Wow. Talk about a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response.

The sky is falling....the sky is falling.
I knew some would take it that way, but all I did is reconcile the statements made by key experts that led to the decision. It was not an emotional response, it was simply a summation of what these people told us: Downtown property is worth more as empty space than $9 million dollar renovations to historic properties.

It is interesting for Ford Price to say to say it wouldn't be feasible for these buildings to be renovated for at least two more generations. If Kerr McGee was still here, those buildings would probably already be half way towards just that, but cooler heads have prevailed and we now know that property never was and won't be viable for decades.

If this is the case, then how can the hundreds of millions of dollars of core to shore investment be justified when it is just a few blocks away? That's not me crying that the "sky is falling", that is exactly on what what this decision was based.

Look, anyone who has been to any other city or actually looked around our downtown at bircktown and the Skrivin knows that, given the right model, thee buildings are not beyond saving. However, it is just not viable in Oklahoma City to do it. That is a key down market indicator any way you look at it.

In fact, anytime I am in Oklahoma City, that part of downtown has become my LEAST favorite area to stroll. It's just out of date. There is no life. Nothing.
Bricktown 1985. Well, actually it was worse over there at that time.

They have the means to bring life back to the area for less than this project will cost. Instead we will have more plaza space in an area that already has dead plaza space. Apparently, so they can later spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build towers in a district that isn't currently viable.

I disagree. Why couldn't he be suggesting that 'future growth' could mean that a plaza is not forever. They might eventually build another building in the spots the demolished building were.
I know that is what they have said, but they are much farther away from that than they are trying to indicate at this point. So, bascially they have said we will spend $100 million to tear down buildings and build a plaza instead of the $9 million per building to renovate, only to go back and spend hundreds of millions of dollars later on the same exact spot. That makes zero sense.

I might have agreed with you at one time, but the more and more 'Chesapeake City' expands (to include all they have helped develop ... Classen Curve... Whole Foods) that area is becoming ENTIRELY urban. If you think about it, it is sort of 'Downtown Nichols Hills' anyway.
It's still far from urban. It will not be pedestrian based and there isn't much space for housing anymore. Their actual campus is not urban and has not been developed in a way that it can achieve that. The examples that you gave that may at least create some community traffic are retail developments that will be primarily accessed via one stop park and go. Sandridge is converting infrastructure to empty space, not commerce or housing. So, it is less urban than Chesapeake's barely urban plan. So in one respect you are right that Chesapeake has begun to fill in the area a bit, but Sandridge is going in the opposite direction and doing so in the middle of one of the few areas that actually had the infrastructure to be urban at some point.

Guys, I am not making anything up. This is what we have been told. If downtown real estate will not be able to support $9 million investments for years to come, how can hundreds of millions of dollars be justified? Knowing those involved, this conclusion surly considered Project 180, Maps 3, Devon Tower, etc. According to the Oklahoma City real estate experts and the BofA, none of those projects will create enough interest or value in that block of downtown to support a $9 million investment into any of the properties for decades. That is NOT me talking. That is what this decision was based upon.

Honestly, that is exactly what I voted on when I voted on MAPS 3. I thought that it would bring value to the city. I was under the impression that we did it to get us to a point where our city was worth enough to make our current assets viable and that we could preserve its character and build upon our assets instead of create more disposable ones. In fact, it sounds like these plazas may have already been earmarked for replacement if Sandridge ever grows.

This is not the end of the world nor the death knell of downtown OKC development.
Maybe not, but we have been given a clear picture of its current state and a very disappointing forecast for at least another generation.

I hope you are right but if you watched the meeting you would have seen that the main subject of Sandridges defense was that downtown OKC couldn't support ANY redevelopment, and by a vote of 3 to 1 the BofA agreed.
Exactly. And given the people who were involved, I think it would be pretty "pie in the sky" for me or anyone else to disagree with them.