Isn't today the day that Sandridge is supposed to release their plans for the Buildings and plaza? Does anyone know what time and where we can gain the access to that info?

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

Didn't the Braniff proposal a few years ago have like 80 units in it?

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.

Actually, after Devon leaves in a few years the building will be almost 100% vacant. Anyone know what the average floor size is of FNC once you get up in the tower? The small floor plate is probably why 909 Walnut only got 159 units out of it.

As for the crappy additions. If FNC went residential/hotel, I would tear those down and put in a parking garage with roof top pool and tennis courts. I would try to keep as much of the facade as possible to retain the steet wall along Park.

Well I think that the "ugly additions" could still be adapted into some kind of cool reuse. That sort of falls into the realm of architecture that could be saved, might be worthwhile in saving one of these days. I understand the criticisms of international design, and if someone suggested it not being worth saving, I wouldn't argue.

But also look at it like this: Are we only supposed to preserve buildings from a certain time period that's back en vogue? Granted, at the same time mid century architecture began to appear buildings stopped being as urban, but if preserved you can make mid century buildings very cool.

Granted, at the same time mid century architecture began to appear buildings stopped being as urban, but if preserved you can make mid century buildings very cool.

I don't think so. Ugly is ugly even if people at the time wanted to pretend it wasn't so they could appear trendy and cutting edge.

Actually, after Devon leaves in a few years the building will be almost 100% vacant..

That's not true. Devon's space is predominately in the east building facing Broadway, not the tower. Now the east tower - yeah, it will be empty, but will be blessed with a lot of Class A worthy space.

Hold on now, let's do the math here. FNC has 1,000,000 sq feet. Last I heard it's occupancy rate was in the mid to low 30's, so lets call it 35% just to be safe. That is 350,000 sq feet. When Devon leaves they will vacate over 200,000 sq feet (we'll round off to 200,000). That leaves 150,000 out of 1,000,000 or 15%. Now let's say the building is 30 stories tall (once again rounding off). That means only 4.5 floors of that building are being used. In my book that is considered mostly vacant.

Finally, is FNC even considered Class A?

Occupany is higher now, but I don't have the exact figure. As for class a, no it's not close to being class a. but the interior finish out is up there for some of the space taken by devon

does anybody know anything about the supposed unveiling of sandridge's plans for the complex that scheduled for today?

Isn't today the day that Sandridge is supposed to release their plans for the Buildings and plaza? Does anyone know what time and where we can gain the access to that info?

Anyone...?...:please:

Plans are to be released on Jan. 28.

Plans are to be released on Jan. 28.

I heard they were going to make the plaza twice as big so they have to change the plans. Just kidding.

Maybe they can just take out all of downtown and propose to turn the whole thing into an entrance plaza to two skyscrapers, Devon on the SW, SandRidge on the NE..and then of course we'll just have to put up some shabby parking structures on the sites once SandRidge gets acquired and shipped to Houston before finishing their plan. That sounds great for downtown.

^^^After all those historic, BEAUTIFUL buildings downtown were decimated in the past 35 years, I still can't believe the lack of outrage at the prospect of MORE buildings being torn down.

I don't know. I give up. OVER IT.

Rogers Marvel Architects (http://www.rogersmarvel.com/Sandridge.html)

Rogers Marvel Architects (http://www.rogersmarvel.com/Sandridge.html)

Not exactly over the top great - but then how great can a plaza be? I am not happy to lose any buildings but I do understand the desire to reduce the wind problem caused by narrow passages between buildings.

Architecturally interesting, but extremely un-urban.

I like it. Reminds me of this plaze near times square in NYC that I was at.

I agree that the components of this design are aesthetically pleasing and the buildings that are to be added are by themselves very nice architecturally. But I have to echo the sentiments of the others that at what cost to the loss of density. The reason given to reduce or prevent the venturi effect? Really?!?! I know that wind in urban settings can be intense and uncomfortable but that doesn't fly as reason enough to justify the void created in the existing downtown core. I would prefer or feel better about it if they stated that it was a space place holder allowing for future development to infill.

Do New York, Chicago, Tokyo, London, etc. simply tear down buildings to alleviate wind problems? Downtown OKC is the most urban little area of the state. Why do we insist on continuing the destruction that Urban Renewal started?

I don't see big plazas and parks smack dab in the middle of Times Square. Then again, all the wind tunnels in Manhattan don't matter since there's no people there.....

Interesting corporate testosterone display, but SHAME on OKC if they let Sandridge turn downtown into a suburbian wasteland. And SHAME on its citizens if they don't see this means that their own heritage is being destroyed.... AGAIN.

Why not just knock down all the buildings downtown and build a gigantic park?

Caveat: The old multi-level parking garage can go. At least it wasn't a former state capital building.

Word to the wise:

If you are against the further demolition of downtown, the City can't stop this without your voice. Write your councilperson and show up to whichever Downtown Design Review agenda this eventually ends up on.

Not a fan at all.

It would be different if downtown OKC had tons of buildings and few open spaces. Then a plaza would be unique. However, it is the other way around in OKC. Tall buildings are unique and open space is everywhere. I think they need to go back to the drawing board.

It would be different if downtown OKC had tons of buildings and few open spaces. Then a plaza would be unique. However, it is the other way around in OKC. Tall buildings are unique and open space is everywhere. I think they need to go back to the drawing board.

I do too, but does their development even require approval from Urban Design? Forgive me for my cynicism but it seems powerful interests can do whatever they want in this town.

The new buildings are interesting, but the loss of the streetwall along Robinson is just too much. Therefore, I don't like it.

This is really serious now. What can we do to galvanize support for this issue. Sandridge needs to understand they can't get away with this!
Someone call in the reserves!

Steve.. Please write an opinion-making article about this! Le'ts not let it happen!!

That architecture firm obviously didn't do their research. They focused on the environment of OKC and not the history.

How do we stop the destruction? This and the convention center will destroy more history than anything else in the city since Urban Renewal!

This is wholesomely discouraging.

I'll echo the sentiments of others. Those new buildings are pretty. It's the destruction of the older structures and replacement by trees that is disgusting. This really looks like a suburban paradise in the rendering. Guess what? It's Downtown OKC; I applaud Sandrige for taking the steps necessary to clean up and improve their campus and thus the north side of downtown. But this is a huge step backwards and is not going to help urbanity at all. There's not a single building fronting the north side of that street. Not one.

And are people really complaining about the wind tunnel effect? Are you kidding me?!

David, as I recall you are an architect. My job is to ask questions and provoke discussion and debate. I will gladly invite you to write a guest post pointing out why you disagree with these plans.

I just came along this image from the firm's site and this image has perked some curiousity in me.

Does anyone have any idea what these placeholder buildings at 4th and along Broadway are? Do they own those empty lots? If so, do they plan on redeveloping them accordingly? I found that strange.

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt111/Requiemokc/Untitled-1-1.jpg

Hi Steve,
Actually I'm not an architect and don't even live in OKC anymore, but I was born and raised there and lived through the destruction of downtown when a teenager. I've now lived in Europe for 25 years and have seen how important history is to the preservation of culture. Where I live (Amsterdam) is a vibrant and wonderful city. Partly because they realize the importance of history and good city planning that takes people into account and not just corporate bravado.

OKC remains my hometown and I want it to prosper, but also taking into account these very principles of heritage, preservation and planning.

I will therefore take you up on your challenge to write a guest post. Give me a day or so.
David

You've been very articulate every time I've seen you post here, so let's still go with it!

Anyone who favors these plans can contact me and I'll consider a similar guest post representing the other side.

For what it is, I think the designs are superb. I can't imagine a better open-spaced plaza in a downtown area. However, it will be a shame to lose the streetfronts. Have these designs been approved by the design review committee?

Thanks for the link, Edge.

Having looked over the images there, I have to say that IF Sandridge does everything contemplated in those images, my general opinion is that, overall and in balance, what Sandridge proposes would be a good step in Okc downtown development, though I say this with caveats and some caution.

I say this as one interested in historical preservation on one hand, but having an equal interest in making downtown more spiffy on the other. That mix does present some degree of conflict, but only qualifiedly so.

According to the images at the link, the view from west of Robinson presents a very nice image of that eastbound view ... the former Oklahoma Savings & Loan is gone but, as much as I like hugging old buildings, the replacement view is better, imo ... the saved Braniff building is at the left, but the less significant Ok Savings & Loan, which obscured Sandridge's view from/to and integration with the core of downtown, is gone ... and Sandridge is immediately drawn into having a more integrated identity with downtown's core, at least as I see it.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge1.jpg

Actually, the OK S&L building can be seen as being a barrier which obscured and prevented Sandridge/Kerr McGee's integration with downtown in a more intimate way. Seeing the above, I'm inclined to see it that way. "Walls" of urban-ness strike me as a cliche and mean much less to me than does overall integration -- the "wall' concept strikes me as a predisposition favoring "walls" with a lesser importance, at least in this case, with a major downtown's integration into the whole. But, I'm not one who sees "urban walls" nearly as important as some do, and I'll opt for Sandridge's plan in the above image against such an argument. The next 3 views, east looking west, show the integration.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge2.jpg http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge3.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge4.jpg

Only one item in the pictures at the link puzzles me and gives me my greatest and only pause in wholeheartedly embracing what is shown at the website. All of the following relates to the 1902 India Temple building located at the NW corner or Couch & Broadway.

Do we, or Sandridge, really want to do away with a building which (1) is Okc's oldest remaining structure and (2) which has the historical significance of housing the State Legislature from 1913-1917 until the State Capitol building was done?

Probably the answer depends upon whether the old building has a realistic and economically feasible capacity to be restored. The answers about both those factors are not presently known, as far as I know.

The website images do not contain explicit images showing what would become of that building's space (that I can see), even though it would clearly be destroyed by this development (by all previous announcements).

I'm one who wants to know more about this matter before jumping on board, full speed ahead. If the 1902 building has a reasonable capacity of being restored, then I'd want Sandridge to act in a responsible historic way. If not, then go for it. But we just don't know about that, one way or another, as we speak.

maybe the people bitching about losing stuff should spend their own money if they don't like the plans. I think the plans look awesome

who gives a damn about the streetfronts, etc

it is Sandridge who is opening their wallet to make downtown a better place so they should be able to do as they please

Anyone who favors these plans can contact me and I'll consider a similar guest post representing the other side.
See my post after yours above was written. With qualifications about the India Temple Property, I see this plan as very worthwhile to the city. I've already expressed my thoughts about that, no need to repeat.

Who says Sandridge really has the money to do this...
Industry insiders tell me that Sandridge is broke. I personally know people (geologists), who have been laid off. I think this is a PR illusion to make them look viable.
My big worry is that they will get approval, demolish architectural treasures, fold and then leave us with the scars. An exact repeat of the Urban Renewal debacle of the 70's and 80"s.
I think Sandridge needs to open the books and SHOW US THE MONEY.
I know many people getting ready for this fight. :fighting3:fighting3:fighting3 I'm going to be one of them.

Thanks Doug!

Steve,
Article is finished. Where do I send it?
David

I know many people getting ready for this fight. :fighting3:fighting3:fighting3 I'm going to be one of them.

can't wait to see your face get bashed in

David, send it to slackmeyer@oklahoman.com

Interesting corporate testosterone display, but SHAME on OKC if they let Sandridge turn downtown into a suburbian wasteland. And SHAME on its citizens if they don't see this means that their own heritage is being destroyed.... AGAIN.

Why not just knock down all the buildings downtown and build a gigantic park?

Caveat: The old multi-level parking garage can go. At least it wasn't a former state capital building.


It would be different if downtown OKC had tons of buildings and few open spaces. Then a plaza would be unique. However, it is the other way around in OKC. Tall buildings are unique and open space is everywhere. I think they need to go back to the drawing board.


That architecture firm obviously didn't do their research. They focused on the environment of OKC and not the history.

How do we stop the destruction? This and the convention center will destroy more history than anything else in the city since Urban Renewal!


This is wholesomely discouraging.

I'll echo the sentiments of others. Those new buildings are pretty. It's the destruction of the older structures and replacement by trees that is disgusting. This really looks like a suburban paradise in the rendering. Guess what? It's Downtown OKC; I applaud Sandrige for taking the steps necessary to clean up and improve their campus and thus the north side of downtown. But this is a huge step backwards and is not going to help urbanity at all. There's not a single building fronting the north side of that street. Not one.

And are people really complaining about the wind tunnel effect? Are you kidding me?!


Who says Sandridge really has the money to do this...
Industry insiders tell me that Sandridge is broke. I personally know people (geologists), who have been laid off. I think this is a PR illusion to make them look viable.
My big worry is that they will get approval, demolish architectural treasures, fold and then leave us with the scars. An exact repeat of the Urban Renewal debacle of the 70's and 80"s.
I think Sandridge needs to open the books and SHOW US THE MONEY.
I know many people getting ready for this fight. :fighting3:fighting3:fighting3 I'm going to be one of them.


Agreed. The only type of young professionals we're going to attract that we so desperately seek are suburban minded ones, that will lead to a more generic suburban downtown in time. I like the new building in Kerr Park, but the rest of the demo and the park itself are a big mistake. I agree with the poster that Sandridge is iffy financially and the City of OKC better get proof of financing BEFORE any demo, otherwise Mayor Mick might have a legacy he wasn't hoping for. Urban Renewal Part 2.

I don't know about all of this. With BOK across the street already having a large setback, RS Kerr would pretty much end up with a suburban-style setback all along the north side of the street through downtown.

For Sandridge, however, I can see how all of this is a real conundrum. It is definitely awkward the way the buildings crowd out the west side of their headquarters(former Kerr Mcgee building), and a real challenge for any architect, I suppose, being tasked with designing a great unified campus. The question is, then - is the campus-style really necessary? Assuming Sandridge isn't going to be around forever(if they even last 15-20 years), what will be left to piece out in their wake? A whole bunch of park space that nobody is going to maintain.

wsucougz - you are correct. The real mistake was made over 30 years ago when the Kerr McGee building was set so far back from the street.

wsucougz - you are correct. The real mistake was made over 30 years ago when the Kerr McGee building was set so far back from the street.

After considering all of the issues, I actually quite agree. The demolitions should be attributed to the sins of the Pei era. There are creative solutions available if someone made saving the buildings the first priority. However, with the equally problematic setback of the BOK building, the Sandridge proposal makes some sense. Not the way I would have done it, but I understand the rational. My only caveat would be that the Indian Temple building should be examined to see if the historic facade still exists before demolition ensues.

Of course, Robinson Ave is a big loser under the proposal, but the city as a whole is gaining. Still, I would have preferred it if the design turned its back on Robinson (rather than make it the primary entrance), allowing them to leave the Robinson buildings intact and focus on restructuring the entrance on Broadway.

The question is really are we ever really going to be a dense downtown? I don’t think so. So maybe its time to explore a different type of downtown. With all the park plans from the river parks, core and shore and the medical center parks connection maybe its time to rebrand our thinking and to start thinking of a truely green approach to downtown. Trees, plaza, space, artworks, public use spaces, etc. All the plans I have seen are really bringing out all those features. Maybe we should become the city of parks. Wouldn’t that be a change from where we have been.

khook, I'm sorry but no. Oklahoma City has been and can be a dense walkable environment, there are no doubts about that. I see your solution as the easy way out; the chicken exit if you may. That is not acceptable urban planning, or acceptable planning period. Placing parks and open plazas where we can't be more ambitious and cohesive is just silly. Also, you're argument is surely flawed for an oversaturation of parks and plazas would lead to over-bearing of maintainence and underwhelming visitation to each of said parks and plazas.

It's not that this proposal is bad. It surely isn't, but the fact buildings are being destroyed for the sake of an already prominent skyscraper being unobstructed is just silly. I have only two suggestions for this plan that would make it acceptable. Either keep the Indian Temple building or replace it with another structure of equal presence and either reuse the building at the corner of Robinson, ala the Braniff Building, or replace it with equal presence.

I just cannot accept the fact that they are tearing down two significant structures and replacing them with trees. Especially when there is already a park across the street. There will be 3 structures left on that block when they are finished, one of them being a parking garage, and a vast amount of suburban-like parkspace. There is not a single building fronting the north side of that street when there should be.

I understand the woes of what they have been given in regards to the layout of that block and the placement of the tower, but destroying buildings without any significant replacement isn't the key to those woes or the urban fabric of downtown.

Maybe we should become the city of parks.

While this sounds great, I really think the outcome of such a strategy would fail to provide a high quality of life. It seems that parks get most of their value from their interactions at the edge and the density of users in close proximity. In a city with no enclosed urban spaces, the pleasure of an open green space is diminished.

What is the greatest "park" city in the US? Or what about the world? Probably NYC and Paris respectively - which also happen to be two of the densest cities.

At this point OKC still lacks the critical mass of density necessary to achieve an active urban downtown. The focus needs to be on increasing density in targeted areas and activating pedestrian level storefronts. Then we can use public space strategically to enhance the quality of the overall environment and user experience.

I've heard a lot of people mentioning Houston in this discussion, with MAPS 3, etc. I'm curious - when in the world did people begin to consider Houston as a place worth mimicking?

The question is really are we ever really going to be a dense downtown? I don’t think so. So maybe its time to explore a different type of downtown. With all the park plans from the river parks, core and shore and the medical center parks connection maybe its time to rebrand our thinking and to start thinking of a truely green approach to downtown. Trees, plaza, space, artworks, public use spaces, etc. All the plans I have seen are really bringing out all those features. Maybe we should become the city of parks. Wouldn’t that be a change from where we have been.

No offense, but this is just wrong.

pei has nothing to do with this...duh... however if these dog buildings are demolished that would be a benefit for downtown...

I've heard a lot of people mentioning Houston in this discussion, with MAPS 3, etc. I'm curious - when in the world did people begin to consider Houston as a place worth mimicking?

Isn't Houston the second Nirvana for the oilies around here?

Who says Sandridge really has the money to do this...
Industry insiders tell me that Sandridge is broke. I personally know people (geologists), who have been laid off. I think this is a PR illusion to make them look viable.
My big worry is that they will get approval, demolish architectural treasures, fold and then leave us with the scars. An exact repeat of the Urban Renewal debacle of the 70's and 80"s.
I think Sandridge needs to open the books and SHOW US THE MONEY.
I know many people getting ready for this fight. :fighting3:fighting3:fighting3 I'm going to be one of them.

MIKELS, I don't really agree with your opinions about this issue but let me say this - you're trying to make this out like its some big conspiracy to hurt us all. Its nothing more than a company wanting to do its part for OKC in a manner that you don't happen to agree with. There's no conspiracy. If you don't agree with them, then do as you say and question the plan.

As for your demand to "show you the money," Sandridge is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, Symbol SD. Go to any financial web site, for example, Yahoo, go to finance, type in SD under the quote window. I think its the left hand margin where you can look up the financial information on Sandridge and see what their cash level is. They are required to publicly disclose their books on a quarterly basis by SEC rules. You can "hear" all the rumors you want but if they are going broke, the information is there for you to see to make your own determination.

My main problem with SandRidge's proposal lies not in the fact that they're tearing out a chunk of the most urban area in this State. My problem is that the buildings they're demolishing are in no way ugly 60s-70s era concrete cubes. They're beautiful, architecturally and historically significant structures covered in concrete facades. Nowadays we build glass cubes. These are a different story. The detail of the original buildings is beautiful. As most of you know, the India Temple building once housed the State Legislature for four years while the State Capital building was being constructed. How Tom Ward can stomach bulldozing such a piece of Oklahoma history is beyond me. Maybe I'm crazy but it seems to me there should be a movement to save that building, and hopefully restore it.

We've gotten rid of enough buildings of the old Oklahoma City. Why continue replacing downtown with parkings lots and plazas?

You know what would be cool. Instead of tearing down the existing buildings, create a giant glass canopy over the entire area with a 40 to 60 foot ceiling. Once inside the enclosure it would be an all weather environment. Even if it was snowing with 40 mph winds you could leave your office and walk outside. It could be called Crystal Palace or something.

Here is the original Crystal Palace in London before it burned down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Crystal_Palace.PNG

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/history/assets/crystal_palace.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Crystal_Palace_interior.jpg

http://www.englishheritageprints.com/image/crystal-palace-ff91_00333_628033.jpg

An encloced Mall, what a concept. Good idea there.

either reuse the building at the corner of Robinson, ala the Braniff Building, or replace it with equal presence.

Perhaps you meant the KerMac building at the corner of Robinson and Robert S. Kerr? The Braniff Building at the corner of Robinson and Dean A. McGee (Northwest corner of the block - closest to the OKC Memorial) is being kept and renovated. Have any of the articles mentioned that the plans include the renovation of the ground floor of the Braniff Building into retail/restaurant space and the top floors into other office space?

That's not what I was saying. I was suggesting using the building at the corner of Robinson, KerMac now that you have put a name to it for me, like they have the Braniff Building in the plan.

"...reuse the building at the corner of Robinson like the Braniff Building..."

There, I re-worded it. I shouldn't have used 'ala'; it wasn't very clear.