southside, we appreciate what Devon and Larry has done. He set the bar high.

Now, he should keep the renaissance going with high development and not this small time fit that it seems 499 is going to be as designed.

Haha...seriously? This project will add 700,00sf of class A office space on the perfect spot to redefine the district and provide a seamless expansion of the CBD to the west...and complements the Clayco development, to the south making it well over 1 million sf feet of class A office being added and encouraging further business growth west and south... , If everything is developed as planned, this is beyond our every hope of what our CBD could become when we voted for the original MAPS...

I love everything about the way our downtown has transformed and agree with a lot of what new urbanist want but lets let the CBA make class A office space, access and high paying job creation be the top priority...

Have you looked at the north and west sides at street level? Big blank walls. That's not good design. Easy to fix, but no, they just don't seem to get it.

You're right and more specifically, it was suburbanites that then and now made it happen with our votes and sales tax dollars.. We've supported the rebirth of our downtown every step of the way and really don't ask for much...other than easy access driving in and out and a place to park when we get there.

None of that is an argument for allowing one single company to do whatever they want to downtown with zero oversight or questions asked. Nobody who acts alone has perfect perspective, even if they are acting for the benefit of others (see the Myriad Gardens) they are still seeing it from their perspective. It is not a sin for other voices who are looking at the problem from other angles to participate.

provide a seamless expansion of the CBD to the west...

Ok - I'm actually supportive of this development but how exactly is it providing expansion to the west? It's replacing buildings that are already in the CBD not expanding the CBD.

The problem as I see it is that people like SouthsideSooner have simply set their bar of acceptability far too low. That is not surprising in a city dominated by Walmart. It is hard to stay motivated in a City dominated by people in a race to the bottom.

That's funny, because I know a few dozen people here who are concerning themselves daily with placemaking and quality urban development in OKC. They're making actual changes in our urban fabric every day instead of just lobbing critiques on a website, and constantly elevating urban standards, which in turn will (hopefully) eventually cause John Q Public to want/require more from his community.

About 150 of them will be attending the first ever ULI Impact awards tomorrow night. Perhaps if you're seeking inspiration for continuing to care about OKC perhaps you should pay attention to this group, rather than the number of Wal-Marts here.

ULI Oklahoma Impact Awards - ULI Oklahoma (http://oklahoma.uli.org/event/uli-oklahoma-impact-awards/)

The problem isn't that the people of OKC has a bar of acceptability too low. In fact I think it's quite the opposite. In the real world, I hear quite a bit of complaining about some of the development practices here. The reality is the few decision makers in this town really lack perspective. It's bound to happen when you have a small group of wealthy elites controlling everything. They are out of touch with current development practices in other cities and also what the millennial generation wants in a city. That quote about Devon thinking the newly relocated employee was "joking" when she said she wanted to walk to work says everything. They may have the best intentions but when they don't have perspective, big mistakes are made.

Your post implies a nefarious motive. it was just to appease shareholders. What was the interest rate and what did it add to their bottom line?

Ok, you are talking about 2 separate projects on 2 entirely different blocks. I am sorry, but a couple parking garages and a 27 story building for the ENTIRE block is pathetic. Factor in the demolition of more OKC, and it becomes borderline criminal in my opinion. It would be so much different if they had a couple high rises, or one high rise that was more of an impact on this whole block and perhaps lots of retail space for street interaction. A minimal building with parking garages for this big of an area isn't right and continues Oklahoma's motto- Oklahoma is OK and that is about where it ends. I guess it's better to be ok than suck, although I wish it would become great instead.

Chamber lunch is venue for SOTC. Chamber asking attendees to sign petition in favor of development that is in current preservation fight
by BenFelder
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7VApazCQAED7sQ.jpg

I believe Ben Felder is at the speech the mayor is about to give. The response by Hines and Devons shows that they thought everyone would roll over for their proposal and when that hasn't been the case they are doing a little PR to still try and slide it through.

Ben Felder (Gazette) is tweeting from the Chamber's State of the City luncheon today. https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg

"Chamber asking attendees to sign petition in favor of development that is in current preservation fight."

"Flyer on each table":

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7VApazCQAED7sQ.jpg:large

Keep in mind that under the plan under development, TIF funds from 499 Sheridan would be used to help fund the OG&E Energy Center.

And who is the chairman of the Chamber who is distributing this petition at today's speech by the mayor? Pete Delaney, CEO of OG&E.

Build better project and preserve a little history and it would be a slam dunk. This is not a project that is going to wow anyone, and to level basically a city block to do it, they deserve lots of back lash. I love new development, but this is not a good deal at all. I hope they get much more resistance and can meet in the middle for something that can be a win-win. They do know they can build on top of a parking garage, correct? I really can't wrap my mind around all these garages on this block to go along with this smallish tower.

Keep in mind that under the plan under development, TIF funds from 499 Sheridan would be used to help fund the OG&E Energy Center.

And who is the chairman of the Chamber who is distributing this petition at today's speech by the mayor? Pete Delaney, CEO of OG&E.

David Rainbolt is now Chamber chair.

Sorry, but the Chamber promoting this and putting it on each table for the Mayor's speech is a massive conflict of interest and highly inappropriate.

499 Sheridan would provide TIF funds that would help build the new OG&E HQ; Pete Delaney is chairman of OG&E and his term as Chamber Chair just expired but he is still on the Chamber Executive Committee.

Agreed. I keep expecting to hear Larry Nichols the head of OCURA and Devon to say he supports it. The select few at the top are showing more and more they expect to get their way and will do anything to protect their vision.

Big League cities do this: Historic Preservation | Department of Neighborhoods (http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/)

Agreed. I keep expecting to hear Larry Nichols the head of OCURA and Devon to say he supports it. The select few at the top are showing more and more they expect to get their way and will do anything to protect their vision.

He already did. Devon circulated a petition to all Devon employees asking them to sign it. Woe be to any employee that doesn't sign it. It must be nice working for a company that tells you how to think [/sarc]. It is available at the Devon Reception Desk to sign.

http://newsok.com/petition-supporting-demolition-of-downtown-buildings/article/5384008?custom_click=rss

I meant speaking for the OCURA but yes everyone knows where he stands.

Competing Petitions Seek to Save/Destroy These Nine Buildings | News OK (http://newsok.com/competing-petitions-seek-to-savedestroy-these-nine-buildings/article/5384635)

To the people asking if we have actually tried to make our voices heard, yes. I've emailed two contacts that were provided pages back and received a response from one of them stating that they would forward my concern over the appropriate chamber.

The fact that people are now petitioning "in favor" of this development as is, tells me it's a spite move.
This is for Larry Nichols and those close to him, it's going to be their little glass kingdom, out with the old, in with the Nichols and what he says.
I'm not an expert, most of us (notice I said "most") here aren't experts or are even in this line of work (designing, planning, etc.). However, this design is lazy at best. There's no need to tear down all of the existing structures for two parking garages and a measly 400 foot tower (I know, I'm sounding really spoiled at this point).
Why is it so hard to incorporate one or two of the existing structures? Why is it so hard to place some of the parking underneath the building itself?

Sorry, but with each move the "other" side makes in this, the further I become enraged. They're kicking dirt in everyone's faces just because they can get away with it.
Their revision expanding the retail opportunity in the parking garages was the first bold sign of that.

All I have to say is remember what I.M. Pei did to the city and what replaced those buildings (nothing but lots).
While these aren't the most significant or historic buildings in the city, it starts out and continues, one chip at a time until the whole mountain is gone. That's your history, you can't get those buildings back. But this glass tower? Those are going up everywhere, those are a dime a dozen in today's world.

You're right and more specifically, it was suburbanites that then and now made it happen with our votes and sales tax dollars.. We've supported the rebirth of our downtown every step of the way and really don't ask for much

This really drives the point home. The rebirth of downtown was a community effort and citizens agreed to tax themselves to build major assets downtown. Everyone in the city is responsible for what downtown is, not just one or two companies. A big part of why Devon didn't go to Houston and decided to build their offices downtown was because of what we, the people of Oklahoma City, invested in downtown. WE made it an attractive place for a large a corporation to call home and is the reason why we should be active in protecting our investment and not let single entities undermine our efforts to create a vibrant urban center for the city. I'm sure everyone who voted for MAPS and other city improvements had their own unique motives, but I highly doubt that anyone was really hoping that it would lead to converting more of downtown to parking lots.

I may have missed something earlier in this discussion, but is this development fully funded and ready to go? Due to today's oil prices, energy-related developments in Houston, Dallas, and Denver are beginning to slow. I expect that most will be axed in the upcoming months. The drop in oil and gas prices, according to many analysts, is at least a two-year trend. I can't see shareholders or boards of directors approving major expenditures on office space right now. And, I certainly don't want to see these historic buildings razed for long-term surface parking if this development is canceled.

Ben Felder (Gazette) is tweeting from the Chamber's State of the City luncheon today. https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg

"Chamber asking attendees to sign petition in favor of development that is in current preservation fight."

"Flyer on each table":

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7VApazCQAED7sQ.jpg:large

"continued on back"

... and we want to make sure this travesty ends now. Stop the madness! No more preservation! No more restoration! No more popular destination spots! No more history in Oklahoma City! Sign this petition to support demolition and be sure to use the hash tag #FUOKC.

Ben Felder (Gazette) is tweeting from the Chamber's State of the City luncheon today. https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg

"Chamber asking attendees to sign petition in favor of development that is in current preservation fight."

"Flyer on each table":

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7VApazCQAED7sQ.jpg:large

What gets me about this is just how little the words on the left match up with the picture on the right. We've preserved and restored plenty of historic buildings, so sign this petition so we can turn around and do the exact opposite? Maybe the other side makes more sense, but I can't really imagine how they could possibly reconcile the two.

This really drives the point home. The rebirth of downtown was a community effort and citizens agreed to tax themselves to build major assets downtown. Everyone in the city is responsible for what downtown is, not just one or two companies. A big part of why Devon didn't go to Houston and decided to build their offices downtown was because of what we, the people of Oklahoma City, invested in downtown. WE made it an attractive place for a large a corporation to call home and is the reason why we should be active in protecting our investment and not let single entities undermine our efforts to create a vibrant urban center for the city. I'm sure everyone who voted for MAPS and other city improvements had their own unique motives, but I highly doubt that anyone was really hoping that it would lead to converting more of downtown to parking lots.

And because of the way Project 180 is reported, people fail to comprehend that another $180 million of tax dollars was used for the Myriad Gardens, streets and other downtown amenities.

And that tax money was diverted primarily from schools (where 72% of property tax dollars are spent) throughout Oklahoma County.

"continued on back"

... and we want to make sure this travesty ends now. Stop the madness! No more preservation! No more restoration! No more popular destination spots! No more history in Oklahoma City! Sign this petition to support demolition and be sure to use the hash tag #FUOKC.

lol.

I'm still wondering how they are going to make that leap...

Anybody have pics of the back?

And because of the way Project 180 is reported, people fail to comprehend that another $180 million of tax dollars was used for the Myriad Gardens, streets and other downtown amenities.

And that tax money was diverted primarily from schools (where 72% of property tax dollars are spent) throughout Oklahoma County.

Yes. People keep acting like Devon gifted Project 180 to the city, but essentially what happened is we handed over our tax money to them to spend it as they saw fit.

I do love how the front of the flyer gives a great speech on preservation when the opposite is their intent with the parking garages and new building. Laughable and deceptive, I'd expect nothing less.

Anyone arguing that a few powerful men in OKC aren't making big policy decisions involving huge sums of public funds can finally release the fantasy.

When you have the Chamber of Commerce openly promoting a petition in favor of demolition at the mayor's State of the City Speech with 1,500 in attendance, then it's abundantly clear even they aren't going to bother with any further flimsy pretense.


Also a reminder that Larry Nichols is a board member of the Chamber. I've been working on a massive Venn diagram of all the overlaps of interest in these downtown matters and it's so complex I'm not sure I can fit it on one page.

It was extremely deceptive. David mentioned it at the end of his speech, basically as an after thought. "Oh, by the way, there's a red envelope with a petition we would all like you to sign."

I may have missed something earlier in this discussion, but is this development fully funded and ready to go? Due to today's oil prices, energy-related developments in Houston, Dallas, and Denver are beginning to slow. I expect that most will be axed in the upcoming months. The drop in oil and gas prices, according to many analysts, is at least a two-year trend. I can't see shareholders or boards of directors approving major expenditures on office space right now. And, I certainly don't want to see these historic buildings razed for long-term surface parking if this development is canceled.

Can somebody in the know address this concern? Is this tower a go regardless of what happens with oil?

I've been told they are ready to go.

As soon as they get approval, demolitions will start and shortly thereafter, they will be under construction.

Anyone arguing that a few powerful men in OKC aren't making big policy decisions involving huge sums of public funds can finally release the fantasy.

When you have the Chamber of Commerce openly promoting a petition in favor of demolition at the mayor's State of the City Speech with 1,500 in attendance, then it's abundantly clear even they aren't going to bother with any further flimsy pretense.


Also a reminder that Larry Nichols is a board member of the Chamber. I've been working on a massive Venn diagram of all the overlaps of interest in these downtown matters and it's so complex I'm not sure I can fit it on one page.

It is probably as close to an oligarchy as you can get to in a 'free' society, and what really ticks me off is the my fellow right-wingers are so blinded they not only don't see it, but are actively supporting it.

It is probably as close to an oligarchy as you can get to in a 'free' society, and what really ticks me off is the my fellow right-wingers are so blinded they not only don't see it, but are actively supporting it.

You may be on to something there, Kerry.

Can somebody in the know address this concern? Is this tower a go regardless of what happens with oil?

The funds are not a problem on this one. It will be built!
Would like to see one building saved, there is a small chance.

By the way, remember a couple of months ago when I said that Prefatkes had been talking to local restaurant operators about leasing the bus station, then suddenly came back to them and asked if they would still be interested if they built new construction the same site? And this is how I knew they were planning to construct a big parking garage on that site and thus demolish almost the whole block?

Today in a blog post Steve said out-right what I had been hinting at (wasn't sure AGE wanted this public): A conditional deal had been struck with A Good Egg Group to put a RePUBlic in the remodeled station.

So, that's a little glimpse of not only what could have been but would could still be.


Also, imagine if Hotel Black had been in the mix when 21c was looking! Remember, the hotel first struck a deal to remodel the Journal Record Building, and Hotel Black would have been much more up their street.

Of course we'll never know the possibilities because all Preftakes & Co. did was drive people out without even attempting any renovations. And willfully chose to let buildings rot right in the middle of biggest boom in the history of downtown OKC.

Reverse side.

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg/status/555443605930663936

9989

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/9989d1421264911-499-sheridan-image.jpg

Back side of the petition brochure from Ben Felder on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okg/with_replies

Will, you just beat me to it!

2. The projects will replace buildings that have been decaying vacant or losing tenants for a long time.

Those buildings were almost all occupied and functioning before purchase by the current owner / backers.

499 Sheridan will continue downtown Oklahoma City's momentum that is attracting new residents, new business and national attention, represented in part by the city's changing skyline.
The projects will replace buildings that have been decaying, vacant, or losing tenants for a long time.
499 Sheridan will maximize space on that valuable corner and breathe new life into an area that connects the thriving and redeveloped historic Film Row and the energy of downtown.
499 Sheridan will address needs for additional downtown Oklahoma City office space and parking.
The planned projects will pay homage to the history of the area by encorporating some of the previous buildings' designs into the new buildings, but they will also enhance that corner with new buildings, amenities and landscaping.

Interesting how they invoked Film Row.

Film Row became "thriving and redeveloped" because its developers did the exact opposite of what 499 Sheridan's are proposing to do.

Film Row restored its historic structures rather than demolishing them. And new construction there has been done responsibly and respectfully so as to complement the existing buildings.

Those buildings were almost all occupied and functioning before purchase by the current owner / backers.

Yeah, and every successful district they mentioned on the front was full of buildings that were further decayed and vacant or losing tenants for a lot longer time and none of that was deliberately engineered.

I'm not a fan of this projects based on its merits alone, but these tactics are disgusting and insulting, really. It's one thing to make a case for the development based on its own elements, but intentionally deceiving and manipulating city leaders, not to mention insulting their intelligence, is something else entirely.

The problem as I see it is that people like SouthsideSooner have simply set their bar of acceptability far too low. That is not surprising in a city dominated by Walmart. It is hard to stay motivated in a City dominated by people in a race to the bottom.

This isn't a fact, its an opinion and a hyperbole.

Wal Mart dominates everything everywhere not just OKC. (and really, Bentonville Arkansas would probably have the best argument) If we were a city dominated by people in a race to the bottom things would be getting worse not better.

If you're going to carry the mantle of "just the facts" do a better job.

Here's a start,
"What we are seeing with 499 Sheridan is business people doing business the way they have for hundreds of years. They want to win. So they will call powerful allies in to help. It's nothing new, and if we want to save these buildings it will require a hell of a fight, one we probably won't win."

499 Sheridan will continue downtown Oklahoma City's momentum that is attracting new residents, new business and national attention, represented in part by the city's changing skyline.
The projects will replace buildings that have been decaying, vacant, or losing tenants for a long time.
499 Sheridan will maximize space on that valuable corner and breathe new life into an area that connects the thriving and redeveloped historic Film Row and the energy of downtown.
499 Sheridan will address needs for additional downtown Oklahoma City office space and parking.
The planned projects will pay homage to the history of the area by encorporating some of the previous buildings' designs into the new buildings, but they will also enhance that corner with new buildings, amenities and landscaping.


Hard to say which is the most BS. Number 2 has already been addressed by posters but number 3 is quite bogus too. Maximize space? They are arbitrarily "cranking" the layout off of the corner which is wasting some prime street frontage. Not to mention not including any garage space in the bottom floors of the tower.

Hell, no need to point these bogus things out, most posters here, whether for or against, realize they are bogus.

RE: No. 3', this complex faces their taxpayer funded new front yard and shows their backside to the rest of the city. Complete and utter disregard for anything but the inhabitants with respect to the street level. It won't breathe life into anything connecting to anything.

[LIST=1]The planned projects will pay homage to the history of the area by encorporating some of the previous buildings' designs into the new buildings, but they will also enhance that corner with new buildings, amenities and landscaping.

Or... You could pay homage to the history of the area by leaving the buildings alone and building on the EMPTY PARKING LOTS! Jesus F%^kin' Christ!

Hard to say which is the most BS. Number 2 has already been addressed by posters but number 3 is quite bogus too. Maximize space? They are arbitrarily "cranking" the layout off of the corner which is wasting some prime street frontage. Not to mention not including any garage space in the bottom floors of the tower.

Very true. And even if they were "maximizing" the space on that corner, they're dedicating over half the block to parking. That's a bad trade and actually misses an opportunity for more development.

I just had a business lunch with a visitor from Pennsylvania. We ended up going to Automobile Alley and drove through Midtown & she could not stop gushing about how amazing it was that we were refurbishing & redeveloping our old building stock in to new uses. I told her what was going to happen to the Preftakes block & she was devastated.

Our city has reinvented itself with an image of restoring our old buildings & creating amazing districts. This has become our identity, and now Devon doesn't want anything to do with it by just blatantly destroying history & forcing people to sign a petition. Its sickening, and I've lost a ton of respect for their company because of it.

Interesting how they invoked Film Row.

Film Row became "thriving and redeveloped" because its developers did the exact opposite of what 499 Sheridan's are proposing to do.

Film Row restored its historic structures rather than demolishing them. And new construction there has been done responsibly and respectfully so as to complement the existing buildings.

Downtown will remain sterile and devoid of life once 5 o'clock rolls around. This obsession with parking is ridiculous. Better transit and redevelopment of existing structures would decrease the need for parking and add life to the CBD.

Here's an interesting case study that shows you can build a new building without tearing down everything around it to make a plaza. Take the example of the Perrine Building at the corner of Park and Robinson. Use to look like this in the 1920s: Perrine Building (http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtown/vintage/1.perrine.htm). According to Doug Loudenback on his blog, the building was scheduled for demolition in the 1970s but somehow escaped. Then, in the 1980s when the Oklahoma Tower was originally proposed, the developer wanted to do this: okc2nd_p62.jpg Photo by DougLoudenback | Photobucket (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/DougLoudenback/media/literature/okc2nd_p62.jpg.html). Tear down the Perrine Building to create a plaza to offer an "unobstructed view" of the new building (to borrow from Sandridge's parlance). But somehow this too was thwarted and the building was kept and renovated into the Robinson Renaissance Building: 119 N. Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 - Office Building Property - Off-Market on LoopNet.com (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16674163/119-N-Robinson-Avenue-Oklahoma-City-OK/). I don't know exactly how the Perrine was spared. But guess what? The damn Oklahoma Tower still got built.

One lesson to derive from this: you can rehab "functionally obsolete" old buildings. Another lesson: you can build new buildings while keeping the old buildings around a proposed development. Another lesson: we never learn any damn lessons in this city. And by "we" I mean the big wigs who call the shots. Meanwhile, we can only stand on the sidelines and shake our heads in disgust and dismay. I feel like I'm a member of the Chorus in a Greek tragic play: it's the Chorus's job to remind the protagonist what he ought to do, but the protagonist never listens.

Another lesson: we never learn any damn lessons in this city. And by "we" I mean the big wigs who call the shots. Meanwhile, we can only stand on the sidelines and shake our heads in disgust and dismay. I feel like I'm a member of the Chorus in a Greek tragic play: it's the Chorus's job to remind the protagonist what he ought to do, but the protagonist never listens.

The interesting thing is that many of the big wigs in this town are old enough to remember what demolition did to this city 30 years ago.

But, really, given the fact that they totally acknowledged the power of renovation before giving it the finger, I'm pretty sure they just don't care.

Sorry, but the Chamber promoting this and putting it on each table for the Mayor's speech is a massive conflict of interest and highly inappropriate.

499 Sheridan would provide TIF funds that would help build the new OG&E HQ; Pete Delaney is chairman of OG&E and his term as Chamber Chair just expired but he is still on the Chamber Executive Committee.

This is a huge overstatement. Of course the chamber is pro business. (Every chamber in the entire country is). That is not a conflict.

A bunch of people see old buildings that they could not car less about. For evey 1 person that is pro renovation. I know 5 that live or work down town that a very excited about the new construction and growth of the city.

Old building that are in no way "special". Should not stand in the way of private property rights

This is a huge overstatement. Of course the chamber is pro business. (Every chamber in the entire country is). That is not a conflict.

You think that they, a partially tax funded entity, should unconditionally stand behind any business proposal? Regardless of how completely self-serving it is while ignoring the negative impacts? It sounds like it. I don't think that's right. The Chamber should be promoting great development that carefully considers all the impacts and makes substantial efforts to mitigate the negative ones. It's in the best interest of everyone involved. This proposal doesn't do that as far as I can tell.

Old building that are in no way "special". Should not stand in the way of private property rights

I have to ask, what are your thought on protecting public property rights? Or do those even exist? If they do exist, and there is a conflict between public and private rights, which in your opinion should prevail? Many people on the political left have adopted the philosophy of "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't bother me" while those on the right seem very protective of the collective society by adopting the philosophy of "if your actions degrade society your actions should be restricted". This creates a strange situation when the subject is private and public property rights where the roles for both political spectrums get switched. Thanks goodness I am consistent because I don't know how some of you reconcile this in your head - then again - maybe you just haven't thought about it enough. In the end, it is amazing how many so called 'right wingers' are actually full fledged members of the corporate left.

I'm not going to lie, I wouldn't miss the Hotel Black much, But i've always loved the brick work on The Motor Hotel.....Wouldn't there be some way to at least save the facade and turn it into a entrance/cafe for employees? I think they did the same with the heart tower in ny.

This is a huge overstatement. Of course the chamber is pro business. (Every chamber in the entire country is). That is not a conflict.

The conflict is that this was the Mayor's annual State of the City speech. If it was just a random chamber meeting then of course they should be free to distribute whatever petition full of lies that they please.


Old building that are in no way "special". Should not stand in the way of private property rights

I see it's time for the "private property rights should triumph" discussion for the nth time. The very fact that Devon has to go in front of multiple city committees to get approval for these demolitions should tell you that you are simply not correct about private property rights versus the public interest. Admittedly, what the public interest actually is could be up for discussion, but that doesn't appear to be the point you are making.

I always thought the public interest in a historic building was protected by designating it as of some significance (like the National Register of Historic Places or a similar local register), and then if it receives that designation, it is protected.

You think that they, a partially tax funded entity, should unconditionally stand behind any business proposal? Regardless of how completely self-serving it is while ignoring the negative impacts? It sounds like it. I don't think that's right. The Chamber should be promoting great development that carefully considers all the impacts and makes substantial efforts to mitigate the negative ones. It's in the best interest of everyone involved. This proposal doesn't do that as far as I can tell.
The chamber is in no way "tax funded"

I was pretty sure they were contracted to perform business development functions for the city. Please correct if I'm wrong. Nonetheless, in principle they should promote high quality development in every respect.