beliefs that I am starting to see them as the urban equivilents to the Westro Baptist Church.

Popsy, Popsy, Popsy ... I've not seen this thread as a place to reinvent the discourse that is by now history, and I'll avoid the temptation to alter the focus of this thread except to say that your comment, and perhaps others, suggests that,

Some here are opposed to destroying any old building, no matter what
Some here are opposed to new downtown parks, no matter where
Some here are opposed to corporate entities using their elbow grease to force upon the city their own agendas regardless of what city ordinances might provide.

All of the above suggestions, except for perhaps the last (and only then because you did not bring it up), are crap and are beneath the level of many of your other posts which have less of a stereotype tendency.

Now, unless you really want to delve back into the immediate past history, which I see no need to do since what is done is done, I suggest that you just let it go.

Or not and we who are so inclined can renew the flaming once again.

By the way, what is the "Westro Baptist Church?" Not being a member, or even particularly or even necessarily Christian, I was wondering what "label" you were possibly attributing to me or those who might be inclined to see this matter more or less like I do -- all of us being apparently being assigned to being akin to the religious right by your concoction. Is that type of description really what you want to make?

Many urbanist in this forum are so extreme about their beliefs that I am starting to see them as the urban equivilents to the Westro Baptist Church.

At this point all you can say is look in the mirror, O' anti-urban equivalent of Keith Olbermann.

Doug,

There was no intent to include you as anyone I was referencing. Westbro Baptist Church, if I am spelling it correctly, is the small family dominated church in Topeka, KS that pickets at the funerals of military personnel. They are extreme in their dedication to their cause. My comparison, which may have been a poor one, was an attempt to compare the extremism I see in a few of the forum's urbanist. It was not intended as a slam at all.

Westborough

Doug,

There was no intent to include you as anyone I was referencing. Westbro Baptist Church, if I am spelling it correctly, is the small family dominated church in Topeka, KS that pickets at the funerals of military personnel. They are extreme in their dedication to their cause. My comparison, which may have been a poor one, was an attempt to compare the extremism I see in a few of the forum's urbanist. It was not intended as a slam at all.
Ok.

If only McDermid would've had his way. This all could've been prevented, and these buildings could've been turned into upscale condos and apartments.

Westborough

Actually, it's Westboro.

The Westbro Baptist Church actually sounds really cool. And the Eastsista Baptist Church, the Northdaddy Baptist Church, and the Southmama Baptist Church. It's like N'awlins!! Lmao. Wherever there's da hood, there's a member of the family of churches...

Many urbanist in this forum are so extreme about their beliefs that I am starting to see them as the urban equivilents to the Westro Baptist Church.

I think in some ways your comparison is ridiculous and in some ways correct ... I was rather discusted about the comparison to Anti-Abortion signs to tearing down a building.

Really I would just like to have more discussion from different points of view is all - what good can come from this, etc.... and by discussion I don't mean personal attacks, etc.

The more I've read about this the more I realize that maybe tearing down these structures was probably the right call. It appears that the structures were beyond refurbishing based on reports from former employees at Kerr McGee and folks that actually went on the tour of these buildings. Structurally both Kerr Mac and India Temple weren't sound. I would liked to have seen them pull off the facade on India Temple to see what was underneath before they decided to destroy it. If indeed the historical facade was intact, I could see trying to refurbish it, but if all elements of the facade had been sawed off, I could see just demolishing it. Just because a building is old, doesn't mean it's historically significant. I definitely don't think there was anything historically pleasing about the KerrMac buildings. And in the end, maybe McDermid saw that. Regarding his comment, I think that might be due to uncertainty about what's really behind the facade on the India Temple Building. It will be interesting to see what the India Temple Building looks like when they start demolishing it. I would think that if these structures really were historically significant, Bob Blackburn would've stated so. I trust his judgement, even if he didn't tour the structures first-hand.

Some of you just don't get the bigger picture. It wasn't JUST about the demolitions and the buildings being historic or whatever.

Some of you just don't get the bigger picture. It wasn't JUST about the demolitions and the buildings being historic or whatever.

Sadly they never will Arch2010. Some people see old scraps of cloth and others see Dolly Parton's Coat of Many Colors.



I recall a box of rags that someone gave us
And how my momma put the rags to use
There were rags of many colors
Every piece was small
And I didn't have a coat
And it was way down in the fall
Momma sewed the rags together
Sewin every piece with love
She made my coat of many colors
That I was so proud of


More lyrics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dolly+parton/#share

Some of you just don't get the bigger picture. It wasn't JUST about the demolitions and the buildings being historic or whatever.

So... enlighten - rather than just bash people, explain your position (beyond the factors mentioned above). I would like more information.

Actually, it's Westboro.

That's how I spelled it at first but it looked funny to me, just like their wack a$$ congregation...


Some of you just don't get the bigger picture. It wasn't JUST about the demolitions and the buildings being historic or whatever.

Waiting...

So... enlighten - rather than just bash people, explain your position (beyond the factors mentioned above). I would like more information.

It doesn't matter - the buildings are coming down. In 5 years when there are not Sandridge employees frolicking in the urban sanctuary wearing togas and thinking deep thoughts (which is exactly how the project was sold) we will say "we told you so".

So... enlighten - rather than just bash people, explain your position (beyond the factors mentioned above). I would like more information.

:yeahthat:

I think the point he/she is trying to make is that the point wasn't that they were historically significant. The point is that the buildings are being demolished and no new structures are going in their place. Well, I can see that point. But, also realize that those buildings were hindering the public's presence and blocking people-flow. Opening up that space does reduce density but it also opens up the area more for pedestrians. It encourages people to get out and meander the plaza and gardens. There can be too much density, so much that it chokes off the flow of pedestrians. I think that was the case with the Kerr McGee complex.

It doesn't matter - the buildings are coming down. In 5 years when there are not Sandridge employees frolicking in the urban sanctuary wearing togas and thinking deep thoughts (which is exactly how the project was sold) we will say "we told you so".

Not sure we'll say "we told you so" about the buildings being demolished. Apparently the buildings weren't the most structurally sound and it would've taken millions to remove asbestos in the KerrMac building. With the state KerrMac was in, it would've been costly to refurbish, and I'm just not so sure there was enough historically significant architecture there to save. I think the main problem rests with the buildings not being replaced.

I mean Tannenbaum and McDermid both wanted to put housing in those buildings, but both admitted later that the proprerties had been so severely neglected from a structural standpoint that the cost of renovating them was really prohibitive. You could compare this to the Skirvin, but at least the Skirvin has some pretty significant architecture there.

Opening up that space does reduce density but it also opens up the area more for pedestrians. It encourages people to get out and meander the plaza and gardens. There can be too much density, so much that it chokes off the flow of pedestrians. I think that was the case with the Kerr McGee complex.

And when the employees don't frolick in the urban sanctuary wearing togas and thinking deep thoughts we will tell you we told you so.

Yeah, I would have been happy with a few tree wells. It's the street on which I used to walk west to the Art Museum and surrounds and the sidewalks were fine. I'd rather shop than meander and I suspect there won't be kiosks in the plaza.

It doesn't matter - the buildings are coming down. In 5 years when there are not Sandridge employees frolicking in the urban sanctuary wearing togas and thinking deep thoughts (which is exactly how the project was sold) we will say "we told you so".

This is why it is impossible to have a decent discussion here....what kind of argument is that? I don't believe I ever said anything about Togas...You have an opinion about something. Having an opinion doesn't necessarily constitute a logical argument, which to mean should allow you the possibility of thinking that perhaps the other side could be right...

This is why it is impossible to have a decent discussion here....what kind of argument is that? I don't believe I ever said anything about Togas...You have an opinion about something. Having an opinion doesn't necessarily constitute a logical argument, which to mean should allow you the possibility of thinking that perhaps the other side could be right...

You must not have heard Sandridge's justification for requesting approval of Sandridge Commons.

Not sure we'll say "we told you so" about the buildings being demolished. Apparently the buildings weren't the most structurally sound and it would've taken millions to remove asbestos in the KerrMac building. With the state KerrMac was in, it would've been costly to refurbish, and I'm just not so sure there was enough historically significant architecture there to save. I think the main problem rests with the buildings not being replaced.

I mean Tannenbaum and McDermid both wanted to put housing in those buildings, but both admitted later that the
proprerties had been so severely neglected from a structural standpoint that the cost of renovating them was really
prohibitive. You could compare this to the Skirvin, but at least the Skirvin has some pretty significant architecture there.

You realize they have to remove the asbestos either way don't you?

You realize they have to remove the asbestos either way don't you?

Hmmmm...didn't realize that.

The removal either is is the way I have come to understand it...had to be removed from the old Mercy site before they tore it down and think it caused a delay in the old post office building (in the path of MAPS 3 "Park")

I mean Tannenbaum and McDermid both wanted to put housing in those buildings, but both admitted later that the proprerties had been so severely neglected from a structural standpoint that the cost of renovating them was really prohibitive.

This statement is incorrect. I spoke to both men. Tanenbaum was briefly interested in the Braniff and the Capitol Savings & Loan buildings, and yes, he later changed his mind about their feasibility. But McDermid was convinced through the end that both buildings could and should be renovated and that it wasn't prohibitive to do so. And it was McDermid who was on verge of doing just that before Kerr-McGee killed their agreement.

This statement is incorrect. I spoke to both men. Tanenbaum was briefly interested in the Braniff and the Capitol Savings & Loan buildings, and yes, he later changed his mind about their feasibility. But McDermid was convinced through the end that both buildings could and should be renovated and that it wasn't prohibitive to do so. And it was McDermid who was on verge of doing just that before Kerr-McGee killed their agreement.

Was McDermid's interest in the preserving the building itself, increasing density downtown, as a revenue property? Seems to me with so many vacant areas downtown that with his apparent commitment to creating downtown residential and maybe for developing with density downtown that he could still do so if he was really interested and capable of doing so. For the same cost he could build an architecturally significant residential property downtown. Rather than rue the fact it didn't work out for this building, why not go ahead and do something positive.

Sometimes the opportunity that isn't happening is romanticized and only SEEMs to be better than the one staring you in the face. The answer to making these old buildings more valuable is to build up the city around it to drive up the demand and value.

McDermid's interest was as a partner in a development group that had a sale contract w/ Kerr-McGee, had spent two years working on designs for conversion to housing, getting a TIF allocation for an attached garage, was wrapping up financing and, in his eyes, had the rug pulled out from the project when Kerr-McGee was sold to Anadarko Petroleum.
Name other buildings of this size in the CBD that are empty and available for conversion to housing.
On the flip side, McDermid and his partners never appeared eager to tackle the India Temple building ...

You must not have heard Sandridge's justification for requesting approval of Sandridge Commons.

Perhaps - What I don't like is when someone on this board may want to look from other viewpoints, they are attacked as though they are the enemy...

Regardless of what Sandridge said, I am certain there are probably some decent arguments for both directions.

Hmmmm...didn't realize that. yep, its not as if they can tear the building down and let asbestos fly everywhere. Asbestos abatement always has to be done either way. Don't you remember recently that people were questioning the cost of abatement on the old red cross building on 10th, then after it was done, it torn down. Same thing here.

Perhaps - What I don't like is when someone on this board may want to look from other viewpoints, they are attacked as though they are the enemy...

Regardless of what Sandridge said, I am certain there are probably some decent arguments for both directions.

I'll tell you what, in 5 years if Sandridge employees are seen frolicking daily in the plaza and the sight lines to Sandridge Tower are the talk of the town you can tell me, "I told you so".

Not sure how the sight lines of Sandridge Tower are going to be anything of importance. The building is not that aesthetically pleasing.

Exactly his point.

Here is a recent photo:

http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/sandridge1-15-11.jpg

Does anyone know where I can find a graphic of all the buildings that will be demolished? I know Pete or someone posted one awhile back, but I can't find it.

I have one, I think I posted it along time ago, it's the official one from Preservation Oklahoma, I can post it again but don't have a scanner.

Here is something I did a while ago...

D & C are goners and I think the west parking structure has been taken down as well. E (Braniff) will stay but A & B are to be razed at some point.

http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/Sandridge1.jpg

Pete, yes the west parking is gone, drove by on Monday.

Pete, yes E is gone, drove by on Monday.

Wow, Metro... they tore down the Braniff? Maybe you should drive by again and double check.

It was a typo, I meant west parking, thus why I made the edit.

I wish they would accidentally demolish the AT&T behemoth that has few, if any, windows. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't miss it.

I wish they would accidentally demolish the AT&T behemoth that has few, if any, windows. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't miss it.

You'll miss it when you can't make a phone call.

It was a typo, I meant west parking, thus why I made the edit.

You're welcome. I'm pretty familiar with downtown.

Why can't they just pull the facade off the India Temple Building and see what's underneath before they demolish it and find out later that their suspicions that the ornate detail had been sawed off weren't in fact true?

I wish they would accidentally demolish the AT&T behemoth that has few, if any, windows. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't miss it.

I wouldn't miss it either! It's so horrid.