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.



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.





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.