Actually, the residents of Vancouver are outdoors a lot. They ski in the winter (winter olympic sites 100 miles and less north), golf a lot (great courses in the area - like Furry creek), bicycle a lot (bicycling clubs very active) and walk a lot in the downtown and around the harbour areas. I actually think that in many ways they get out and use their outdoors more than we do here in OKC. Lots of festivals. Here, we get to our large homes in the suburbs and spend our outdoors in the back yards where no one can see us.

Rover - I can understand that happening in Vancouver and I probably should have excluded them in my question. Vancouver has the moderting effect of the ocean but many of the cities in Canada don't and all of their cities have dense downtowns. I think the cold temps for a large part of the year is a large factor in why so many want to live in small area. Now that might facilitate the items mentioned earlier like speed-up the development process with the city.

It's good to see some effort to revitalize OKC's downtown area. This city has been undersold for a very long time I think. I will say I'm not holding my breath for this project however. Sandridge is drowning in debt, has very little cash, and is a potential KMG/Anadarko waiting to happen. Would hate to see things just getting started when Ward decides he's sunk enough of his personal fortune and cashes out leaving the city holding the bag not unlike KMG did with the buildings surrounding the tower and the Kerr Park.

I think the spread we see here has more to do with cheap suburban lots, little to no development restrictions, a "disposable" building mentality, and years of no re-investment in downtown more than the climate. Finally, Larry Nichols and Devon have stepped up and dare to be a patron of downtown. And even though this thread started as a critique of Sandridge, at least they are making a committment and placing their money on the table. Most cities need strong corporate leadership who will take ownership positions and develop strategic areas of the city. Look what guys like Trammel Crowe did for Dallas. And, the Maps vote confirms the general (though not all) population agrees that downtown has to be a point of continued empahsis for this city to grow.

Perhaps the hope for Sandridge will be that they are so successful that a few years from now they will add buildings to their plaza area for their employees to live in or to house more employees than their current structure will allow. They conceivably can create their own in-fill when it makes sense. Right now to hold unreparable buildings in a city core about to have to absorb 900M sq ft of space might be a bit much to ask of anyone.

CaptDave, do you know the name of it? I'd like to see more photos and info on that. Looks pretty innovative.

I see some others have answered your question Steve - sorry I didnt see it sooner. They look pretty nice. They are adjacent to several nice restaurants and within walking distance of 4th Street Live (entertainment district) and the river.

Did someone say Calgary?


I also want OKC to be much more dense but realistically you can't compare American cities to those in other countries.

The U.S. was developed much differently because of the tremendous power and influence of big oil and the auto makers. They thwarted the streetcar systems, lobbied for the massive interstate system, fought against foreign competition, etc.

Do you realize that Calgary is the Oil Capital of the North? Alberta, as a whole, is also politically foreign to the rest of Canada, where even if it were in the U.S., it would be conservative by our standards. The simple fact is that more people in Calgary actually care about their city. That's why Mercer ranked us the world's cleanest city, why we're ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world, and so on.

There's a boundary line that goes around the city that reigns in the suburban sprawl, and a lot of the Rocky Mountain foothills outside of town are environmentally protected. Beautiful landscapes. The inner city also enjoys absolutely free LRT access. The LRT only has fares once you leave the downtown core area. And another thing in Calgary's favor is the simple fact that DT Calgary has reached critical mass..DT OKC hasn't even come close.

http://members.shaw.ca/d_fault/images/ssp/citypan_s.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/4138834730_0ffd6963cf_b.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S1KTAtDWaZI/AAAAAAAAAaA/fkzKT0zsutU/s1600-h/3988052748_8cd7c2b737_b.jpg

so?

There's a boundary line that goes around the city that reigns in the suburban sprawl, and a lot of the Rocky Mountain foothills outside of town are environmentally protected. Beautiful landscapes. The inner city also enjoys absolutely free LRT access. The LRT only has fares once you leave the downtown core area.

I have been advocating the free transit for a long time. As for the ring around the city, I come and go on this issue. I don't like someone being told what they can or can't do on their land but I think the city would be well served to rein in the city limits a few hundred sq miles and just not offer services outside the city limit. If someone wants to build outside the city limits in an unincorporated area let them have a well and septic tank and go to the county for fire and police. We should stop building infrastrucutre into rural areas when there isplant of available urban land to use - especially during tough economic times.

Right. Anyone can build a home outside Calgary or even a neighborhood, you can do whatever you want outside the boundary--but it's just that, the city won't provide infrastructure. So a lot of the development that goes on outside the ring is the upper echelon of real estate, and people who can afford to put in their own infrastructure and sprawl out with a McMansion on several acres.

Here is one such example of an area just NW of the newly extended boundary around the Stoney Trail.
[url=http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=Calgary,+AB&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&gl=us&ei=FrlxS6i_GoPR8QbouLnDCw&ved=0CAkQ8gEwAA&ll=51.169657,-114.263992&spn=0.052956,0.154324&z=13]Calgary, AB - Google Maps[/url

Ultimately it really IS the City of OKC that is buckling to sprawl interests and helping the sprawl just as much as anyone.
____________

Back to the topic at hand, when does it go before the Downtown Design Review Committee?

Thanks for the confirmation Spartan and I agree, the City of Oklahoma City is its own worst enemy when it comes to sprawl and the lack of new buildings downtown. If they would rein in the city limits and stop providing infrastrucutre to the far reaches of the fringe they would be a lot better off.

If they put me in charge for a day I would de-annex all land that is not currently urbanized. If people want to still live there fine, but the OKC taxpayers aren't going to build a four lane road to your development. Form your own town or go ask the county.

Is there anyway a citizens initiative could do this or does it take an act of the city council?

Is there anyway a citizens initiative could do this or does it take an act of the city council?

I would be interested, too. More sprawl = more tax revenue for the city. But the mindset needs to change to one of boosting the property values IN the already-developed areas by encouraging redevelopment. I don't know how you do that.

More sprawl = more tax revenue for the city. But the mindset needs to change to one of boosting the property values IN the already-developed areas by encouraging redevelopment. I don't know how you do that.

That would be true if all the land in OKC was urbanized but when someone builds a subdivision 1 mile down a dirt road and the city has to spend a few million to pave roads out to it it plus other infrastructure it takes a long time to recoup those costs. I would rather they work to increase property values within the current urbanized area as well.

but the OKC taxpayers aren't going to build a four lane road to your development.

*cough* Quail Springs *cough*

*cough* Quail Springs *cough*

Exactly. Look at all of those office building out there in the +100,000 sq range. If the city refused to put in infrastrucutre that far out all of that development would have occured in town using existing infrstructure. Think of all the tax dollars that would have saved.

So when does this go before Downtown Design Review or whomever? Steve, we need this event promoted to the public so we can show up and protest.

Steve? When does it go before Downtown Design Review?

For any of you who oppose this plan, please bullet point your opposition reasons or PM me. I'm being interviewed for an article on this and would like to consider the collective feedback from you all.

A request to raze one of OKC?s oldest structures is slated for consideration March 18 | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5767/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Historic preservation and the India Shrine building are the wrong argument. I'm sorry, but if you even have Bob Blackburn saying a building has no historic integrity and is not worth fighting over, it's a weak argument. I say this as someone who has lived and espoused HP more than the next guy -- both personally and professionally -- for much of my adult life.

The controversy in this case should be over the loss of multi-story urban fabric and urban density downtown, and especially along Robinson, replaced by plaza/street level amenities. The controversy should be over suburbanization of downtown, and the creation of an environment less conducive to pedestrian activity. I admire the effort, but in this case, HP has no real teeth.

As usual, the media took my quotes out of context and edited them as usual, mentioned nothing of an analysis, density and other arguments I presented. Bob Blackburn shouldn't be the end all be all decision maker either.

The controversy in this case should be over the loss of multi-story urban fabric and urban density downtown, and especially along Robinson, replaced by plaza/street level amenities. The controversy should be over suburbanization of downtown, and the creation of an environment less conducive to pedestrian activity. I admire the effort, but in this case, HP has no real teeth.

Great points!

If SandRidge could rework their plans to maintain the Robinson urban canyon (about the only one in OKC) I don't think many people would care about the razing the existing buildings, especially since they have been vacant for so long.

Plus, the last thing we need downtown is a "campus" which in itself is a suburban concept. A "complex" is what should be developed, and it should be dense rather than filled with open plazas.

The controversy should be over suburbanization of downtown, and the creation of an environment less conducive to pedestrian activity. I admire the effort, but in this case, HP has no real teeth.

I think you hit right on the head Urbanized. The debate should be around the suburbanization of downtown. I think that is something everyone could be behind. I don't mind losing the buildings as long as they are replaced with something as vertically significant.

Apart from density, they are planning to replace the India Temple building with a parking garage.

That would be far more palatable if there was retail or something other than a monolithic car park at street level along Broadway and RSK.

oh Sandridge.. you red headed step child of the OK energy companies.

As usual, the media took my quotes out of context and edited them as usual, mentioned nothing of an analysis, density and other arguments I presented. Bob Blackburn shouldn't be the end all be all decision maker either.

Come on now.... really? Really?

Well for one metro.... how do you know all they have to do is remove the concrete... I bet there is nothing left of value under the new facade.

I'm beginning to think... raze it... let Sandridge go ahead with their plans.

Metro, you're a much odder authority than Blackburn on the subject.

Yeah the historic preservation argument doesn't hold water. We need to focus our opposition on the density argument. Even if they would just build 4-5 story new structures on each corner, that would solve the problem.

WHY do they need to "improve sightlines" to a tower than looms over everything around it? #LAME

I would like some feedback on this idea.. to me this is about corporate image and corporate ego, and the right of Sand Ridge to pursue turning Downtown into its corporate campus. Tom Ward has a Nichols Hills mentality, not a Downtown mentality. It just so happens that KMG was an affordable opportunity for him. To me a strong argument exists in that we need to stand together to prevent them from turning a potentially dynamic city block into a corporate campus. Downtown is not the place for corporate campuses.

I know that's probably badly worded too, so I'm going to have to consider a better way to word that before I write the letter to DDR.

I would like some feedback on this idea.. to me this is about corporate image and corporate ego, and the right of Sand Ridge to pursue turning Downtown into its corporate campus. Tom Ward has a Nichols Hills mentality, not a Downtown mentality. It just so happens that KMG was an affordable opportunity for him. To me a strong argument exists in that we need to stand together to prevent them from turning a potentially dynamic city block into a corporate campus. Downtown is not the place for corporate campuses.

I know that's probably badly worded too, so I'm going to have to consider a better way to word that before I write the letter to DDR.

Why write a letter that will probably have little impact when you can start a petition to send to city leaders? Surely there are mulitple thousands of like minded citizens that care greatly for urban canyons, urban fabric and street walls in our city. Dynamic leaders such as yourself and several other members of this forum could surely lead a movement that could impact the future of our downtown for decades to come. It is obviously time that this forum send a message to any other corporations that might consider locating in OKC that OKC will not tolerate the suburbaniztion of our core. Let them know that unless they want to follow the OKC Talk thought process, they are not welcome to build downtown. The Sandridge plan would be the ideal place to start. Good luck to you and others should you to decide to take on the quest.

As usual, the media took my quotes out of context and edited them as usual, mentioned nothing of an analysis, density and other arguments I presented. Bob Blackburn shouldn't be the end all be all decision maker either.

The classic "blame the media" defense. Good one, m!

I would gladly sign a petition. I've taken the time to really look at the buildings they are proposing tear downs for - and it really would be a density killer. We should be working on filling in the gaps in downtown, not creating more of them.

The Downtown Design Review Committee has served us well and echoed many of the sentiments that we have expressed here.

Check it out here. (http://www.okc.gov/planning/planning_library/drc/10-016.pdf) The document is quite lengthy. Read page 5 for the design review committee's thoughts. They quite clearly expressed a dislike for the demolition and "suburbanization" created by the loss of 5 structures and the building of plazas.

"These buildings reflect the appearance as a result of the Kerr-McGee ownership beginning in the 1950s and the architectural tenet of the time. They represent an important part of the urban fabric of the "Skyscraper District" of Oklahoma City. It is indisputable that the buildings are local legacy resources representing significant historical development of the high-rise district of the City, and their loss would have a significant adverse effect on the historical urban fabric as defined 50 years ago.

These structures help define and enclose the street corridor, creating a sense of urban activity, intensity, and spatial containment as well establishing the character of the street and district. They place mass at street level, most significant at the corners, and complement the large scale of the tower by providing vertical integration with the street level and reinforcing the block patter and grid of the urban street.

The loss of buildings that may have economic viability in exchange for open space would erode the urban density of the downtown moving it close to a suburban character. While open space has value in a downtown environment, the extent of the proposed plazas, decks, and landscaping again reflects a more suburban scale and does not appear to be based on any studies indicating the need for such.

Downtowns are defined by the presence of high-rise buildings. To eliminate five structures that represent true urban character and that define what constitutes a "downtown" - buildings, massing, and definition of the street edge is counter-productive to the intent and purpose of downtown development and other recent proposed redevelopment efforts in the downtown core. Replacement of just one building [albeit an attractive one] does not adequately mitigate this substantial loss of urban fabric."

They denied the demolition of 300 N Robinson, 135 Robert S Kerr, 125 Robert S Kerr, and 107 Robert S Kerr; Only approving the demolition of the building at 120 Robert S Kerr and it's replacement. Well. These are the considerations and recommendations to do so anyways. I'm not sure if they officially declared so.

Hurray. Let's hope they hold their ground.

It also appears that the non-profit organization Preservation Oklahoma wrote a letter to Tom Ward himself urging him to reconsider the demolition of the four buildings without replacement.

So, everyone wants to keep useless and ugly buildings that in and of themselves have little to no historic merit just because they have "mass" and are mass at the corners? Wow. Some people need to get to some of the more dynamic cities in the country and see progressive urbanism at work and what it can do.

So, everyone wants to keep useless and ugly buildings that in and of themselves have little to no historic merit just because they have "mass" and are mass at the corners? Wow. Some people need to get to some of the more dynamic cities in the country and see progressive urbanism at work and what it can do.

Rover, please tell us which cities that would be and what they are doing that we should be imitating.

Agreed. Rover, you better have some credibility in your position, otherwise your knowledge is nothing more than ignorance. These people who so eloquently worded their stance on this subject were put in their position because they are wise enough to decide what is good for this city's urban fabric; they may have hiccups but they are completely correct on this dilemma.

I also wonder what cities you speak of? When I think dynamic cities I think Chiacago, NYC, London, Paris, etc. I can safely assume from your irrate words, that you must think dynamic is the converse of such respective urban, dense, and progressive cities.

Perhaps, you should read over the meeting yourself. They are not aiming to keep every old building in the city, but they do plan on creating an urban fabric that is dense, walkable, and inviting. Whether it's an old building or a building's successor. In these plans, there were no replacements except for dirt and grass. If that's the type of "dynamic" and "progressive" urbanism you prefer, then move to a sparsely populated suburban area and enjoy all the non-mass that could possibly surround you.

Well said Architect 2010!

I am all for trees and landscaping but the downtown should be just that skyscrapers and sidewalks not plazas and open space. I have been all over and the cities that draw me to walk are the cities that have the dense buildings and history. My favorite dynamic cities are NYC, San Fran, Portland, and New Orleans, which OKC can learn from each. NYC for its density and organic growth, San Fran for its street cars, Portland for the same reason, and New Orleans for not destroying its historic buildings.

Metro, you're a much odder authority than Blackburn on the subject.

Yeah the historic preservation argument doesn't hold water. We need to focus our opposition on the density argument. Even if they would just build 4-5 story new structures on each corner, that would solve the problem.

WHY do they need to "improve sightlines" to a tower than looms over everything around it? #LAME

Again, the "historic preservation" wasn't my main argument, my main argument was density the same as many of you share. As usual, the media picks and chooses their quotes to frame their article the way THEY want it. I had numerous quotes about the other arguments they failed to mention any of them. They also didn't cite my sources. Sure Blackburn is a HISTORY expert, but that doesn't make him a structural engineer and doesn't mean he can't be wrong. The same arguments were made for the Skirvin by many and look at it today. Also, many would say Anthony McDermid is more credible than I, and a few years ago he was trying to convert some of these buildings into housing along with Kerr McGee. Something smells fishy to me now that these buildings are now "insufficient" by Blackburn and a Sandridge.


I would like some feedback on this idea.. to me this is about corporate image and corporate ego, and the right of Sand Ridge to pursue turning Downtown into its corporate campus. Tom Ward has a Nichols Hills mentality, not a Downtown mentality. It just so happens that KMG was an affordable opportunity for him. To me a strong argument exists in that we need to stand together to prevent them from turning a potentially dynamic city block into a corporate campus. Downtown is not the place for corporate campuses.

I know that's probably badly worded too, so I'm going to have to consider a better way to word that before I write the letter to DDR.

Exactly, I mentioned this quite a bit in my interview with the Gazette. Notice how NONE of this point was mentioned. It's corporate ***** envy, Devon and Chesapeake have stole all the PR lately. One of my quotes was that they'd get wayyy more PR value if they would spend a few extra million to RESTORE the india temple building.



Why write a letter that will probably have little impact when you can start a petition to send to city leaders? Surely there are mulitple thousands of like minded citizens that care greatly for urban canyons, urban fabric and street walls in our city. Dynamic leaders such as yourself and several other members of this forum could surely lead a movement that could impact the future of our downtown for decades to come. It is obviously time that this forum send a message to any other corporations that might consider locating in OKC that OKC will not tolerate the suburbaniztion of our core. Let them know that unless they want to follow the OKC Talk thought process, they are not welcome to build downtown. The Sandridge plan would be the ideal place to start. Good luck to you and others should you to decide to take on the quest.


Spartan doesn't have any more pull than the next guy, plus he lives in Canada. If we want this petition, we'll have to do it ourselves. I'd be happy to head something up since the media approached me about this topic. As a longtime downtown resident, former DT worker and property owner, unfortunately I HIGHLY doubt there are "multiple thousands" that care about urban canyons. Hundreds if we're lucky. Most Oklahomans just dont care and aren't in the know about this stuff.

I'm pretty sure Popsy was being sarcastic.

Ladies and Gentlemen of this blog, I think we can congratulate ourselves on a lobby well done. It is clear that the Downtown Design Review Committee has taken the long-term view of what is good for the city. It is without doubt that they read and genuinely considered some of the comments here in their decision to help preserve the scarce urban fabric downtown.

Long live constructive blogging!

How would everyone feel about something like this? It is Peachtree Center in downtown Atlanta. If the goal of Sandridge is to establish a corporate presence what if they made the facades of all their buildings match the main tower.

http://paulmunsey.com/atlanta/dscn0709.jpg

It is similar to the Embarcadaro Center in San Fran.

http://www.portmanholdings.com/images/image_Embarcadero_bird_to_bay.jpg

Glad some on here consider me ignorant.

Though I am not an architect I have been in the construction business worldwide for over 20 years and have had projects in approximately 30 countries. (And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express. :) )

Cities like Vancouver are not just long streets of buildings up to the street with long canyons of buildings. There are many projects there where the building is set back from the street and surrounded by plazas and fountains. The cities many mention on here like Chicago, NYC, San Francisco are not reasonable examples of what OKC will be able to achieve in multiple lifetimes. We are more like Melbourne. Or even maybe we can aspire to create a modern environment of plazas like old European Cities. I love Lyon, France with a major plaza in the middle of town and low-mid rise streets and tree lined boulevards and corniches along the river. We will not be Hong Kong or Singapore but can be something we can enjoy during the next 50 years. Plazas overlooked by cafes and coffee shops, next to boutique hotels and condos would be quite nice. There is more than the Americanized version of what urban spaces are.

Rover. That was the most intelligent post I have read in this forum in the almost five years I have been a member of OKC Talk. I care as much as the next guy for downtown OKC and what it looks like. I do not however, share the views of many on this board, but I do respect their right to have those views. I just think they are banging their heads against a wall to think as Metro and Spartan that they can actually impact a decision. I will be absolutely shocked if the city council supports any ideas other that Sandridge's. Furthermore, any one with any sense at all would realize that there will never be another speculative tower built as long as so much vacant space remains downtown. Also, Sandridge is in the oil business, not the apartment or condo building business and it is absolute insanity to think they should. Grow up.

Urbanized. Congratulations on having the comprehension skills to detect that I was responding to Spartan with tongue in cheek. I did not for a minute think that Spartan or Metro would take it for anything other than stroking their egos.

If the group can convince Sandridge to drop their plans through the city council, then my hat is off to you.

Glad some on here consider me ignorant.

Though I am not an architect I have been in the construction business worldwide for over 20 years and have had projects in approximately 30 countries. (And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express. :) )

Cities like Vancouver are not just long streets of buildings up to the street with long canyons of buildings. There are many projects there where the building is set back from the street and surrounded by plazas and fountains. The cities many mention on here like Chicago, NYC, San Francisco are not reasonable examples of what OKC will be able to achieve in multiple lifetimes. We are more like Melbourne. Or even maybe we can aspire to create a modern environment of plazas like old European Cities. I love Lyon, France with a major plaza in the middle of town and low-mid rise streets and tree lined boulevards and corniches along the river. We will not be Hong Kong or Singapore but can be something we can enjoy during the next 50 years. Plazas overlooked by cafes and coffee shops, next to boutique hotels and condos would be quite nice. There is more than the Americanized version of what urban spaces are.

Rover, the difference between OKC and place like NY, Chicago, San Fran, Vancouver is that they already have very dense verticle business districts. If someone wants to bring in plazas and open space to those cities then that is unique and new to them. We already have plenty of open space in downtown OKC, with more to come. Making another plaza in downtown OKC isn't something new, it is just more of the same.

If you ever get a chance to walk the streets of downtown Jax take it. There are very few plazas and open areas and even fewer surface parking lots. When you are on the streets of downtown Jax it has a very urban feel. Much more so than downtown OKC. Check it out via Google Earth.

Architect 2010...Since you called me out and implied I am ignorant, I am just curious as to how many world urban areas you have actually spent time in, lived in or worked in. There is a difference about reading theory in a book and observing how cities develop a character. There are many many ways to create livable, enjoyable urban centers. I have visited hundreds of large, medium and small cities in more than 30 countries in all continents except Antarctica. I have found that the most memorable ones are unique and have cultural character. It isn't in street walls or urban canyons where cities are formed. It is in developing areas where the character, personality and culture of the region can be enjoyed. Salt Lake City has sprawling wide streets while Milano has narrow cobblestone urban arteries. Both are pleasant and regionally appropriate. Oklahoma City just needs to keep moving forward and adapting itself and in 100 years we will see what it will become. It will not be the vision of outside experts, but the trial and error successes and failures.

It will not be the vision of outside experts, but the trial and error successes and failures.

I'm not A2010 but I think this is exactly what we are driving at. OKC already tried the "tearn down in favor of open space" route and it destroyed the central city for 40+ years. The key part of trial and error is to recognize the errors and not repeat them. Otherwise, you just have error and failure. Plazas and open space are not helping to rebuild downtown OKC - emphasis on the rebuild.

Rover, the difference between OKC and place like NY, Chicago, San Fran, Vancouver is that they already have very dense verticle business districts. If someone wants to bring in plazas and open space to those cities then that is unique and new to them. We already have plenty of open space in downtown OKC, with more to come. Making another plaza in downtown OKC isn't something new, it is just more of the same.
If you ever get a chance to walk the streets of downtown Jax take it. There are very few plazas and open areas and even fewer surface parking lots. When you are on the streets of downtown Jax it has a very urban feel. Much more so than downtown OKC. Check it out via Google Earth.

That's a very good point, Kerry. Everything is relative and we already have so much of the open space and plaza atmosphere in our downtown.

Making another plaza in downtown OKC isn't something new, it is just more of the same.

The Robinson corridor, and a precious few other segments of downtown are the only in the entire 640 or so sq./mile of OKC that feel urban AT ALL. Can we at least have these few? I don't want my city to be one big suburb...

There are many many ways to create livable, enjoyable urban centers. I have visited hundreds of large, medium and small cities in more than 30 countries in all continents except Antarctica. I have found that the most memorable ones are unique and have cultural character. It isn't in street walls or urban canyons where cities are formed. It is in developing areas where the character, personality and culture of the region can be enjoyed.

Rover, I agree that there are many ways to create enjoyable urban centers but I'm not sure I understand how having more open space and plazas around our downtown office buildings makes us unique with cultural character. I feel more of that in areas like Automobile Alley or Midtown and hopefully the Film Exchange Areas soon.

the key is, if they tear down the buildings, they need to replace with new vertical buildings. It is not so much to keep empty buildings, it is to keep urban fabric and the ONLY true skyscraper canyon in the whole state intact.

again, they can tear it down but they need to have solid plans/financing to replace - even with garages with street level retail; would work.

And as someone else mentioned, OKC should model itself after other cities with large skyscraper cores - NY, Chicago, SF, Vancouver all come to mind. Those cities can afford to lose a canyon or two because they have solid business districts of more than 300 skyscrapers.

This is what we should shoot for, we already have the plazas and open space that those cities are now building more. We need the buildings and keep/replace what we have.

Wow, even the CITY thinks the plan is too suburban...

Sandridge's campus plan is seen as too suburban
BY STEVE LACKMEYER | Oklahoman
Published: March 16, 2010

The Downtown Design Review Committee is being advised by the Oklahoma City Planning Department to deny an application by SandRidge Energy to tear down four buildings on its downtown campus.

This building at 111 Robert S. Kerr may be the oldest downtown structure, having been built as the home of the India Temple in 1902. A facade was added in the 1960 and SandRidge Energy argues the structure is no longer historic. Preservation advocates argue the original facade may still be intact under the concrete facade. By David McDaniel

The city report suggests that the company is seeking to make a very urban block "suburban.”



Read more: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/sandridges-campus-plan-is-seen-as-too-suburban/article/3446762?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0iLvXkzz t)

they can tear it down but they need to have solid plans/financing to replace

This is another critical point and is completely missing from the way we allow for demolition in OKC.

Right now, anyone can demolish almost anything without having a plan approved for what will go in it's place, or needing to demonstrate they have the means to actually do something with the property.

It's one thing if a property is a nuisance; it's quite another to allow companies to rip things down without any specific plan or the money set aside to improve the vacant land.

Way too often, a developer or corporation has ambitious plans but they are never realized because the economy (or their personal fortunes) changes, and then the city is left with a big scar. This has happened time and time again and nothing seems to have changed from a planning/permitting perspective.

And all this is completely separate from historic preservation issues.

I've not really had much of an opinion on this issue but I want to say I am impressed with the commentaries of a lot of your pertaining to the preservation of the urban "feel" and historical aspects - and then to see the commentaries in the article in the Oklahoman. Good work!

This is another critical point and is completely missing from the way we allow for demolition in OKC.

Right now, anyone can demolish almost anything without having a plan approved for what will go in it's place, or needing to demonstrate they have the means to actually do something with the property.

It's one thing if a property is a nuisance; it's quite another to allow companies to rip things down without any specific plan or the money set aside to improve the vacant land.

Way too often, a developer or corporation has ambitious plans but they are never realized because the economy (or their personal fortunes) changes, and then the city is left with a big scar. This has happened time and time again and nothing seems to have changed from a planning/permitting perspective.

And all this is completely separate from historic preservation issues. Agree. This is why corporations that are based in the city (or any city for that matter), that provides good jobs should always be a "good corporate citizen" and should have a good sense of responsibility for what truly is important in a city! They need to have an awareness and "open mind" about trying things from a different perspectives and not just the "status quo". The city needs to make a reasonable effort and get different opinions on trying to save the India Temple building and if there are any other adaptive uses for the other buildings. I am sure Tom Ward is a good man, however in this case he needs to surely think "outside the box".

Did they actually think they were just going to start tearing down buildings and nobody would notice? Horrible move on Sandwhatever's part.

Kudos to the Urban Design Committee if they follow through on their comments. Sandridge can alter its plans.

Did they actually think they were just going to start tearing down buildings and nobody would notice? Horrible move on Sandwhatever's part.

Well, they kind of had a big annoucement about it. It isn't like they tried to do this under the cover of darkness. They were pretty open about it.

So, everyone wants to keep useless and ugly buildings that in and of themselves have little to no historic merit just because they have "mass" and are mass at the corners? Wow. Some people need to get to some of the more dynamic cities in the country and see progressive urbanism at work and what it can do.Your darn right we do. If Sandridge wants to destroy something let them move to Houston.

Your darn right we do. If Sandridge wants to destroy something let them move to Houston.

Andy, please extinguish your torch and set down the pitch fork for a moment. I admire your passion for the cause of preserving the urban density but we by no means want to ask or even give off the impression that we want Sandridge to roll up thier carpet and move...that is exactly what we don't need in this economy. We need more corporations that provide high wage jobs to further improve the local economy. What is being generally agreed upon here is that there is a balance that needs to be struck with our corporate citizens and the city in which they have chosen to reside. We want to encourage the growth and development of those companies so we reinforce that Oklahoma City is infact what we have worked hard to market to the world, a great place to do business and that we as a city can be a great partner in thier accomplishing thier goal for growth and corporate identity. To do otherwise at a time when we have all of this great media attention would be damning to our aspired aims.

That said, Sandridge has an obligation to respect the city that it has become a major stakeholder in and exemplify that it will be a longterm partner who desires only for the combined sucess of both to increase. Sandridge is excited about the future of OKC and have shown that they want to participate. We just need to help them understand through the appropriate commities, gently but firmly what is and is not good for the denisty of our city.

The buildings that cannot be adapted or preserved should not be, however they should be replaced with something that will keep the place, and not allow for the suburbanization of the CBD. There is a great discussion taking place in other areas of this forum on the deannexation of some of the most rural areas that are hurting our density and siphoning away precious resources that could otherwise be used more effectively to improve the cities infrastructure. The last thing we need is less density smack dab in the middle of downtown.

The key from here is now how the city will work with Sandridge to preserve what they can that worked from the plans (which cost them a significant amount) and revise them so that it will help reach a mutually sucessful end that will enhance and strengthen the sense of urbanity and density along the streets while inviting the public to participate and engage with the Sandridge corporate properties. Lets hope that pride and egos are able to be avoided so that truly a sucessful proposal can be born of this excercise. This will further reinforce the notion that OKC is a great place to do business and a reasonable partner, that cares enough about its own destiny to say no, when needed but to participate to find a workable solution so they can say yes and move forward together.

IMO, if these buildings were that valuable (financially and historically), why hasn't someone stepped forward and done something with these properties. If I understand correctly, most have set vacant for a number of years. What's worse, buildings gone or buildings vacant and continuing to fall into disrepair.

IMO, if these buildings were that valuable (financially and historically), why hasn't someone stepped forward and done something with these properties. If I understand correctly, most have set vacant for a number of years. What's worse, buildings gone or buildings vacant and continuing to fall into disrepair.

That was actually in the process of happening when Kerr McGee was sold. Kerr McGee planned to turn these building into residential buildings.