There are and were a number of people who were happy with SandRidge's plans all along, i.e. getting rid of the eyesores/unusable structures and even before this current announcement, SandRidge was doing downtown OKC a great favor. We also want to see downtown OKC develop it's urban identify, but we don't think there should be some kind of moratorium on destruction of existing structures. That's just unrealistic.

And Doug, normally I respect your views, but in all honesty I think you need to get over yourself just a little bit - you are prone to making mountains out of molehills and we are all free to have differing opinions.

This development and the extra people will help make a chronically dead few blocks alive now.

This development and the extra people will help make a chronically dead few blocks alive now.

This area has needed something like this to happen and help it look alive for quite sometime.

Hopefully it will bring in more people that aren't SandRidge empolyees.

There are and were a number of people who were happy with SandRidge's plans all along, i.e. getting rid of the eyesores/unusable structures and even before this current announcement, SandRidge was doing downtown OKC a great favor. We also want to see downtown OKC develop it's urban identify, but we don't think there should be some kind of moratorium on destruction of existing structures. That's just unrealistic.

And Doug, normally I respect your views, but in all honesty I think you need to get over yourself just a little bit - you are prone to making mountains out of molehills and we are all free to have differing opinions.
As to ¶1, I understand that many have that point of view. As to ¶2, of course. But it wasn't me who said, "Sorta makes all the Sandridge haters look silly now...actually they looked silly then but especially now." I didn't call those who disagreed with me any names, like "Sandridge haters," or "silly." It was YOU who said those things about people who didn't share YOUR viewpoint, not me.

I see nothing wrong with hoping to preserve historic buildings, regardless what may or may not take their place. But, once they're gone it's over, and the same person can celebrate the fact that at least something besides a parking lot may take their place.

I think what still upsets Doug and others is that they feel there was a very heavy hand used in forcing through the plan and that they saw rules, review procedures not being followed. It is a matter of record that the city switched which attorney staffed the board of adjustment on the last meeting, and that atty reversed previous counsel to the board, and that one side had more advance notice than the other of this action.
Anyway, that is history. It's over.

There are some who watched the fight over India Temple and the behavior of the so-called "urbanists" and came away from it concluding the urbanists were behaving in a fringe/lunatic manner over a building that was not worth saving. The historical significance wasn't really there to begin with...so what it was a temporary home of the legislature? It reminded me of the whole "George Washington slept here" way of determining historical significant sites back East. I stayed out of this thread for a long time just amazed and dismayed that people really thought that building could/should have been repurposed. I kept shaking my head wondering if any of those people actually went down there and looked at it in person or read SandRidge's reasoning for their decision? So yes, I do think some people on here showed judgment and expressed opinions that were not rational or realistic = silly. I suppose my bottom line on this is: pick your fights carefully.

Doug, I think Early was referring to the idiots that kept slamming Sandridge for months after the matter was settled and still do to this day. Actually, I thought the ordeal was a good civics lesson. Dowtown business owners wanted those buildings torn down and they taught the preservationists and urbanists a lesson. I am just wondering if anyone learned from it.

We certainly do disagree about this, earlywinegareth, but I'll refrain from calling you silly. Perhaps something will come along one day that you see is worth fighting for even if against the odds and we can agree about that in the future.

Popsy.... (oh never mind)

There are some who watched the fight over India Temple and the behavior of the so-called "urbanists" and came away from it concluding the urbanists were behaving in a fringe/lunatic manner over a building that was not worth saving. The historical significance wasn't really there to begin with...so what it was a temporary home of the legislature? It reminded me of the whole "George Washington slept here" way of determining historical significant sites back East. I stayed out of this thread for a long time just amazed and dismayed that people really thought that building could/should have been repurposed. I kept shaking my head wondering if any of those people actually went down there and looked at it in person or read SandRidge's reasoning for their decision? So yes, I do think some people on here showed judgment and expressed opinions that were not rational or realistic = silly. I suppose my bottom line on this is: pick your fights carefully.

You are confusing the urbanist and preservationist. We are NOT the same group of people.

Doug, I think Early was referring to the idiots that kept slamming Sandridge for months after the matter was settled and still do to this day. Actually, I thought the ordeal was a good civics lesson. Dowtown business owners wanted those buildings torn down and they taught the preservationists and urbanists a lesson. I am just wondering if anyone learned from it.

As an urbanist I am as happy as a puppy with two peters with the way Sandridge Commons is turning out. With the new building they get 4.5 JTF stars out 5. They are doing exactly what we asked them to do. Lesson learned. I'll let the preservationist speak for themselves.

Just the facts is correct; I strongly suspect urbanists would have split with preservationists if SandRidge had presented a clearer case for how they planned to proceed with the India Temple site. I do, however, think urbanists still would have opposed demolition of the Kermac Building on Robinson. But as stated before... it's history now.

Sandridge is making long-term decisions about its downtown environment that will, in the end, have a very positive impact on downtown. That meant making decisions that have a short-term impact on the immediate surrounding area that not everyone can agree with, and that is always going to come naturally. Whether we choose to see the big picture or adhere to our own philosophies on urban development is up to us. Ultimately, we all can agree that we are after a common goal, and that is to desire the best for our downtown, which is gaining admiration from visitors. Bottom line, that is what matters.

This looks like everything will turn out fine (which I said a long time ago) but it does not change the fact that SandRidge handled things very badly in the beginning. You can't blame people for being upset about them tearing down historical structures, especially when they provided no clear plan to rebuild at the time.

Popsy it's ironic you're slamming 'idiots' for not being able to let it go when you are the one that keeps dredging up a straw man just so you can denigrate.

One thing is for certain: when it comes to Doug Loudenback, if he is one of the targets of this comment, he is the last person I'd think of as being an "idiot." Only an idiot would think of him as such. Doug and I don't always see eye to eye, but I sure as heck respect him.

I do, however, think urbanists still would have opposed demolition of the Kermac Building on Robinson.

Hince the missing .5 JTF star.


I strongly suspect urbanists would have split with preservationists if SandRidge had presented a clearer case for how they planned to proceed with the India Temple site

To see proof of this just check out the Stage Center debate.

One can also be both and urbanist and be pro-preservation. Most of us were interested in preserving only two of the buildings Sandridge demolished. I don't really consider corporate open space urbanist.

One can also be both and urbanist and be pro-preservation. Most of us were interested in preserving only two of the buildings Sandridge demolished. I don't really consider corporate open space urbanist.

There is still too much open space in my opinion and that is caused by the absence of Kermac. Why did you want to save the two building Betts? I wanted them to remain because I didn't want the open space Sandridge led us to believe was coming. My understanding is the preservation group wanted to save them for historical reasons. This is much like the current debate about Stage Center.

What about the spot north of TAP architecture?

I've always thought that surface lot between 4th and 5th would be perfect for a tower. Its such a gap in the urban fabric along Broadway as well as the lot between 5th and 6th..

Let's be pragmatic for a moment...before SandRidge announced its plan to demolish India Temple, was India Temple on anyone's agenda? Was there any kind of preservation movement? No, no one cared enough to do anything. The building had all the appeal of an outhouse and the actions and inaction of others allowed it go to the way of the wrecking ball.

But there's a lesson here that should apply to Stage Center. If people really care about saving it, then they need to act. Get organized, hold meetings, raise funds. Don't expect "them" or "they" to do anything and don't complain when Stage Center is torn down.

They own those parcels and they will be parking garages most likely.

While they are likely to include a garage I think those will end up being good sized buildings.

Let's be pragmatic for a moment...before SandRidge announced its plan to demolish India Temple, was India Temple on anyone's agenda? Was there any kind of preservation movement? No, no one cared enough to do anything. The building had all the appeal of an outhouse and the actions and inaction of others allowed it go to the way of the wrecking ball.


At the time of the Kerr McGee sale Kermac and India Temple were in the process of being converted to housing.

And where is housing most sorely needed? Why, the CBD, of course.

Let's be pragmatic for a moment...before SandRidge announced its plan to demolish India Temple, was India Temple on anyone's agenda? Was there any kind of preservation movement? No, no one cared enough to do anything. The building had all the appeal of an outhouse and the actions and inaction of others allowed it go to the way of the wrecking ball.
You won't just let it go, will you, earlywinegareth? I tried to give you an opening for a comfort zone for both you and those who think differently than you, including me (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23309&p=468936#post468936), but you just won't quit. I'll just say that, yes, others cared, and that you are mistaken when you say that the consensus (you didn't say consensus but you took it upon yourself to make the claim that) that the building had the appeal of an outhouse. Is it possible for you to just put criticism that others had about the SandRidge proposal down without attempting to belittle the position of many others who do not agree with your point of view? You are tending to be a fairly rude poster, earlywinegareth, in your sensibilities of others who disagree with you.

While they are likely to include a garage I think those will end up being good sized buildings.

How do you know this?
What would be the timetable for that?

I'm getting out the popcorn and getting comfortable in my seat. Hmmm.... where will Doug begin to blast away? With facts surrounding previous efforts to develop the buildings? With facts about Kerr-McGee's history of rebuffing such efforts prior to doing a deal with the Triangle boys? Or will Doug share photos of what could be seen underneath the concrete facade at the India Temple building? At what point will the opponent realize Doug is an attorney, and is no one's fool? Yep, this will be fun.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/GIFs/michael-jackson-eating-popcorn.gif http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/GIFs/popcorn.gif http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/GIFs/popcornguy.gif

I definitely will want to learn how to do that Michael Jackson icon UnFrSaKn!

The new tower (~20 stories, maybe a little more, maybe a little less) is going in place of the current parking garage on the east side of the current tower. Sandridge is also buying the city-owned Broadway/Kerr garage across Broadway....east of the main property. The parcels to the north of TAP which are currently Sandridge-owned surface lots may possibly be turned into a large parking garage.

How do you know this?
What would be the timetable for that?

Considering Sandridge is buying the Broadway/Kerr garage from the city, any parking garage on the lots north of TAP would likely come with or after the 2nd tower is built.

I wonder why the City is so willing to sell that garage to SandRidge... Seems like a critical piece of attracting new businesses downtown is having available parking and now this will be for SR's private use and taken off the general market.

SandRidge made the decision to tear down it's own parking and turn a lot of it into a plaza. I'm not so sure the City should just be selling public garages like this, especially since SR has plenty of undeveloped property that could be used for this purpose.


BTW, that Broadway/Kerr Garage has 931 spaces, so SandRidge will still need more parking.

Pete, I'm pretty sure the city is going to have to build a new public parking garage - a pretty big one at that.

Pete, I'm pretty sure the city is going to have to build a new public parking garage - a pretty big one at that.

Selling the garage meets the immediate needs of the downtown community and allows Sandridge to start construction on their new tower. The City can then use the money made from the sale to build a new garage that meets the needs of a future downtown.

Doug Dawg chooses to pass on this invitation. Time to move on.

Once again, Doug proves to be one of the smartest guys in the room.

Maybe so.....he likened it to Dowell Center, which I guess is something like 18-20 stories.

Expect something like this in width and height: 22 stories

http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/826/evorenderok3.jpg

I think that exactly would go nicely right there. It would even compliment the existing tower.

I seriously doubt there will be another tower built that will be as high or higher than Devon. But are we looking at more mid- to high-rises? Yep. Been saying it for a while, and I'm not backing away from it.

That's kind of like the old "Stoops will finally win another NC" or "OSU will finally win a Bedlam" line. Based on the past attempts, I'll just believe it when I see it, regardless of the innuendo swirling around.

Let's be pragmatic for a moment...before SandRidge announced its plan to demolish India Temple, was India Temple on anyone's agenda? Was there any kind of preservation movement? No, no one cared enough to do anything. The building had all the appeal of an outhouse and the actions and inaction of others allowed it go to the way of the wrecking ball.

But there's a lesson here that should apply to Stage Center. If people really care about saving it, then they need to act. Get organized, hold meetings, raise funds. Don't expect "them" or "they" to do anything and don't complain when Stage Center is torn down.

Your historical revisions are amusing because the anti-SR group did have successful preservationists and developers behind it. McDermid and Tanenbaum even tried developing it. So what's your point again?

Riiiight.

So there were attempts? I wasn't aware. And why did they not succeed? Enlighten me. Or point me to the right page in this thread b/c I do not recall reading about it.

Sandridge $$$$$

So I read here that a neutral expert was brought in, also preservationists, and everyone agreed preservation of the building was not viable.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/12/06/more-on-proposed-sandridge-demolition-of-old-kerr-mcgee-properties/

So on what realistic and rational basis were the urbanists/preservationists arguing it should've been saved?

So there were attempts? I wasn't aware. And why did they not succeed? Enlighten me. Or point me to the right page in this thread b/c I do not recall reading about it.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=7236&page=1


Downtown condo deal off, group sues Kerr-McGee
by Ted Streuli
The Journal Record
8/11/2006

OKLAHOMA CITY – A $30 million deal that would have converted vacant downtown offices to condominiums and retail space fell apart Thursday, prompting a legal fight among partners.

The deal, announced in November, called for Corporate Redevelopment Group LLC to convert vacant buildings owned by Kerr-McGee at 324 N. Robinson Ave. and 135 Robert S. Kerr Ave. into 70 condominiums and street-level shops.

Corporate Redevelopment Group, known as CRG, is led by TAParchitecture, which is allied with Kerr-McGee in The Triangle, another downtown housing development. CRG filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Kerr-McGee of a contract breach that cost the plaintiff at least $8 million.

“We anticipated it closing today, but we reached an impasse,” said TAParchitecture principal Anthony McDermid. “I’m very disappointed for our development group and the prospect of the project for downtown.”

In exchange for the property, CRG agreed to build a parking garage near Kerr-McGee’s offices for the company’s use.

“After that was completed, Kerr-McGee would provide to CRG the properties,” said Kerr-McGee spokesman John Christiansen. “Awarding of the properties was contingent upon the garage. We stand ready to perform under the terms of that contract, but CRG sought to change the terms.”

When Kerr-McGee’s sale to Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum was announced in June, Christiansen said the real estate deals would move forward as planned. But CRG argued in its lawsuit that Kerr-McGee made plans to squelch the deal as soon as the Anadarko deal was struck.

“A representative of Kerr-McGee even informed CRG, after the proposed merger was announced, that Kerr-McGee Corp.’s new parent company was not interested in proceeding with the projects,” the plaintiff said in the petition.

McDermid said Anadarko officials last week refused a request to meet with CRG.

Anadarko completed its acquisition of Kerr-McGee on Thursday, but Christiansen said the two scheduled closings and their outcomes were unrelated.

McDermid said June 25 that the project to rehabilitate the former office buildings was in the design stages. The site at 135 Robert S. Kerr Ave. is an 11-story building built in 1921 with 155,911 square feet; 324 N. Robinson Ave. is a 10-story building with 75,584 square feet and was built in 1923. A third building, at 111 Robert S. Kerr Ave., was part of the deal, but its future had not yet been planned. That structure, a 38,736-square-foot, seven-story building, was built in 1902.

“I can’t quantify it, but it will certainly have a slowing effect on the delivery of any for-sale housing in the central business district,” McDermid said. “But we believe so strongly in the merit of the project that we are still open to any prospects to complete it.”

I'm getting out the popcorn and getting comfortable in my seat. Hmmm.... where will Doug begin to blast away? With facts surrounding previous efforts to develop the buildings? With facts about Kerr-McGee's history of rebuffing such efforts prior to doing a deal with the Triangle boys? Or will Doug share photos of what could be seen underneath the concrete facade at the India Temple building? At what point will the opponent realize Doug is an attorney, and is no one's fool? Yep, this will be fun.

Steve, these are your words:

Architect Anthony McDermid was once part of a team chosen by Kerr-McGee to redevelop these old buildings into housing. The team did a lot of work – they obtained TIF money to tear down the old YMCA building and replace it with a modern garage for the Kerr-McGee workers and the future residents of the Braniff Tower and neighboring KerMac Building. The deal fell apart just as they were about to seek building permits. From the start, McDermid shied away from stating any plans for the India Temple Building.

Three years later, McDermid admits they likely never would have pursued housing for the 107-year-old building.
Here’s what didn’t make today’s paper:

The building at 111 Robert S. Kerr, would, at first glance, seem to be most historic property on the block. The building, built in 1902, briefly housed the state legislature and its ornate façade, if it still existed, would be a unique reminder of an era that was removed entirely during the Urban Renewal era.

But McDermid, who surveyed the buildings extensively, said he came to the same conclusion reached by SandRidge Energy – the former India Temple building was too far damaged by Kerr-McGee to be restored.
“We even had someone from the State Historical Preservation Office look at it,” McDermid said. “He came, we walked the entire building and evaluated what was going on with it. It had been so altered – a new floor had been added into the two-story lobby, it had been torn up inside, and while we never pulled the outside panels, we had eyewitness reports the exterior features had been sawn off.”


McDermid has no involvement with SandRidge Energy, the campus makeover, or any of the old buildings. So one might conclude he’s a good neutral judge of whether the India Temple Building could be brought back to life.

Consider this account by yet another team of respected developers who looked at the building in the early 1990s:

Mark Ruffin, Nicholas Preftakes and Jim Parrack looked at the odds of renovating the buildings and walked away.

“The bones weren’t really that conducive,” Ruffin said. “They had low clearance heights, they had significant asbestos issues. From a functional standpoint, they just weren’t that conducive.”

--------------------------------

So, Kerr-McGee did make a serious attempt and did it's due diligence by calling in various experts to provide a recommendation. Their decision-making process was sound. I rest my case.

A couple of things EWG

1) The orignal facade was there and you could see it during demo.
2) As for McDermid, he resigned from the Downtown Design Review Committee that approved the demolition with his now infamous "blood on our hands' comment.

Why are we still having this debate?

Early!

Read this entire thread and you will see what we are talking about. You obviously are coming up with your own conclusions. We are tired of talking about it.

Why are we still having this debate?

We aren't debating whether to save the building or not - they are gone. We are just trying to set the historical record correctly. Comments and assumptions were made by people in this thread that are simply not true. You can't just let stuff like that go by without correcting it.

Steve, these are your words:

Architect Anthony McDermid was once part of a team chosen by Kerr-McGee to redevelop these old buildings into housing. The team did a lot of work – they obtained TIF money to tear down the old YMCA building and replace it with a modern garage for the Kerr-McGee workers and the future residents of the Braniff Tower and neighboring KerMac Building. The deal fell apart just as they were about to seek building permits. From the start, McDermid shied away from stating any plans for the India Temple Building.

Three years later, McDermid admits they likely never would have pursued housing for the 107-year-old building.
Here’s what didn’t make today’s paper:

The building at 111 Robert S. Kerr, would, at first glance, seem to be most historic property on the block. The building, built in 1902, briefly housed the state legislature and its ornate façade, if it still existed, would be a unique reminder of an era that was removed entirely during the Urban Renewal era.

But McDermid, who surveyed the buildings extensively, said he came to the same conclusion reached by SandRidge Energy – the former India Temple building was too far damaged by Kerr-McGee to be restored.
“We even had someone from the State Historical Preservation Office look at it,” McDermid said. “He came, we walked the entire building and evaluated what was going on with it. It had been so altered – a new floor had been added into the two-story lobby, it had been torn up inside, and while we never pulled the outside panels, we had eyewitness reports the exterior features had been sawn off.”


McDermid has no involvement with SandRidge Energy, the campus makeover, or any of the old buildings. So one might conclude he’s a good neutral judge of whether the India Temple Building could be brought back to life.

Consider this account by yet another team of respected developers who looked at the building in the early 1990s:

Mark Ruffin, Nicholas Preftakes and Jim Parrack looked at the odds of renovating the buildings and walked away.

“The bones weren’t really that conducive,” Ruffin said. “They had low clearance heights, they had significant asbestos issues. From a functional standpoint, they just weren’t that conducive.”

--------------------------------

So, Kerr-McGee did make a serious attempt and did it's due diligence by calling in various experts to provide a recommendation. Their decision-making process was sound. I rest my case.

Um, I love it when things are quoted out of context. McDermid's comments applied only to the India Temple building, not to the Braniff and Kermac buildings. They were on the verge of doing housing in those buildings. As for India Temple, it is correct - McDermid was gun shy about tackling that one. Early, no offense, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally engaging in historical revisionism.

No skin off my back...

No skin off my back...

Oh good. Does that mean the floggings haven't begun by the new owners yet?

From today... Can't be very close to building a new tower if they are improving the old garage/amenities building:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sandridge92111.jpg

Because that's not where the new tower is going. It's going where the Sante Fe garage is now, that's why they are purchasing it from Central Oklahoma Parking Authority.

Huh, well now that's the first I've heard of that. Surely it's not feasible to build on top of the old garage/amenities building...?

Because that's not where the new tower is going. It's going where the Sante Fe garage is now, that's why they are purchasing it from Central Oklahoma Parking Authority.

No, the plan is to build where the garage/amenities is presently. They are buying the garage for employee parking.

From today... Can't be very close to building a new tower if they are improving the old garage/amenities building:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sandridge92111.jpg

They aren't improving it much. The building will be a little while considering they have the Braniff remodel and the Amenities buildings scheduled first.

Because that's not where the new tower is going. It's going where the Sante Fe garage is now, that's why they are purchasing it from Central Oklahoma Parking Authority.

That makes absolutely no sense... the Santa Fe Parking Garage? The one that's right next to the Skirvin?! Where many Thunder fans park and walk through the skybridge to get to the games?

That makes absolutely no sense... the Santa Fe Parking Garage? The one that's right next to the Skirvin?! Where many Thunder fans park and walk through the skybridge to get to the games?

Not to worry. I think G.Walker has his garages confused. It's not going to happen.