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

Downtown does have parks and open space. You can't look at downtown OKC the same way you look at other parts of town due to the shear concentration of people. If you place 50,000 people in 100 sq blocks and don't make it 'pedestrian friendly' how do you propose people get around downtown?

Not butting up to the road might not make something a bad project, but it is a violation of city code in downtown.

Spartan. Your definition of what development is baffles me. In my world development encompasses a lot more. Was Myriad Gardens not a development. Was the new federal campus not a development. They are downtown and none of the buildings come out to the sidewalk. Neither do the Cox Convention Center, the Ford Center or the Fidelity Bank, if that is what it is still named. I have never seen any pedestrian having a problem navigating past them. Seems to me that once those old worthless buildings are torn down, whatever is built in their place would be a development as in Sandridge developed an aesthetically pleasing plaza to compliment their campus.

Why do so many in this forum want to see OKC look and be like New York City or Chicago? I personally would like OKC be it's own unique city as much as it can be.

Because New York City and Chicago are amazing world known urban cities and they are models to follow. Every city wants to be them, however, we will never be like them and that's not a surprising thought or depressing thought. We're OKC. But do we want to be a sprawling, anti-urban, and pedestrian unfriendly city? Is that what you mean by a unique city? Because that is not attractive to anyone at all except suburbanites. That's where the problem lies, this city is a mix of urbanites, suburbanites, and the inbetween, let's make OKC a desireable place for every group of people, not just one. I may be interpreting your side all wrong because I'm late to this thread, but this downtown is a historically urban streetscape. I don't know why anyone may think it's okay to put anti-urban developments in an urban setting. It's a paradox. One plaza might be okay, add another, add the Stage Center, the proposed Chamber Building, Lower Bricktown, knock down our remaing streetwall, add some more superblocks like the Cox that you mentioned, and you are negatively affecting the urban fabric of this city more and more. It is not okay, whether or not we're NYC, Chicago, Dallas, or Denver. It is not okay.

A-10. When you ask "do we want to be a sprawling, anti-urban, and pedestrian unfriendly city" I am wondering who falls into the "we" part of your question. I would imagine that a huge majority of the residents in OKC could care less what happens in downtown OKC as it relates to plazas or old unuseable buildings that no longer have a useful life other than to provide a street wall for the purist of urbanists. I am not an urban purist, but I am not anti-urban either. I am for companies that want to add to downtown OKC in a way that would be pleasing to the majority of the residents. I greatly respect Devon and Sandridge for what they are doing downtown and I expect city management to be helpful to both as long as they come up with quality projects. Also, I do not agree with you that every city wants to be like New York or Chicago, but feel free to make up your facts as you go. I would probably agree with you that it is not "okay" for your vision and that of a few others in this forum, for the urban fabric to be affected by Sandridge's demolition of four old empty buildings, whose sole purpose at present is to provide streetwall, and the building of a plaza to replace them. Fortunately, it is not your, mine or this forum's decision to decide if it is "okay" or not. It will be interesting however to watch the process.

Popsy,

You are in the minority. The destruction of buildings downtown has been the downfall for the urban environment of downtown OKC. Historically OKC had a thriving downtown, until Urban Renewal went threw and destroyed many buildings and rerouted streets. The result is a lifeless downtown.

So, more destruction of buildings downtown should have knee jerk reaction for everyone in OKC that wants to re-establish the vibrant downtown that used to be here.

That is all we want. If we can save those buildings and have them reused for residential. Then we can bring more people to downtown, which will bring more retail etc.

My problem is that people think Sandridge is a massive company that can afford to all of this. They are not! Chesapeake and Devon are massive companies. Sandridge is a fraction the size and is not in a financial situation to do this. If nat gas prices were higher I wouldn't be saying this, but prices in the long run are not looking good.

Also a strong urban core makes for a strong city. NYC isn't just Manhattan, it is Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, etc. If Manhattan does well so do the other burroughs. Same with Chicago and other great cities. So, the more urban and prosperous the downtown of OKC becomes the better the suburban areas of the city become.

Lasome. If you read into my posts that I am against downtown growing into a vibrant urban district let me assure you that is not the case. I am not for demolishing downtown buildings as urban renewal did, but if a plan is in place to replace those unuseable buildings I am for it. I know that Sandridge is not Devon or Chesapeake, but the Sandridge CEO knows how to build as evidenced by his participation in Chesapeake's growth.

As to those buildings being used for residential, I do not see the probability of it happening. One is a parking garage and the YMCA building has structural damage that cannot be overcome. The other two buildings, I have no idea as to their convertability, but I would guess that the cost would be prohibitive. At least no one has stepped up to try to buy them from Sandridge to date, nor did they try to buy them from KM.

With credit being tight and the economy sour I still see the possibility of growth downtown, but it will probably come from locals if it does. Midfirst is growing and I am hoping they will build their new home downtown and there was the rumor going around some time back that American Fidelity might be looking to take over the current Devon property. If those were to happen it would definately help with the vibrancy aspect. Also, I believe Larry Nichols stated that he planned to encourage others in the energy sector to locate downtown. Regardless, I hope that this is about all I have to say on the subject as I do not expect to change anyones way of thinking, nor will mine be changed either. I respect the opinions of those that disagree with me and I would hope my opinions are treated in a similar manner.

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly".

It's down-FREAKING-town for goodness sake!

Would you rather walk past shops and restaurants with people in them or an empty, windy plaza with a mirrored glass fortress behind it? That's why plazas are bad.

Popsy,

I am not saying save all of them, just two. I don't care about the parking garage or the YMCA. One of the other two buildings before Kerr-McGee was bought out had plans to be converted into an apartment/condo with retail on the ground floor. Financing right now would not allow for someone to swoop in and buy those buildings. And the only residential high rises now are ones that are being converted from office to residential. There aren't any in the plans because of financing for any to be built. A lot of people want to live in a high rise downtown. Those buildings are in a great location and many of Sandridge's employees or interns could live there.

And you might want to read some more posts on here. Midfirst bank is building an 18 story building by their current location.

Lasome. I searched and for some reason could not find the thread about Midfirst building near their current location. I do remember a thread that linked to an architects site that labeled a building rendition as being in that area. Was there an actual announcement by Midfirst or did everyone just assume that the building in the rendition would be Midfirst's? If it was the latter I can think of several scenarios that could be in play here. Perhaps they requested design renditions from several architects and that architect decided to show off theirs on their site and assumed Midfirst would locate in that area. Perhaps Midfirst does want to build downtown, but does not want anyone to know it until they purchase the property they want. Just wishful thinking on my part, but if they did announce then I wish to retract everthing I have said about Midfirst in this thread.

LAsomeday, there is nothing backing up the MidFirst rumor. I did some digging and was told there's nothing to it. Remember sometimes architects do renderings and work hoping to land a client, attract some interest, etc. Sometimes the rendering is commissioned by a developer doing the same thing.

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly".

Yeah no joke. I also get tiresome of the suggestion that "every" project in OKC be quality urbanism..and I am so tired of looking at all of this quality urbanism in OKC. Enough! Let developers be free to build whatever they want already! And pedestrians.. Those goddamn pedestrians are so pesky..walking everywhere, thinking they own this city, always in the way of my car's grill. I bet you I've ran over as many of 'em as you have.

Don't go blowing it out of proportion Spartan. You know very well that we've lost some good projects becauase they didn't meet the requests of the "all-knowing" pedestrian gods. Downtown is walkable now, and no one here can say that it isn't....i've trotted myself around downtown plenty-a-time all over the damn place from one side to the other, above and below ground.

The "walls" are what keep downtown from being as good of a place as it CAN be. Walking down Robinson, yeah there are shops, and walls, and a concrete jungle that isn't broken up so you are shoved down a tube of unbroken concrete to your destination. Conversely, head up to the Kerr Plaza, and while it's not anything spectacular, it does help break things up and you don't feel as confined...even if it's just a small plaza like that, it does wonders for someone to not feel confined.

Downtown OKC is not in any way, shape, or form an urban environment either. Why is that? How many people actually LIVE in the CBD...and NOT in those suburban up-scale apartments across the street? It's 99% commercial and clears out after 5. Meeting the needs of the people walking to their car or at lunch isn't the definition of urban either.

Now don't take this the wrong way, as I'm sure you already have. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see this not be the case. If Dowell actually works out as an acceptable place to live, hey, maybe things can change. But I still absolutely think that every freaking project doesn't have to follow some idiotic no-tolerence policy of pedestrianism. Being set back from the road does NOT make a project un-friendly. Just because someone has to walk a few extra feet and isn't met with a square wall at street level, doesn't make a project bad. Hell, we could even have a little grass downtown...or a few plants...what a concept.

All I'm saying is that we've gotten so focussed on this that we're turning into a no-tolerence type school instead of an intelligent city that can be flexible and work to make each project the best it can.

Yeah no joke. I also get tiresome of the suggestion that "every" project in OKC be quality urbanism..and I am so tired of looking at all of this quality urbanism in OKC. Enough! Let developers be free to build whatever they want already! And pedestrians.. Those goddamn pedestrians are so pesky..walking everywhere, thinking they own this city, always in the way of my car's grill. I bet you I've ran over as many of 'em as you have.

On that note, let's make all downtown stores drive-thru and eliminate sidewalks altogether. Why should we have to interact with real people outside of our vehicular cages?

Ugh....sarcasm...so helpful.

I don't know if that was sarcasm or not bomber. I think Spartan is finally catching on and Krisb has a good idea, not eliminating the sidewalk because someone might want to walk them some day, but the drive-thru is brilliant. If we put a drive thru in every business downtown it can take up some of the vacancy that exists. Maybe take out the sidewalk on the sides where the plazas are built as they only need one side of the street wall to feel safe. Myself, if I see an out of control vehicle coming at me at 25 MPH, I would rather have a tree to get behind than being pinned against that street wall.
As for interaction with people, there is always twitter, facebook and the new park to be built in core to shore.

Sorry urban purists, but sarcasm can come from both sides, I hope. I apologize for not adding profanity by the way.

Spartan. Your definition of what development is baffles me. In my world development encompasses a lot more. Was Myriad Gardens not a development. Was the new federal campus not a development. They are downtown and none of the buildings come out to the sidewalk. Neither do the Cox Convention Center, the Ford Center or the Fidelity Bank, if that is what it is still named. I have never seen any pedestrian having a problem navigating past them. Seems to me that once those old worthless buildings are torn down, whatever is built in their place would be a development as in Sandridge developed an aesthetically pleasing plaza to compliment their campus.

Why do so many in this forum want to see OKC look and be like New York City or Chicago? I personally would like OKC be it's own unique city as much as it can be.

We're in no danger of looking like either of those cities any time soon.

But I think the real question that needs to be asked here is why are you so opposed to Oklahoma City becoming a more attractive, urban, walkable, interesting city?

Guru, he's just doin his duty that every red blooded God fearin American has to keep this nation safe from the urbanist wackos. The question is what in the name of NASCAR are you doin to keep our city safe?

Guru. I am 100 per cent for OKC to become a more attractive urban area. I even did volunteer work for Maps 3, but I do not see where it is necessary that downtown has to have as much street wall as some in this forum advocate and feel that Sandridge should have their plaza if that is what they want. Also, there is so much criticism of, and complaining about what is done in OKC from numermous members of this forum that I felt I wanted to take a stand for some moderation. Perhaps I should not have, but I did because I thought this forum could handle minority dissenting opinions.

You want us pro-urbanists to be moderated?

I would like to see you practice some moderation of your staunch attitude and perception of what the urban fabric should be for OKC. But mainly from you Spar, I would like to see you lighten up on criticizing everything that happens in OKC that is not one hundred per cent to your liking. I do not want to ignore your posts because you do have some good ideas at times and make a valued contribution to the forum.

Popsy, you are old enough to remember all of the old buildings downtown.

I wouldn't mind if they tore these buildings down to replace them with bigger buildings, but they are not. Downtown could use more apartments, and these buildings have had proposals to become apartments before the Kerr-McGee sale. So obviously these buildings should not be torn down.

Lasom. I would agree with you that were someone to come forth willing to put the money up to buy and rehab those buildings I would be all for it. I believe however, that when the proposal to do so came about before the KM sale it was from an architect and devloper that did not want to put any money into buying or devloping the property. KM was required to provide the buildings and provide funding for the rehab. Sandridge is apparently in better financial shape than KM was and does not have that same vision. So the bottom line is: do we try to make Sandridge wait until someone with that vision comes along to do it or demolish them to build new? My feeling is that anyone with the money could find less expensive property, considering the cost of purchase and the dollars to demolish. My position is let Sandridge build their plaza and developers can find other property downtown that would expand downtown's foot print. Why alienate the Sandridge CEO when they have the possibility of becoming a major downtown employer?

Actually, Kerr McGee was in better financial state than Sandridge. I did audits on them. That is why they were acquired. Sandridge has a lot of debt, that is why I am worried about them destroying buildings because if the price of gas stays low they won't be able to afford to do the plaza or whatever else they plan to do.

How many people actually LIVE in the CBD...and NOT in those suburban up-scale apartments across the street? It's 99% commercial and clears out after 5.

Exactly why these prime locations for residential need to be preserved at all costs rather than adding more windy open space downtown. If some of the buildings in question are not salvagable, they should be replaced with midrise structures, not concrete pavers and a couple trees.

Downtown living is a formula that works. If we establish residential in our downtown and remove barriers in city code, I guarantee you, OKC will become an urban city. After the initial period downtown housing will begin to roll on its own..it's just all about reaching a level of critical mass to put the economics behind it in motion. So it is so shortsighted to shoot down urbanism and destroy vital streetwalls off of the rational that we are not a downtown city in the first place.

All of you downtown utopia dreamers need to get over yourselves and realize that this thread is a lot about nothing. We're talking about a relatively small area of downtown that is pretty much isolated in what is going on downtown. This hasn't been a trend and doesn't appear to be starting a new trend. Sandridge is helping immensely with what is going on downtown, and the urban fascists around here just want to complain about them despite the facts that relate to this issue.

Prediction:

Sandridge tears down those old buildings leaving a gaping hole in that streetwall.

Six months later Sandridge is bought out and operations move to Houston.

OKC, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Downtown living is a formula that works. If we establish residential in our downtown and remove barriers in city code, I guarantee you, OKC will become an urban city. After the initial period downtown housing will begin to roll on its own..it's just all about reaching a level of critical mass to put the economics behind it in motion. So it is so shortsighted to shoot down urbanism and destroy vital streetwalls off of the rational that we are not a downtown city in the first place.

"vital streetwall" a litte much don't you think ...

I read an article in the Oklahoman this weekend that stated Devon will vacate 900,000 square feet of office space downtown when they move into their new tower. I would predict that so much additional vacancy will drive down the value of those vacant buildings to a point that maybe the urbanist can realize their dreams of seeing them converted into living units. The old buildings will not be as important as newer buildings can be had for a song. I am really worried though about crowd control when developers from across the country rush to OKC to create the urban utopia our urbanists dream about. So Spartan, the guarantee you gave may finally come to pass. Right?

Well, 900,000 sq ft of office space on the market will change things. Hopefully it will force the old class C properties go residential. According to the article about Devon, over 200,000 sq. ft. of FNC is leased to Devon. I'll bet that is 75% of the leased space in that building. I can imagine anyone else left in FNC will find competitive rates at other downtown class A space after the move is made. That could leave FNC 100% empty with very little prospect of finding new tenants. If they converted that build to residential they would sell-out fast.

I hear/read some on this thread talk about how important it is to save these 4 or 5 buildings, that they could possibly be converted and used for residential. If these buildings were that valuable as residential, someone would have already bought and converted them, if you know something present investors don't, get on the phone or computer, go talk to your banker, recruit family, friends and investors, buy the buildings, take on this project yourself, get rich and live happily ever after.

If the Skirvin had value as a hotel, it would have been refurbished during the 1990s.

If the Skirvin had value as a hotel, it would have been refurbished during the 1990s.

From a private sector stand point the Skirvin didn't have value as a hotel. Are you suggesting the city pump millions into residential housing like it did the Skirvin?

I hear/read some on this thread talk about how important it is to save these 4 or 5 buildings, that they could possibly be converted and used for residential. If these buildings were that valuable as residential, someone would have already bought and converted them, if you know something present investors don't, get on the phone or computer, go talk to your banker, recruit family, friends and investors, buy the buildings, take on this project yourself, get rich and live happily ever after.

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

Assuming Sandridge won't sell, do you think they might be interested in doing other downtown building Steve? After all, these can't be the two most prime building to convert to residential.

Yes, Kerry, in my last story Tom Ward indicated he sees the potential for a new tower being built someday where the old India Temple building is located. He wants the old KerMac building corner, however, for a plaza entry. It reminds me somewhat of Vincent Carrozza's plan back in the early 1980s to tear down Robinson Renassaince (across from First National) to create a plaza his never realized Galleria project.

Yes, Kerry, in my last story Tom Ward indicated he sees the potential for a new tower being built someday where the old India Temple building is located. He wants the old KerMac building corner, however, for a plaza entry. It reminds me somewhat of Vincent Carrozza's plan back in the early 1980s to tear down Robinson Renassaince (across from First National) to create a plaza his never realized Galleria project.

Anything that reminds anyone about the Galleria project should be the first clue to stop and desist. Next thing you know someone will say they drew inspiration from the String of Pearls plan.

BTW - can you elaborate on 'someday'? Are we talking months, years, decades, or generically 'someday'.

From Captain Ron...

That glass out front? A window
popped out of the 12th floor.



We could have been under it.
Not the idiot that installed it...



You're walking down the street.
Bam! You're shredded beef.



Makes you think, doesn't it?
We all have things we want to do.



But a window falls on you, some truck
flattens you, you catch a disease...



Not contagious.



Carla, you know Martin Harvey,
new products?



Marty wants to write a novel. About
adventures in product development?



- I said some day...
- Exactly! "Some day."



Martin Harvey? Sign on the line.



Some day I'll retire, some day
we'll have more time for our kids.



Some day Marty will write.
What if some day never comes?

"Someday," Kerry, is just that - "someday."
Someday I hope to take my kids to Disney World.

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

Didn't SandRidge just complete the purchase these buildings within the past few months ?, if so, why did these developers wait when they could have bought them before (Tom Ward) SandRidge ?

It's been two years since SandRidge bought the buildings. They were previously owned by Kerr-McGee, which has an agreement with the Anthony McDermid group to turn them into housing. That project was well underway when Kerr-McGee was acquired by Anadarko Petroleum. The residential development project then ended up in a court battle while the entire property was for sale, tying up the buildings from any redevelopment. This wasn't cleared up until the entire campus was bought by SandRidge.
There has not been a time, to my knowledge, in the past five years when there hasn't been a serious, accomplished developer (more than one) wanting to adapt these buildings into housing.
The question here is one I've asked before: what is the balance between what an owner wants to do with their downtown property and the community's interest in maintaining what's best for long-term urban density and design?

From a private sector stand point the Skirvin didn't have value as a hotel. Are you suggesting the city pump millions into residential housing like it did the Skirvin?
I'm suggesting maybe the whole issue should be studied a bit further. Lots of people -- important people -- thought it was a foregone conclusion and even important for the Skirvin to be torn down at one point. It was a very recent point in time, in the grand scheme of things. The same is true for the Seiber Hotel, the Gold Dome, Steve Mason's buildings on 9th (housing Iguana, Sara Sara, etc.), the St. Nicholas Hotel (home to Schlegel Bicycles), the Plaza Court (home to James E. McNellie's, Irma's, and others), the Walnut Street Bridge, the Heirding Bulding (home to Elliott + Associates), and others. Most of those buildings these days would be considered assets and give Oklahoma City something it desperately lacks: character.

By the way, from what I understand the City probably won't end up being out a dime on the Skirvin when everything is said and done. That's not to say taxpayer dollars are necessarily the answer in this case.

I'm also not saying there is no way those buildings should be demolished. I'm an HP enthusiast, but a pragmatic one. There are some buildings that should be sacred cows, but others could be replaced with a higher-and better-use structure without bothering me a bit.

The thing I'm most concerned with in this particular case is the loss forever of one of the few truly pedestrian-oriented environments left downtown. I know the anti-urbanists are ridiculing "walkabilty" in this thread, but it's really the only thing that sets downtown apart from the rest of the city. If you tear down too much of the remaining urban fabric, you end up with the suburbs with worse parking.

It's not someone's imagination that a "street wall" with windows encourages pedestrians while large gaps between buildings discourage them. There are a number of studies that have measured the difference in distance people are willing to walk past a hole in the street wall vs. a good one with windows. There is a precipitous dropoff in people's willingness to walk from place to place when faced when facing a walk past gaps in the fabric. Darwinists would tell you that is instinct; people feel more safe from predators (automobiles) when sheltered (against a building) with a perceived escape route (doors and windows you can see into) than they do in a wide-open area.

Finally, the idea that somehow OKC is brimming with urban design nazis keeping downtown from realizing its full potential as a suburban-style development is pretty laughable. Downtown OKC's urban fabric was decimated for more than half a century. What is left is only marginally urban. BY FAR most development decisions in this town are still made with a decidedly suburban/vehicular bias. I don't think it's too much to ask for basic urban planning standards and the favoring of people over cars to be applied to a mere few dozen square blocks in the center of 600 square miles of a suburban "utopia" where "walkability" gets ZERO consideration.

http://www.edcweb.com/april09/images/community_centers/hanover/genera5.jpg

See photo here if it doesn't appear: http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2010/01/big-box.jpg
Pop quiz time! (and yes, this really is related to the thread) Where are stores in the above photo located? And does it matter as to whether a community has any unique character, or to steal a phrase from Spartan's recent thread, "a sense of place"?

I'm not familiar with the Red X store.

Weird. Pops up first time for me, then bad image on the next. Moderators, what am I doing wrong?

Careful, Steve. Some people could spend a full day answering that question.

Another photo (identify the neighborhood):
http://www.bhammls.net/BAARReports/Media/426631_0620000.jpg

Now, name the city where this building is located:
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtown/63.jpg

It's been two years since SandRidge bought the buildings. They were previously owned by Kerr-McGee, which has an agreement with the Anthony McDermid group to turn them into housing. That project was well underway when Kerr-McGee was acquired by Anadarko Petroleum. The residential development project then ended up in a court battle while the entire property was for sale, tying up the buildings from any redevelopment. This wasn't cleared up until the entire campus was bought by SandRidge.
There has not been a time, to my knowledge, in the past five years when there hasn't been a serious, accomplished developer (more than one) wanting to adapt these buildings into housing.
The question here is one I've asked before: what is the balance between what an owner wants to do with their downtown property and the community's interest in maintaining what's best for long-term urban density and design?

Steve. Why did McDermid sue instead of trying to purchase the buildings from KM? Was it because he had no money to bring the project to fruition without KM providing the majority of the money and if so, was he one of the serious, accomplished developers you referred to? Are you at liberty to name the other serious, accomplished developers or is McDermid the only one?

Also, you reference once again, the community's interest in maintaining what's best for long-term urban density and design. I asked you earlier for your thoughts as to what is the critical minimum point at which the number of people in OKC determine what the community's interest is and you never responded. Could I possibly get a response this time?

The suit stemmed from the fact that Kerr-McGee and Anadarko were no longer willing to proceed with the development deal and sale.
I'm not at liberty to name the developers. But they've both completed and financed successful housing projects downtown and they do not include McDermid.
As for the critical number of people ... I'm not sure how to answer that. That's not the way governance works. Not really. Instead, you have a council and mayor who are elected by the city. And the city council and mayor, over time, have pursued more aggressive urban design standards for the urban core following the input of what I'd say is at least a couple hundred leading downtown business owners, property owners, architects, builders, etc.

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

Here's something better than me going off of memory (the suit was settled when SandRidge bought the campus):
Lawsuit continues over tower
Judge refuses to dismiss case involving a failed condominium plan at former Kerr-McGee complex

By Steve Lackmeyer
Business Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Edition: CITY, Section: BUSINESS, Page 1B

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday's sale of Kerr-McGee tower to SandRidge Energy apparently won't end litigation over a failed deal to convert three older buildings on the former Kerr-McGee downtown office complex into upscale condominiums.

A motion by attorneys for Kerr-McGee and Anadarko Petroleum to have the lawsuit dismissed was rejected by Oklahoma District Judge Noma Gurich, who urged both sides to consider a saying by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing."


Corporate Redevelopment Group filed the $8 million suit a year ago as Kerr-McGee announced it would be acquired by Anadarko Petroleum, which is based in The Woodlands, Texas. The partnership, led by architect Anthony McDermid, had worked in conjunction with Kerr-McGee CEO Luke Corbett on the project. Corbett said the project would proceed when the Anadarko deal was announced, but the deal fell apart soon after.


Corporate Redevelopment Group claims Kerr-McGee prevented fulfillment of the deal by blocking a mortgage on the older buildings that would have financed construction of a new garage required by the development contract. Kerr-McGee attorneys argue the development contract never allowed for mortgage financing.


"The mortgage issue overshadows everything," said James Chaney, attorney for Corporate Redevelopment Group. "We believe there was a general duty to cooperate. That means they had to agree to reasonable proposals for financing."


When the mortgage was denied, Chaney said the developers offered to pay a deposit — an offer he said was denied. Chaney said his clients grew more concerned as they realized they were not dealing with a public company, but rather a private affiliate, Kerr-McGee Shared Services.


How or whether Chesapeake Energy and SandRidge Energy might be a party to the litigation following the companies' acquisitions of properties involved in the lawsuit remained unclear after Friday's hearing


Attorney George Corbyn said he continues to represent Kerr-McGee Shared Services.


In arguing for a dismissal of the suit, Corbyn's co-counsel, Houston attorney Benjamin Elmore, told Gurich the contract between Kerr-McGee and Corporate Redevelopment Group never specifically allowed for mortgages to be used to finance the garage.


"If Corporate Redevelopment Group were to default, the banks would look first to those mortgages and Kerr-McGee would lose properties without any consideration," Elmore said.


Corbyn alleged Corporate Redevelopment Group attempted to hamper the sale of the tower once Kerr-McGee's fate became known.


"There is a lot in this lawsuit that relates to the tower because we believe they were trying to cloud the title," Corbyn said.


"But thankfully, we were able to overcome that."


Chaney argued Kerr-McGee was a partner in the development — and was going to use parking for its employees and also would retain a penthouse condominium in the Braniff Towers.


Chaney also denied his clients ever intended to block the sale of the building or cloud its title.


"It is impossible to read these provisions without concluding that the parties contemplating that Kerr-McGee would provide a mortgage on these old decrepit buildings in order to finance these projects that would enhance and compliment the tower," Chaney said. "Even if there were no expressed provisions for a mortgage, they had a duty to cooperate."


Gurich's denial of the motion to dismiss means the battle will soon be sent to a jury.


Pre-trial hearings are scheduled for Sept. 5, with the trial set for Sept. 10.

Thanks for the information and no I did not intend to place a question mark at the end of my previous post. It has been corrected.

Assuming Sandridge won't sell, do you think they might be interested in doing other downtown building Steve? After all, these can't be the two most prime building to convert to residential.

I would disagree. These two buildings are quite possibly THE most strategic for residential conversion. I think that, barring any asbestos issues, they would be easier to convert than the First National. The location is just as good if not better. Not so much surrounded by sheer offices, closer proximity to mixed-use neighborhoods like MidTown and Deep Deuce. Throw in the other possible lofts in the vicinity, like the Carnegie if it ever gets off..and you've got a great location amidst one of our city's great streetwalls. Streetwalls are great environments for lofts. The best.

Granted, you can spin any location into sounding like "the most strategic."

"Someday," Kerry, is just that - "someday."
Someday I hope to take my kids to Disney World.

Let me know when you come down. I'll drag the wife and kids over and give you the grand tour. My wife is just looking for a reason to get annual passes again this year.

Sounds good Kerry!

I would disagree. These two buildings are quite possibly THE most strategic for residential conversion. I think that, barring any asbestos issues, they would be easier to convert than the First National. The location is just as good if not better. Not so much surrounded by sheer offices, closer proximity to mixed-use neighborhoods like MidTown and Deep Deuce. Throw in the other possible lofts in the vicinity, like the Carnegie if it ever gets off..and you've got a great location amidst one of our city's great streetwalls. Streetwalls are great environments for lofts. The best.

Granted, you can spin any location into sounding like "the most strategic."

I don't know Spatan. I think FNC has the best potential as a residential building. Not only is it closer to more of the reasons people live downtown for, but there are tons of retail space nearby that could be used. I wonder how many housing units you could get in FNC.

Probably not as many as you think. You'd be able to get at least half of those out of KerMac and Braniff.

Probably not as many as you think. You'd be able to get at least half of those out of KerMac and Braniff.

909 Walnut in Kansas City is 35 stories and they got 159 units out of it.
Kansas City Lofts :: 909 Walnut (http://www.kc-lofts.com/bldgs/909walnut.htm)

Regency Tower, at 24 stories, has 274 units. The Park Harvey building has 162 units and it is only 17 stories. I'll bet you could get close to 200 units out of the FNC building.

That would require getting in approximately 8-9 units in each floor of the tower. Not sure that's possible unless they about 500 square feet each

As Steve points out, the floors of the main iconic tower are pretty small as far as square footage goes. Now, the ugly as crap additions, that's different. But really, you won't get near your bang for your buck out of residential as you do for commercial now. There are plenty smaller offices that make that place home. It's the classic chicken/egg story as far as that building's revival. It won't get better until someone puts money into it. No one will put money into until it gets better. The current owners aren't any better than any of the other failed promise owners. It's pathetic and sad to see such a gem continue to tarnish.

I'd still like to shoot whoever designed the additions and who approved those designs. Complete crap.