When will we learn that a single individual, simply because he or she has made some money in the oil patch, shouldn't be dictating urban development. It doesn't seem like our city staff/government has learned their lesson yet.

All indications are that is a ways off still. Exhibit A - the Convention Center shenanigans.

Where are the broadway lots exactly?

SandRidge properties are in pink; Land Run in blue:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sandridge050715.jpg

Sandridge did more good than bad for that entire area. Sure, they tore down a building they shouldn't have & I wish they didn't, but the building they built & the buildings they rehabbed are phenomenal.

They demolished 3 buildings, the India Temple being by far the smallest. Now those lots are green space and probably won't be developed until extreme demand dictates so. I'd take buildings over grass any day. If they didn't notice we already have tons of open and vacant lots when they made these foolish Commons plan.

sad- remember how arrogant the hick oilies were at the time and had the puppet council jam through rule changes to expidite the demo for another soulless generic development.

Actually, what was developed (Braniff and Parkside) are neither soulless nor generic. It's the open space created by demolition that looks out of place.

Actually, what was developed (Braniff and Parkside) are neither soulless nor generic. It's the open space created by demolition that looks out of place.

I agree with this. I like the Parkside building (just wish it was tall enough to make an impact on the skyline). I dislike that so much was demolished for park land that isn't being used.

Actually, what was developed (Braniff and Parkside) are neither soulless nor generic. It's the open space created by demolition that looks out of place.

Yeah they did a great job with the buildings they retained and the ones they built. I even think the landscaping looks nice...just way out of place, especially with the park going in to the south. If anything I wish they would've left the Oklahoma Savings & Loans building to preserve the Robinson Street wall, would've made nice housing. The India temple building would've been nice as well had the exterior been preservable in any meaningful way. Hopefully the property changing hands will eventually lead to more development on that block.

Part of this has to be because a 575 employee company doesn't need a 30 story tower along with everything else they have.

You can see lots of offices are dark in that building.

I'd be surprised if they have anywhere close to 575 employees in that structure.

Good thing we let SandRidge knock down the India Temple building while they still owned it, an outside owner might have down the unthinkable and redeveloped it.

I guess this what happens when we bow down to a company that was already having financial issues back then and was headed up by a notorious self dealer.

Remember when they threatened this if they couldnt demo buildings?

SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/sandridge-energy-threatens-to-leave-downtown-oklahoma-city-over-resistance-to-headquarters-plans/article/3469383)

I guess this what happens when we bow down to a company that was already having financial issues back then and was headed up by a notorious self dealer.

Remember when they threatened this if they couldnt demo buildings?

SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/sandridge-energy-threatens-to-leave-downtown-oklahoma-city-over-resistance-to-headquarters-plans/article/3469383)

Yep, that's exactly what has been going through my mind.

I guess this what happens when we bow down to a company that was already having financial issues back then and was headed up by a notorious self dealer.

Remember when they threatened this if they couldnt demo buildings?

SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/sandridge-energy-threatens-to-leave-downtown-oklahoma-city-over-resistance-to-headquarters-plans/article/3469383)

*Like*

Jeff Wilson, spokesman for SandRidge, said the 575-employee workforce is consolidated in the 30-story tower.

“This is about us making sure we continue to focus on our core area – drilling and completing wells,” Wilson said. “We’re looking to make sure we can monetize the asset.”

Does monetize mean shedding debt or just plain broke? :Smiley145

You can see lots of offices are dark in that building.

I'd be surprised if they have anywhere close to 575 employees in that structure.

Each floor has multiple offices that are empty. All floors had individuals on them, some sides were left blank for expansion purposes. Some floors contain large workspaces, meeting rooms etc... that are not in use at all times. It's laid out very well. After the layoff it is much emptier throughout. Some departments have consolidated to one floor now rather than occupying several.

Does monetize mean shedding debt or just plain broke? :Smiley145

Monetizing just means getting cash out of the asset. It is not unusual for companies to not own their own real estate assets. It can improve ROI, and certainly liquidity. They are most likely in need of cash and this is one way to do it. They may indeed be desperate, but this doesn't prove that.

Monetizing just means getting cash out of the asset. It is not unusual for companies to not own their own real estate assets. It can improve ROI, and certainly liquidity. They are most likely in need of cash and this is one way to do it. They may indeed be desperate, but this doesn't prove that.

Absolutely, with the size of the company what it is, they are able to monetize the asset and move their employees into 1 building (probably the Parkside) and use the money to invest in drilling operations.

I noticed construction continuing on the park, I'm pleased with the layout. I hope they make it.

Actually, they tore down 5 buildings, one of which was on the same plot of ground the Parkside building is on now, but was 50' taller.

Also, does this mean they won't be building the new 20 story building?

Actually, they tore down 5 buildings, one of which was on the same plot of ground the Parkside building is on now, but was 50' taller.

Also, does this mean they won't be building the new 20 story building?

Yeah, as many empty lots as OKC has, I really wonder why ANYTHING needs to be torn down, with the possible exception of metal warehouses/garages that can't possibly be rehabilitated in an urban fashion.

I said long ago that the building representing the biggest mistake was the tower itself. It should have never been built in the middle of the block.

This was all on Tom Ward's watch:

SandRidge is target of antitrust grand jury probe: filing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-sandridge-antitrust-idUSKBN0NS2ED20150508)

I'm not too familiar. Why did Ward leave CHK? In the movie, I couldn't tell if there was any tension or not regarding Aubrey and Ward.

I'm not too familiar. Why did Ward leave CHK? In the movie, I couldn't tell if there was any tension or not regarding Aubrey and Ward.

I think he left to become CEO of an oil company in Amarillo, which he moved to OKC and renamed Sandridge.

From a real estate side, how quickly are these going to sell? Is there any interest in them?

From a real estate side, how quickly are these going to sell? Is there any interest in them?

The best bet would to sell them off separately.

The tower is a hard sell because it's currently a single-tenant building with a high-risk entity paying the rent.

Braniff is fully leased, so that's a good candidate for a pure investor / real estate trust.

Parkside is completely unleased, so that would take a speculator or perhaps a company that wants it for their own use.

I just hope they don't sell off the parking structure separately, otherwise the tower in particular would be very hard to lease if/when SD goes belly up.

Would this be an opportunity for Continental?

I think he left to become CEO of an oil company in Amarillo, which he moved to OKC and renamed Sandridge.

He took his 1.2 billion and ran. He bought Riata in Amarillo and moved them to the Valliance Tower. Then Chesapeake was involved in some deal with Anadarko who had bought Kerr McGee and absorbed them to Houston, as a result CHK ended up with the K/M Tower. Tom Ward then bought the old K/M campus for somewhere around 20 million from Chesapeake. Or at least something close to this scenario.

Actually, what was developed (Braniff and Parkside) are neither soulless nor generic. It's the open space created by demolition that looks out of place.

Nothing special or unique unlike what was razed. They copped the design for the glass building from one in Tulsa.

Actually, what was developed (Braniff and Parkside) are neither soulless nor generic. It's the open space created by demolition that looks out of place.

I agree with this, and I also cringe to read "hick oilies," although I understand the reasons for that sentiment.

What's strange though is I keep reading about a park... I remember there being a park when I was a kid, even through high school and into college. I am growing old (as we all are) watching this "park" be delivered as promised.

The irony is that there was a park, which we allowed to instead be used as a construction staging site for FIVE years, because apparently we were in such need of green space around there.

I heard that they were in it for over $700/sf... They're going to likely take a huge loss if they sell them for anywhere near market comps. Any idea what the sales price is?

I heard that they were in it for over $700/sf... They're going to likely take a huge loss if they sell them for anywhere near market comps. Any idea what the sales price is?

How could they possibly be in it for over $700/sf?

They purchased the tower for $23M and put, according to Wikipedia $100M into the complex. The Tower alone is 430k sf. That accounts for $261/sf. Not sure how they would have nearly tripled that amount.

Nothing special or unique unlike what was razed. They copped the design for the glass building from one in Tulsa.

Tulsa has a building that is historic on one side, glass on the other?

is there a list price for these buildings?

I was wondering how wise it would be to buy a building with a single tennant that may not be able to make the lease payment.

I was wondering how wise it would be to buy a building with a single tennant that may not be able to make the lease payment.

If the buyer is that concerned about the ability to pay, they can request that an appropriate percentage proceeds from the sale be put in an escrow account that is drawn on for payment of the lease terms.

If the buyer is that concerned about the ability to pay, they can request that an appropriate percentage proceeds from the sale be put in an escrow account that is drawn on for payment of the lease terms.

That would defeat the whole reason for selling it.

That would defeat the whole reason for selling it.

There would still be a significant portion of proceeds from the sale.

There would still be a significant portion of proceeds from the sale.

How do you figure? Who would buy a building and then charge the only tennant less than what it costs to buy the building?

How do you figure? Who would buy a building and then charge the only tennant less than what it costs to buy the building?

Isn't that why a lot of people get into rental properties? You borrow money to purchase the property and then lease out the space at a rate that covers your mortgage payment.

I would assume Sandridge has some equity built up in the building.

Except they did all those renovations so maybe they're actually in debt in that regard?

Isn't that why a lot of people get into rental properties? You borrow money to purchase the property and then lease out the space at a rate that covers your mortgage payment.

Buyer will analyze current and forecasted rate of return on capital, net of all expenses. What they have to charge is relative to cost of purchase, any additional capital expenses, current and potential gross income, and all costs of operations, depreciation, etc. Buyers will have their particular formulae, ratios,and acceptable returns. Big institutional investors may well accept a lower cap rate if they deem the tenant a good long term tenant with ability to pay.

Except they did all those renovations so maybe they're actually in debt in that regard?

They bought low and are counting on the capex to have created more value than what was spent...or at least more than what was borrowed to do it.

You guys are making this harder than it is and appeared to have skip over a few posts that were pertinent to this particular aspect of the discussion.

If Sandridge can't pay their rent, they get kicked out and someone else moves in that can pay. I'm sure any previous agreement they have with new owners of their building is null and void at that point. Seems pretty simple to me.

The buyer doesn't have to worry about the ability of the tenant to pay because they bought a newly remodeled building full of class A space in a market where demand for class a space is high.

Except they did all those renovations so maybe they're actually in debt in that regard?

The fact that they are selling the building shows that there is at least some value in the buildings. Selling the buildings will not solve their debt problem, but it buys them time.

That's just it though. How many companies does OKC have waiting to move into a 30 story building? It is a lot of risk for a perspective owner to take on.

That's just it though. How many companies does OKC have waiting to move into a 30 story building? It is a lot of risk for a perspective owner to take on.

They are not going to be looking for one company to fill the entire tower.

That's just it though. How many companies does OKC have waiting to move into a 30 story building? It is a lot of risk for a perspective owner to take on.

You know that it is very common for high rise buildings to be divided by floors and even subdivided beyond that with multiple companies occupying the same floor? Examples include Leadership Square, Cotter Ranch Tower, Oklahoma Tower, Robinson Renaissance, BOK, Corporate Tower, the towers on NW Expressway, and really just about any office tower in OKC with the exception of Devon, Continental, SR and some utilities? I mean, this is commercial real estate 101, Kerry.

How do you figure? Who would buy a building and then charge the only tennant less than what it costs to buy the building?

Literally every single person who has ever purchased investment property in the history of the entire world.

How fast do you think the cost to buy investment property is recouped?

I'm not at all sure how you've gotten yourself into this line of thinking.

Sandridge sells for X

some % of X that would cover the lease for 1 or 2 years would be put in escrow.

X - %X = Sandridge proceeds

%X = Whatever the company needs to charge to have a profitable investment.

%X =/= X. %X probably doesn't even equal 10%X.

Well, we will see who, if anyone, buys it.

Cannot believe no one wants to purchase this property!

Cannot believe no one wants to purchase this property!

Why do you think that no one wants to buy it? Do you have some information you want to share with us?

SandRidge Tower was lit up last night. Hopefully this will become permanent.

From https://twitter.com/slackscom:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sandridge051717.jpg

yay

Woot woot!!!

they actually posted a profit last quarter after emerging from chap 11. lets hope they're on solid footing and keep growing

Completely dark all of last night.

I was in the City last night and noticed that :(

I was walking home the night it was lit up. There was a photographer there taking pictures of the building.