No, but they show the roof off and some close ups of the brick facade.

Pics?

No, should have pulled out the cell phone, but completely blanked on it.

I had no idea it was this far along. I'll stop by each day after work. I actually got video yesterday after shooting around the block west of Devon to see how it looked. Didn't notice anything different at the time.

Clip from yesterday. Didn't notice anything different so I did not stop. Best viewed in 1080p.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEJ_W5B_Vis

Here are photos from today:

http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/sandridge30411.jpg

http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/indiatemple30411.jpg

What a monumental disaster this is.

Recorded this around 3pm today. Best viewed in 1080p.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X7rwNR8Sl0

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-1.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-2.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-3.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-4.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-5.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-6.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-7.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-8.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-9.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-10.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-11.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-12.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-13.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-6-11-14.jpg

Sickening

I noticed when the video finished, Youtube plays this video next:

Group Fights To Save OKC Downtown Buildings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlg0D6WD8m4

As I drove by, I couldn't help but think of some dude shaving his pubes to make himself look bigger. If this isn't a classic case of "look at me!", I don't know what is.

Kind of a strange way of putting it...

As sad as it is to see this building go, you really wonder how anyone could ever take a look at all that beautiful detailed stone and brick work and say, "Hey, let's go through a lot of trouble and considerable expense bolting on these hideous concrete panels. That will be much better."

It's really hard to understand the mindset of the owners and also the general populace who didn't seem to care.

As sad as it is to see this building go, you really wonder how anyone could ever take a look at all that beautiful detailed stone and brick work and say, "Hey, let's go through a lot of trouble and considerable expense bolting on these hideous concrete panels. That will be much better."

It's really hard to understand the mindset of the owners and also the general populace who didn't seem to care.

The fight was lost a long time ago when they butchered the building by putting the facade on in the first place. Sometimes once something is killed it can't be brought back to life. Time to quit blaming Sandridge.

The fight was lost a long time ago when they butchered the building by putting the facade on in the first place. Sometimes once something is killed it can't be brought back to life. Time to quit blaming Sandridge.

My opposition to the Sandridge Commons plan was based on the removal of buildings and having them replaced by flower beds. If I can't blame Sandridge for that, who can I blame?

I do have to wonder why they are tearing this building down from the inside out though.

I thought it was interesting in looking at those photos how haphazard some of the brickwork appears in an area where it appears an addition was made to the original columns.

I do have to wonder why they are tearing this building down from the inside out though.

Ummmm.....they didn't want folks to see what might really be underneath?

Seems like from the pics, the stone is all sawed off. So, I guess there wasn't anything to save.

I think we lost the battle by overemphasizing the historic merit of the buildings. The design review panel and the board of adjustment were more interested in the reactivation of the area, rather than the saving of old buildings. The density/urban design front may have been more effective than the preservation front, even though they are closely related.

I read the last 10 pages or so, on the most recent building being torn down, what was the purpose of adding a new facade? Was this part of a project to add new structural reinforcements to the floors?

If you haven't seen it already, you might want to checkout Steve Lackmeyer's most recent OkcCentral blog post (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/03/08/lone-sandridge-opponent-yanked-from-board-of-adjustment/), called, "Lone SandRidge Opponent Yanked from Board of Adjustment." It describes that the one member of the Board of Adjustment who opposed the SandRidge appeal got booted from office when Mayor Cornett declined to reappoint him.


David Wanzer, the only member of the city’s Board of Adjustment to oppose SandRidge Energy’s application to tear down three older buildings on its downtown campus. Mayor Mick Cornett chose not to appoint Wanzer for another term and instead appointed Mark Stonecipher in his place. Cornett reappointed the other two members up for new terms – Jim Allen and Michael Dunn, who both supported the SandRidge building demolition (the council gave its blessing to Cornett’s appointments).

Cornett declined to say why he was reappointing Dunn and Allen but chose not to reappointment Wanzer, citing his policy of not discussing appointments to boards and commissioners. Cornett’s predecessors Kirk Humphreys and Ron Norick on various occasions did discuss changes to boards (Humphreys was quite vocal in voicing his displeasure with former Riverfront Redevelopment board member Dusty Martin after Martin openly advocated on behalf of controversial property owner Moshe Tal).

Cornett’s authority to appoint and remove members from boards and commissions includes the MAPS citizens oversight board.
My stomach (gut, visceral) reaction is very upset about this -- I'm not sure that I'm being objective. I wonder (to myself), is the mayor so defensive as to chip out everyone on this and other boards who might be an independent thinker, or (2) am I over-reacting?

Since this particular board is an appeals board, is the mayor packing his court, or what?

Well said Doug, I agree

This, and other things, makes me wonder ... click on images for larger ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/whosgotthepower1s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/whosgotthepower1.jpg)

... or is this the pecking order ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/whosgotthepower2s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/whosgotthepower2.jpg)

... or something in between.

In quickly putting together this list, I recognize that the police & fire unions have pretty much trashed their power potential by and in the last 2 elections. But I thought they should be mentioned even if their ability to influence has been radically diminished.

I care less about that I do the relative position of what I've called "Citizen Voters," i.e. citizens who vote and excluding those who don't bother to do so.

As I said before, I may be over-reacting to Mayor Cornett's dismissal of David Wanzer as a member of the Board of Adjustment. But, if that was the only item in the city political milieu that distressed me, I'd probably not be making this comment.

I think you only have to look at who is driving events downtown in the last 10 years. Clearly Devon, Sandridge, Chesapeak, and others are driving everything. As long as they are going the same way I am going I am okay with that. It is when they fall asleep at the wheel and drift onto the should (taking out urban density) that I worry. No matter how much we brace for impact, it only reminds us that we are in the passenger seat. I am not sure I would include the Okahoma in with group 1. They are probably more of a group 2 entity.

Do we know if Wanzer wanted to continue with another term?

Has anyone spoken to Mr. Wanzer about this?

I think we lost the battle by overemphasizing the historic merit of the buildings. The design review panel and the board of adjustment were more interested in the reactivation of the area, rather than the saving of old buildings. The density/urban design front may have been more effective than the preservation front, even though they are closely related.

empty buildings that won't ever be renovated .. don't make density

doug

a couple of things .. the Mayor who we elected .appoints these boards with the approval of the council ... and the guy didn't get yanked .. his term ended ..

and on your power chart remember that 4a and number 5 are pretty much the same thing

This seems like it could be another play on words and dramatic sensationalism, "Yanked from BOA!".

For all we know, Wanzer had enough and wants no part of this committee.

Kerry, I included the Oklahoman as I did in the group largely because of David Thompson, president of the OPUBCO Communications Group and publisher of the Oklahoman, then being chairman of the Chamber and principal leader during the MAPS 3 campaign coupled with the Oklahoman's ownership and management's actual editing of at least one article which had been submitted by a reporter -- no, it was not an article submitted by Steve Lackmeyer but was communicated to me by a completely different source about which I am not at liberty to be more specific -- being substantially modified before it hit the press. Beyond that, certain matters about MAPS 3 were out-of-bounds to reporters during the campaign. That type of thing does not appear to have occurred during the original MAPS campaign. If one looks back at the MAPS 3 campaign, one will not find a single Oklahoman article which was truly probing or in depth about MAPS 3 and that was not the case during the original MAPS campaign, even though the Oklahoman was editorially aligned with the passage of original MAPS. In the MAPS 3 campaign, the boundary or firewall between (1) editorial position and (2) news reporting did not seem to exist. I am also aware at least one other relevant matter which, unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss.

okclee, no, I've not communicated with Wanzer and don't know if he wanted another term. However, had he not wanted another term, I doubt that Steve's post would have read, "Cornett declined to say why he was reappointing Dunn and Allen but chose not to reappointment Wanzer, citing his policy of not discussing appointments to boards and commissioners." Instead, the mayor would have more tamely reported, "David decided that he did not want to serve another term." Or so it seems to me. Tea leaves reading? Yes.

BoulderSooner, I understand that Wanzer didn't get fired, he just didn't get reappointed. See my reply to okclee, above. About 4a and 5 being pretty much the same thing, I guess you mean the Chamber & "Completely Invisible Interests." The reason that I differentiated, and put the Chamber in the "Semi-visible Interests" group was that some parts of the Chamber's operations, e.g. municipal election campaign handling, lobbying at the Legislature, are at least partially visible; on the other hand, the private meetings in group 5 are totally invisible to the public. Perhaps the Oklahoman and the Chamber should have dual listings in both groups 4 and 5. It does get a bit blurry.

Following up on his initial blog post, Steve has made another (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/03/09/who-is-mark-stonecipher/):


So Mayor Mick Cornett won’t say why he yanked David Wanzer from the Board of Adjustment. I am told Wanzer did not request to leave the board. I’m getting calls from the preservation crowd fearing Cornett yanked Wanzer because he cast the lone “no” vote to SandRidge Energy’s demolition of downtown buildings some deemed to be historic and worth saving (the demolition is the most extensive clearance of intact buildings since the heyday of Urban Renewal in the 1970s).

So far I can’t find anyone involved in this matter who is willing to deny this was retribution. We also know much longer serving members of the Board of Adjustment were reappointed (Wanzer only served two and one-half years).

So who is Mark Stonecipher?

Mark is an oil and gas attorney with Fellers Snider law firm.

Wow.

That's fine if people want to play the, "maybe Wanzer had enough and wanted to leave," card. Maybe, but maybe not. I'll trust Steve's reporting that Wanzer did not want to leave the board. Maybe he didn't care strongly, but the only other option is that he wanted to stay if he didn't want to leave. That logic right there. Furthermore, where it gets dubious is with the replacement. Consider the backgrounds of everyone else on the board.

With more downtown development looming -- especially Preftake's block -- this is troubling.

empty buildings that won't ever be renovated .. don't make density

Yes they do. Go stand at Robinson and Kerr and tell me if you think the area is just as dense as it was 12 months ago.

I am also aware at least one other relevant matter which, unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss.


Do we have to include you in Group 1 or 2 now? :Smiley259

The reason I though the Oklahoman might be a better #2 is because their agenda is not a secret. They publish it everyday.

Do we have to include you in Group 1 or 2 now? :Smiley259

The reason I though the Oklahoman might be a better #2 is because their agenda is not a secret. They publish it everyday.

Kerry, as to your 1st observation, all I can say is that "I wish." I'm still digesting your 2nd comment -- the issue I've presented about that delves into the difference, if any, of the Oklahoman's editorial position as it may impact upon its news reporting function. Unless the present-day Oklahoman would forthrightly say, "there is no difference," I have to assume that the Oklahoman would maintain that its owners/managers neither edit the stories of its news-gathering side nor do they inhibit its reporters to write about forbidden news topics. As I've said, I have good reason to doubt -- nay, to disbelieve and to deny -- that either premise is truthful, and I am convinced that both such premises are not.

By reason of my blog postings, I occasionally receive private e-mails from sources which specifically request that they not be identified. Most often, they foolishly assume that to be the case when conferring information in the same message in which they also say, to the effect, "This is off the record -- please keep this between us." I say "foolishly" because, before the messages were sent, I do not/did not even know who these people are, nor they me -- so why should they assume me to be trustworthy to keep their confidences? They were obviously making a leap of faith which, were I a bad guy, could have ended very badly for them.

Even if they were foolish, they got lucky. I'm not a bad guy. I invariably honor those requests, even if they were not preceded by a prior communication by a message such as, "I have some pertinent information to tell you, but only if will you promise to keep it secret if I tell you what it is."

My firm policy, never ever varied from, is that EVEN IF I don't receive such a preliminary conditional message I NEVER PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF A PRIVATE E-MAIL MESSAGE UNLESS the sender specifically authorizes me to do so. I've never done that and I never will. Period. End of paragraph.

That is all I have to say about that. There is obviously more that I would like to say but I will not do so. And this is neither the 1st nor the last time that that will be true.

empty buildings that won't ever be renovated .. don't make density

That statement takes a crystal ball. I'm glad that ball wasn't used when bricktown was left empty for 30+ years.

What's interesting is that we pretty much owe that fact that we actually have hope for a viable city core to emerge within in the next 20 years to a group of buildings that should have been torn down long ago based on the arguments that are used every time someone wants to tear down an old building here. It took just a few people to take a chance on some old un-savable, un-renovatable, and unfeasible properties to show that downtown still had some potential, most of it in some of its oldest buildings that no one cared about. In doing so, they eventually inspired the beginning of a city's renaissance that has seen more public and private investment and development than it had seen in the 20 years prior. It even gave people the ability to envision the possibility that their home city, so often maligned as a dusty forgotten has-been, could regain regional importance and agreed to tax themselves several times in order to achieve that goal. Really, without the sputtering emergence of bricktown in its early days, who knows if anyone could have been convinced that anyone would ever want to live and work in downtown Oklahoma City again, let alone visit it as a tourist or convention goer. I find it hard to imagine that Oklahoma City would have made the strides that is has if the historical architectural assets now known as bricktown were razed as they should have been if such decisions were made based on what their viability was just a few decades ago. That fact that this is still lost on so many in the city when it comes to developmental planning is pretty astounding actually. Instead of trying to build upon the success of our one major revitalization project by carrying that model forward into other developmental polices, we still continue to support tactics of disposable development that have never done anything but harm to the city as a whole in the long term.

empty buildings that won't ever be renovated .. don't make density

If they would be renovated or not is certainly open to debate. The record indicates there were plans by previous owners to sell and do just that but when the company was sold, those plans fell through. Subsequent owners weren't interested in selling. They purposely chose to leave the buildings vacant.

Seems like you are suggesting the best way to eliminate the renovation "problem" is to make sure there is nothing to renovate. Once a building is gone, it is gone. How does that lead to density any more than a park?

That statement takes a crystal ball. I'm glad that ball wasn't used when bricktown was left empty for 30+ years.

What's interesting is that we pretty much owe that fact that we actually have hope for a viable city core to emerge within in the next 20 years to a group of buildings that should have been torn down long ago based on the arguments that are used every time someone wants to tear down an old building here. It took just a few people to take a chance on some old un-savable, un-renovatable, and unfeasible properties to show that downtown still had some potential, most of it in some of its oldest buildings that no one cared about. In doing so, they eventually inspired the beginning of a city's renaissance that has seen more public and private investment and development than it had seen in the 20 years prior. It even gave people the ability to envision the possibility that their home city, so often maligned as a dusty forgotten has-been, could regain regional importance and agreed to tax themselves several times in order to achieve that goal. Really, without the sputtering emergence of bricktown in its early days, who knows if anyone could have been convinced that anyone would ever want to live and work in downtown Oklahoma City again, let alone visit it as a tourist or convention goer. I find it hard to imagine that Oklahoma City would have made the strides that is has if the historical architectural assets now known as bricktown were razed as they should have been if such decisions were made based on what their viability was just a few decades ago. That fact that this is still lost on so many in the city when it comes to developmental planning is pretty astounding actually. Instead of trying to build upon the success of our one major revitalization project by carrying that model forward into other developmental polices, we still continue to support tactics of disposable development that have never done anything but harm to the city as a whole in the long term.

:tiphat: Think it was over in Steve's blog where he talked about the "Lost Bricktown" where we did indeed tear it all down in the name of Urban Renewal etc. There may have even been a video drive by of the remaining buildings in the area (seems most of those are slated for remoaval with MAPS 3/Core to Shore Park area if I remember correctly. Steve???

Just got back from doing video of the site. I'll have it up later.

From reviewing the video, it looks to me like they're destroying it from the inside out. They're not pulling the facade off from the outside like I sort of assumed. It's impossible to see what the outside under the concrete looks like.

From reviewing the video, it looks to me like they're destroying it from the inside out. They're not pulling the facade off from the outside like I sort of assumed. It's impossible to see what the outside under the concrete looks like.

I've never seen a building demolished in this way and it only contributes to the suspicion that SR doesn't want people to see what is under the facade.

I guess we can safely assume the original facade is still under there. If it wasn't then they would just bring in the wrecking ball and do it the traditional way.

I'll have a short clip and screencaps up shortly. You can see a worker jack-hammering some old brickwork and pulling it off in chunks behind a window.

Several people mentioned some sheared-off stonework as evidence that the old build was ruined beyond recognition but from what I saw, it was just a ledge that trimmed back to accommodate those hideous concrete panels.

I'm quite sure that wouldn't be difficult to repair. If you recall, there were similar issues when they pealed off the facade that had been bolted to the lower levels of the Skirvin.

We'll never know but I didn't see anything in those pictures that couldn't have been fixed.

View in 1080p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3MTOPfxd4

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-1.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-2.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-3.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-4.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-5.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-6.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-7.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-8.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-9.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-10.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-11.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-12.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-13.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-14.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-15.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-16.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-17.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-10-11-18.jpg

Is it me, or would it be a lot cheaper to bring in a wrecking ball to bring the building down? It seems like paying per man hour to take out individual beams and walls at this slow pace would be a waste of time and add unnecessary expense. Wonder why?

Read post 2267

That's dumb. If they used a wrecking ball or pulled it down like the other buildings you would even be less likely to see what is behind the concrete, everything would come down in a heap. Have you ever seen a wrecking ball demolition? No offense but everything isn't a conspiracy. This thread is getting a little ridiculous.

That's dumb. If they used a wrecking ball or pulled it down like the other buildings you would even be less likely to see what is behind the concrete, everything would come down in a heap. Have you ever seen a wrecking ball demolition? No offense but everything isn't a conspiracy. This thread is getting a little ridiculous.


No conspiracy here. Just an honest question as to the finances of destruction. Just wondering if there could be a cost savings I'm not seeing.

That's dumb. If they used a wrecking ball or pulled it down like the other buildings you would even be less likely to see what is behind the concrete, everything would come down in a heap. Have you ever seen a wrecking ball demolition? No offense but everything isn't a conspiracy. This thread is getting a little ridiculous.

So why are they going through the time and expense of dismantaling this building from the inside out instead of with a wrecking ball like the other buildings? BTW - we have seen a wrecking ball tear down a building. They just did it a few hundered feet from this building and you could see a lot. They didn't just hit the building one time and it all fell down. It wasn't an implosion.

I doubt smashing into a wall, knocking out chunks of it at a time would be any different in what it revealed of the old facade. If anything taking it apart piece by piece reveals more and gives everyone more time to look at what could be behind the panels. Sandridge is already tearing the building down and had approval to do so, and has already anger a few people in the process. Why would they go through unnecessary expense to keep from angering that group of people more? No offense but they have the people they need on there side, I don't think the opinion of people on this board or the few 100 to 1000 people that actually care that they are tearing them down really matter to them. Definitely not enough to spent more money to avoid upsetting those people. Sandridge is tearing down likely because it would have been extremely expensive to renovate and make economical again, so why would they spend more than they needed to when tearing it down just to keep from upsetting a few people that were already mad anyway.

It may not have been as easy to take it apart the way they did the other buildings. I read that the biltmore was very difficult to implode because of the way it was constructed. This building was the only brick and mortar building on the sandridge campus and had been reinforced with that ugly concrete in the 60s. The temple building seemed much more sturdy than the other buildings, so it probably is more cost effective and feasible to take it apart piece by piece.

I personally think this is a little overblown. Especially with all the conspiracy theories people keep dreaming up. I am very aware and upset by what happened to downtown in the 60s and 70s. I think about it everytime I'm there and it really sucks, but at the same time I have thought that block was horrendous looking unlike anything else downtown since I was old enough to have my own opinions. It looked like a relic of the cold war and very little could be done to change that without doing something drastic. For good reason, everyone is petrified of tearing buildings down, but I think keeping density for density's sake or keeping buildings of no architectural relevance just because they are old, is a little ridiculous. Those buildings were ugly, abandoned, and dilapidated. Nothing had happened with them in years and it wasn't going to (please dont bring up bricktown to counter this, those wearhouses may have been all of the above but were archtecturally relevant).

And while everyone keeps bashing sandridge, it is a good company that is growing very quickly. Who is to say that in 5 to 10 years they won't be expanding and building other buildings on the plaza everyone is so upset about. They are already building one building. Tom ward founded chesapeake, which almost has it's own zip code now. It expanded from a handfull of employees in the early 90s to close to 10,000 today. Tom ward has decided to build sandridge up instead of out. I fully expect more buildings to be built there in the next 5 to 10 years. I see this move as one to make the tower/campus not look like crap in the mean time.

Everyone needs to chill out on the negativity here, I have decided to trust the opinions of the independent experts that decided that the temple build couldn't be restored. What kerrMcGee did to it is awful but regardless it is over and we can't go back and fix it. this may temporarily reduce density but it will hardly make a dent in the view of the skyline and will immediately make that area look better than it could have even by renovating those buildings. And the granite building will now be renovated, the renovated dowell building will actually show up on the skyline instead of the ugly concrete parking structure/building that covers it now, and now sandridge will have room to expand after their tower is full and the property won't be an eyesore in the meantime.if These buildings were the preftakes block, I would be kicking and screaming, but the city seems to have finally over the last 20 years begun to understand archetectural relevance and have saved a number of buildings. I think we can trust theyre judgement. This isn't the end of the world, downtown will come out better from this.

Braniff building*

Love auto correct

Well said and I agree with you completely. Oh, and Phi Alpha to you as well :)

UnFrSaKn - Are you taking all these pictures from the street? If so, pop on up to the top of the Kerr Broadway garage. You can practically have a conversation with the people doing the work, you get so close. Well, you would have to yell, but still, very close. Right up on them.

...Why would they go through unnecessary expense to keep from angering that group of people more? No offense but they have the people they need on there side, I don't think the opinion of people on this board or the few 100 to 1000 people that actually care that they are tearing them down really matter to them. Definitely not enough to spent more money to avoid upsetting those people.
But if they spend the money to disguise what would be obvious to everyone...


...Sandridge is tearing down likely because it would have been extremely expensive to renovate and make economical again, so why would they spend more than they needed to when tearing it down just to keep from upsetting a few people that were already mad anyway.
That is debatable as there were plans that fell thru at the last minute to renovate the buildings when Kerr-McGee owned it. Subsequent owners deliberately chose for it to remain empty and weren't interested in selling it.


...I personally think this is a little overblown. Especially with all the conspiracy theories people keep dreaming up. I am very aware and upset by what happened to downtown in the 60s and 70s. I think about it everytime I'm there and it really sucks, but at the same time I have thought that block was horrendous looking unlike anything else downtown since I was old enough to have my own opinions. It looked like a relic of the cold war and very little could be done to change that without doing something drastic. For good reason, everyone is petrified of tearing buildings down, but I think keeping density for density's sake or keeping buildings of no architectural relevance just because they are old, is a little ridiculous. Those buildings were ugly, abandoned, and dilapidated. Nothing had happened with them in years and it wasn't going to (please dont bring up bricktown to counter this, those wearhouses may have been all of the above but were archtecturally relevant).
It wasn't just old but the oldest standing downtown structure. Granted the facade was nothing to write home about but even the glimpses we can see in the pics in this thread of the original building... Also, don't forget the historical nature of the building as it served as the home of the Legislature while the Capitol was being constructed.


...And while everyone keeps bashing sandridge, it is a good company that is growing very quickly. Who is to say that in 5 to 10 years they won't be expanding and building other buildings on the plaza everyone is so upset about. They are already building one building. Tom ward founded chesapeake, which almost has it's own zip code now. It expanded from a handfull of employees in the early 90s to close to 10,000 today. Tom ward has decided to build sandridge up instead of out. I fully expect more buildings to be built there in the next 5 to 10 years. I see this move as one to make the tower/campus not look like crap in the mean time.
Fine, in 5 or 10 years when they have outgrown their current buildings, THEN let them demolish and rebuild something in its place. No need for yet another underutilized plaza in the area. there are already 5 or 6 such things in the immediate area.


...Everyone needs to chill out on the negativity here, I have decided to trust the opinions of the independent experts that decided that the temple build couldn't be restored.
What INDEPENDENT experts have expressed their opinion? We have the paid SandRidge experts and the experts for the preservationist side (don't know if they were paid or not).


...What kerrMcGee did to it is awful but regardless it is over and we can't go back and fix it. ...

Certainly not now that the building is being dismantled. Once the building is gone, it is gone. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

Actually, SandRidge understands it very well.

My theory without any substantial reason is that they are demolishing it this way to resell the historic building materials.

That would be one redeeming aspect if true.

My theory without any substantial reason is that they are demolishing it this way to resell the historic building materials.

Here is the winning post as to why they are taking it down piece by piece.

Except they are still smashing all the ornamental stone and brick work, which would be the only things worth saving.

Seventh floor parking garage view of India Temple coming up soon...

Wow, found what I was looking for.

July 1962
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/NW2ndStJuly1962.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/NW2ndStJuly1962-2.jpg

1080p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHkIZho0-yk

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-1.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-2.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-3.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-4.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-5.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-6.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-7.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-8.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-9.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-10.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-11.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-12.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-13.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-14.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-15.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-16.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/SandRidge%20Commons/India%20Temple%20Demolition/IndiaTempleDemolition3-12-11-17.jpg