SandRidge Center & Commons

[Popsy]

mheaton. I'm sorry if my suggestions did not set well with you as I was only trying to get to the urban human density you seek. As to beating a dead horse I can assure you I feel the same frustation. I would like to ask two more questions concerning the pictures you recently posted. Do you know an area in downtown OKC where those scenes depicted could easily and quickly be replicated? If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

[mheaton76]

Do you know an area in downtown OKC where those scenes depicted could easily and quickly be replicated?

That's a really good question. I think we have all seen really, really positive signs of this type of progress in parts of Bricktown, Automobile Alley, and Midtown specifically. Nothing that has reached a critical mass yet - but I am amazed and delightfully surprised at the continued progress in these districts.

If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

That's a very fair point. I see the problem with the buildings sitting empty. However, given Oklahoma City's sad history as it relates to the demolition of so much of the urban fabric of the CBD, I would ere on the side of caution, and historic preservation in this instance. The flip side of the coin of which you speak, is that should they get approval, tear down the buildings and don't follow through with their plans such as they are - well, that's not a great outcome either. The future is uncertain, and there are no guarantees of...anything, really. But we do know that there are so few mid-rise buildings, as well as any sort of density, anywhere in the city. The whole thing seems a little too IM Pei-esque for me ... I just don't want us to repeat our mistakes, 1970s style. Ya know?

[Pete]

If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

It's not a simple matter of doing what they propose versus doing nothing at all. They could still do a great deal and not remove all three of those buildings.

Also, allowing them to be removed is no guarantee they will go forward with their plans as outlined. They could simply change their mind, run out of money, or change ownership before they built anything back. This has happened countless times in OKC.

And finally, there are other groups that want to convert those buildings to condos and the only reason that didn't happen is because Kerr McGee was sold and the pending deals fell through. Since that time, SandRidge has fought those developments, no doubt because they wanted to tear them down.

[BDP]

Also, allowing them to be removed is no guarantee they will go forward with their plans as outlined.

This is a huge reason why Oklahoma City is so disjointed and sparse for a city of its size. We tend to tear stuff down and then never build anything else in its place. It took about 30 years for something to be built where Devon is being built now, simply because we tore down what was there and never built anything.

[Pete]

^

This is why I'd like to see the permitting process for demolition changed.

As of now, anyone can tear a structure down without the resources or even plans to build in it's place. In many cities, that is not allowed -- for good reason.

[Larry OKC]

Popsy, I don't think you or Larry understand urbanism and all that is being done behind the scenes to change that. (Project 180, ULI, MAPS 3, C2S and private developer plans). It's okay if urbanism isn't for you, but let us that do care about it have a voice and not drown us out.

I don't think we are trying to drown anyone else out, just trying to understand and if anything, encouraging you to present your side. Explain it, help us understand and sell us on it.

You are correct, I don't understand urbanism, as I posted recently, when I think of urban, it is mainly in a negative context. (When ever I think of "Urban" it is mainly negative images that come to mind...crowded, traffic congestion, high crime, over-priced etc etc). Help me understand what you mean by Urbanism and what are the positive aspects of it? How do you get the positive aspects without bringing along the negative ones as well?

Again, there seem to be views held by the same people that seem to be at opposite ends of each other. They want Urban Canyons but oppose Super Blocks (effectively the same thing). They support buying local and only shopping at the mom-n-pop store (boycott Wal-Mart) yet want the national chains that have so far passed us by to come here. They oppose tearing down of buildings to create open space, yet fully support the park elements of MAPS 3/Core to Shore which has designated the entire 640 acre area as "blighted" and potentially everything in its path will be bulldozed (with some notable exceptions)...with nothing any more definite of taking its place than Sandridge.

I am in favor of Project 180 (but question how many times we are borrowing the money to do it).

I was nodding in agreement for practically the entire 2 hours of the ULI presentation.

Was in favor of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects but had serious concerns over the campaign, the Ballot/Ordinance language.

Core to Shore looks very impressive. But as the ULI folks pointed out, some things just aren't going to happen at all and other things need to be rethought. The main obstacle to all of the residential areas in the Core to Shore plans and renderings is cost. All of those new buildings are going to be rather expensive and cost prohibitive for most to afford. Does OKC have enough high end incomes to support the critical mass/high density envisioned here? Again, the ULI indicated we don't and we have already maxed out on that end of it.

What is the median income in OKC? Most say that no more than 25% of your income should go towards housing. What price range does that leave you in?

[HOT ROD]

mheaton. Did you encounter a lot of pedestrians in your walk around the Sandridge complex? When I took that same walk in the middle of the afternoon I saw very few people, so in my mind I deemed that the building density did not enhance the people density. Granted, adding living units in those buildings might increase the human density if the occupants were retired.

Popsy, I dont mean to single you out (but you asked for it, lol ),

but what about my idea, if one (or more) of the buildings on the Robinson front were converted into hip and/or historic hotels? Also, with retail on the bottom, there would be pedestrians and depending upon the type of retail - there might even be pedestrians there all times of the day.

I think this is what you (and a few others) might be missing. You have to go downtown and visualize the existing buildings, but with retail in them, with people living and/or staying temporarily in them.

Look at the life that Hilton Skirvin has brought to that section of downtown. It is a lot, but would have been EVEN MORE if the Chase plaza was not there and instead was a streetwall. But even with that plaza, the hotel has brought back life and even RETAIL to it's surroundings. People have come with it.

Also, look at colcord, same thing.

This is what Im suggesting to you and others who can't really invision yet what many on the forum are suggesting we keep. It's not so much (at least in my mind) keeping old empty building just for the sake of keeping the best urban canyon in the state - but it is moreso the potential that urban canyon has at making Oklahoma City a great city. Whenever I come to town with visitors, I always take them to the Robinson canyon; because it along with Park Avenue is really the only TRUE downtown that compares to other big cities. Yes, ours is empty - but even with it being empty people from larger cities can see it's potential (as most often tell me, why don't they open up those storefronts; it would bring tremendous life to the canyon and city....)

Again, we're talking about Oklahoma City's downtown central business district. CBD's should all have some things in common, centre of government, centre of finance, centre of entertainment, centre of commerce, etc. Having this, means it all need to be close together in order to work. It is the part of a city that closest mimicks Chicago and New York - and successful cities are those who have a little slice of their CBD that does. And OKC (today) does, even if it is empty. Imagine with it full.

I do agree with you that those buildings dont work anymore as office, but I am more than confident they could work as residential with retail in the storefronts. Retail might not work right now, but imagine if one of the buildings was a Hotel and the other two were condo/apartment rent buildings. There would be retail at the bottom, and since it is a canyon, there would be significant pedestrains returning.

Again, for case study - Colcord (end of canyon, but retail 'flourising' on Main Street and the end of Robinson canyon); Hilton Skirvin (end of Park Avenue canyon, and despite Chase plaza - the hotel has brought significant upperscale retail); ParkHarvey apartments (the other end of Park Avenue canyon; has brought retail and created a demographic if you will).

Now, imagine the Robinson buildings as all hotels or some hotel, some residential. .... There would be a slew of restaurants and shoppes opening up on the bottom and nearby storefronts. And you would see the nearby populous shopping and eating there as long as those stores offer good product (which competition should ensure).

This to me, is the urban model - and this is what I envision everytime I visit my hometown and see the empty but impressive Robinson and Park Avenue canyons.

I hope that helps give a little food for thought.

[HOT ROD]

I don't think we are trying to drown anyone else out, just trying to understand and if anything, encouraging you to present your side. Explain it, help us understand and sell us on it.

You are correct, I don't understand urbanism, as I posted recently, when I think of urban, it is mainly in a negative context. (When ever I think of "Urban" it is mainly negative images that come to mind...crowded, traffic congestion, high crime, over-priced etc etc). Help me understand what you mean by Urbanism and what are the positive aspects of it? How do you get the positive aspects without bringing along the negative ones as well?

Again, there seem to be views held by the same people that seem to be at opposite ends of each other. They want Urban Canyons but oppose Super Blocks (effectively the same thing). They support buying local and only shopping at the mom-n-pop store (boycott Wal-Mart) yet want the national chains that have so far passed us by to come here. They oppose tearing down of buildings to create open space, yet fully support the park elements of MAPS 3/Core to Shore which has designated the entire 640 acre area as "blighted" and potentially everything in its path will be bulldozed (with some notable exceptions)...with nothing any more definite of taking its place than Sandridge.

I am in favor of Project 180 (but question how many times we are borrowing the money to do it).

I was nodding in agreement for practically the entire 2 hours of the ULI presentation.

Was in favor of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects but had serious concerns over the campaign, the Ballot/Ordinance language.

Core to Shore looks very impressive. But as the ULI folks pointed out, some things just aren't going to happen at all and other things need to be rethought. The main obstacle to all of the residential areas in the Core to Shore plans and renderings is cost. All of those new buildings are going to be rather expensive and cost prohibitive for most to afford. Does OKC have enough high end incomes to support the critical mass/high density envisioned here? Again, the ULI indicated we don't and we have already maxed out on that end of it.

What is the median income in OKC? Most say that no more than 25% of your income should go towards housing. What price range does that leave you in?

Larry, I think you might be confusing the word 'urbanism' with something else along the lines of 'blight' or perhaps 'grit'.

Blighted areas exhibit the characteristicts that you mentioned but you should realize that many blighted areas area NOT URBAN and don't follow urbanism. Similarly, Gritty areas often have many of the characteristics that you mentioned, and while Gritty areas are urban - they also don't follow most of urbanism.

I'll let others who are more well versed comment further, but I just wanted to make a point that your definition of urban is actually more probably definitions of subsets which could be urban, suburban, or even rural.

You are correct though, that urban areas tend to have congestion and traffic, aka critical mass of people/businesses; but this is a good thing in an urban area because it ensures that said area has commerce and prosperity which translate into city 'quality of life' and livability (and eventually city reputation and tax base) - which is what big cities should want and what OKC should strive for especially in the CBD. And the traffic portion of the critical mass wouldn't ONLY need to be auto oriented, with transit you could get even more pedestrian congestion to an urban area.

[Larry OKC]

^^^

Sounds great but how do you go about doing all of that?

Supposedly much of what you described was in the works before Kerr-McGee left town. Are there no other buildings that those same developers could do this?

It is my perception that Urban Canyons are a relic from the past. That they weren't "designed" per se, that they were a natural out growth from the buildings surrounding them. Keeping up with the Jones type of thing. Have seen old photos and post cards and OKC used to have them. Apparently urban renewal destroyed much of what we had. I am not advocating the further destruction. Even if a building is sitting abandoned, once it is gone, its gone. One has to weigh carefully the costs and benefits and proceed with destruction very carefully.

Are there contemporary examples (last 20 years or so) of new urban canyons? Can we even create the type of dense urban setting as envisioned in Core to Shore? As ULI pointed out, this is all very expensive and to even get a major department store to come here, requires significant public (tax) monies. IIRC, they were saying something in the neighborhood of $40M to get a Nordstroms. That to get a $220M, 700 room Convention Center hotel, would require another $50M in taxpayer subsidies. When it comes to residential, does OKC have the average income needed to make those high rise and medium ones cost effective?

(this post was in response to the one before it, not the one that snuck in while I was typing...LOL)

[HOT ROD]

we do it by having the city champion the idea and the chamber and business community promote it.

We're seeing signs of this happening, but the public at large needs to also show support by attending meetings to make sure the city champions urban development in the CBD AND by supporting businesses and ventures (especially in the short term) once those developments come on board. Over time, they should support themself - but in the short run we'd need a core starter community so that new businesses can survive the infancy stage.

there are examples of cities revitalizing their downtowns and urban canyons are part of that. one thing, larry - it all wont happen overnight; but it can be sustainable with careful planning (by the city) and encouragement (by the city and chamber) and participation (by the city residents at large).

Again, every city started somewhere. Maybe OKC could look back to it's past, when the Main Street canyon was active and live. What did it take to make it the premier shopping street in the state? What did it take to destroy it?

Put the two together and benchmark a few other cities' development, and Im sure we can find great ways to bring downtown urbanism back to Oklahoma City's CBD.

[Larry OKC]

Hot Rod

The problem there is this is all very long term stuff...City leadership...chamber leadership...business community etc is constantly in flux...very difficult to maintain the myopic focus needed for that. Where are you going to get all of the money required to do all of that? The Mayor put a $3 BILLION figure on Core to Shore at one point (probably double that now).

Looking back at the past I would say it was before the growth of enclosed Malls and the wealth of shopping choices anywhere other than downtown. In my parents day, downtown was still THE place to shop (especially during the holidays). Steve could probably give a much better answer on that.

About the only way to realistically get that back is to have destination retail in downtown and ONLY in downtown. But as ULI pointed out, that is not something that is going to happen in the near future and $40M in corporate welfare just to get a single store is absurd. IMO. That is akin to the Bass Pro Deal (which according to the last article I saw on it, years ago, hadn't come anywhere close to the projected payback to the City). Heck, we couldn't even get Bass Pro to commit to it being the only one in the State (then they turned around and built another one in the Tulsa area, reportedly without the financial incentives they "had" to have to come here). Go figure. Only time will tell if the PayCom deal works out as projected.

Then there is that, the City ends up giving them $2M in incentives to move further away from the very CBD they are trying to build up? Steps forward/steps back.

Then you run into the whole competition factor. If the City puts too many restrictions on what can be built etc, they may be inclined to go somewhere else where they can do what they want. Case in point. My employer wanted to build a new printing plant in Edmond (owner lives there) but Edmond had too many restrictions in what type of construction materials etc could be used. This was going to add to the building cost substantially making it cost prohibitive so he decided to build it in OKC instead. Now this was detrimental rather than incentive based, but the end result to the company's bottom line is the same.

May run into that type of situation with Sandridge. Don't know how committed they are to being downtown and in that specific spot. It seems they inherited that location. What is keeping them there?

[shane453]

If you don't see the pleasant elements of urbanism, you are confusing the Industrial Revolution, White-Flight, and Rust Belt economic depression versions of urbanism with modern urbanism. Look to the Pacific Northwest in particular to see beautiful, modern, clean, pleasant, good urban design. Urban does not have to equal overcrowded, smoggy, and crime-ridden, and when you understand that you understand urbanism. The urban environment has been the natural habitat of humanity for thousands of years (until the suburbs became dominant last century)

Newer streetwall in Vancouver



Urban Canyon in Portland



Future of Union Station neighborhood of Denver



One of Europe's fastest growing cities is Oslo, Norway, and they know how to create a clean, modern urban neighborhood.

Aker Brygge



Rendering of an urban streetwall currently under construction in Oslo (Google the Barcode Oslo for pictures of construction)



Hopefully this shows that any ideas of urbanism as something that will create squalor and poverty are outdated.

[mheaton76]

Great photos, Shane!

[Spartan]

You know guys, I'm starting to become more of a fan of this SandRidge Commons proposal, the more I mull over it. I'm hoping we can get some new plazas that resemble my new favorite downtown plazas..check these out:


This is a particularly cool plaza in front of Tulsa's abandoned former City Hall bldg. Look at how vibrant, inviting, and bustling it is. This was a cutting edge architectural crown glory when it was first installed, over what used to be an urban neighborhood, in the 60s.


Or this plaza in front of Boston City Hall--I could go on about what a wonderful space this is, but suffice it to say, that this is obviously where Boston gets its world-famous charm, not from dense, walkable neighborhoods.

[HOT ROD]

lol, Spartan is obviously being facetious. lol

both of those plazas look like cold war era bomb shelters.

[Kerry]

Spartan scared me for second until I saw the photos. I took a Google Earth tour of the plazas around New York City - all empty.

[Larry OKC]

And people talk about me and Apples/Oranges. Compare the recent posts of empty plazas against what Sandridge is proposing. Night and Day. Mostly barren/concrete/brick with little to no landscaping (in other word's there is nothing inviting about them) or Sandridge's park like atmosphere.

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. ...

(refer back to page 8, post #199 for Doug's complete thoughts...borrowed for the images)

[HOT ROD]

that is far too open on the Robinson Front.

I dont have any problem whatsoever with their plans for Kerr Park and the RSK frontage building (India Temple and that parking garage). If those can't be saved, no problem to me.

But the Robinson front buildings, that's different. It is WAY TOO OPEN, even you can see in those pics. It almost looks like 25% of downtown just got flattened by mother nature (with trees growing in place).

I think a great compromise would be do everything else, but keep/replace the Robinson buildings. If they are kept, they should be sold and redeveloped. If they are replaced, the SandRidge could do what they want (even have a smaller opening for a plaza) provided the frontage wall was retained. Those are my thoughts.

[Spartan]

And people talk about me and Apples/Oranges. Compare the recent posts of empty plazas against what Sandridge is proposing. Night and Day. Mostly barren/concrete/brick with little to no landscaping (in other word's there is nothing inviting about them) or Sandridge's park like atmosphere.

Larry, very true. This IS a different plaza.

However my argument, that I was trying to make, is that no matter what environment, no matter how "nice" it is supposed to be when planned, and so on--almost all plazas end up looking like utter crap. Kerry made my point even better by bringing up all of the empty plazas in front of NYC corporate kingdoms, and we know NYC isn't lacking in the street life department--even they have a plaza problem.

The plaza phenom is the plague in corporate-dominated environments, and NO MATTER how nice they are, they always impede from true urban functional form, and they always degenerate over time into something really undesirable. A plaza is not a sustainable form of development, like a building is. Nobody uses a plaza, nobody has memories of a plaza, nobody "goes to" a plaza, and nobody will want to take care of a plaza unless they HAVE to pass through it many times a day.

On a side note, thank goodness we always have Tulsa to make fun of..

[Larry OKC]

...It almost looks like 25% of downtown just got flattened by mother nature (with trees growing in place)....

Well, this IS Oklahoma, "where the wind comes sweeping down the plain" (if not interrupted by those annoying buildings...LOL)

Oh, and don't forget about our tornadoes...it could happen

[Larry OKC]

...no matter what environment, no matter how "nice" it is supposed to be when planned, and so on--almost all plazas end up looking like utter crap. ... The plaza phenom is the plague in corporate-dominated environments, and NO MATTER how nice they are, they always impede from true urban functional form, and they always degenerate over time into something really undesirable. A plaza is not a sustainable form of development, like a building is. Nobody uses a plaza, nobody has memories of a plaza, nobody "goes to" a plaza...

Not taking issue with any of that, but this is where I get confused...if all of that is true...why the HECK DO THEY KEEP BUILDING THEM?

Also adding to my confusion, is all of this is so bad, why are we adding the string of parks from Core to Shore (and beyond)?

Is it just the location (if the string of parks were replacing some sort of street wall, that would be bad but since it is a building here and there that is going to be bull dozed, that is perfectly ok)

Or is it the City is doing it so that's ok, but let a private owner try to do it, then that is what makes it bad?

[Spartan]

Why they keep building them: Good point. I would say that there is value in plazas from a corporate image perspective, just as extremely large residences in France still had moats up until WW1. The plaza is vestigial of urban renewal and we haven't gotten rid of it yet, and people like Tom Ward are adding them still yet because they separate the corporate fortress from the bustle of the streets, setting up an area of "calm and tranquility"--an "oasis" in the city. For some illogical reason people are real big on the whole "oasis" idea no matter what you're talking about. We see development as a Thomas Kincaid painting, and the plaza serves a purpose similar to a frame around a Thomas Kincaid painting.

There's one problem with that...

Not downtown-friendly.

As for the park, a park is different from a plaza. A plaza is an irregular space, and a park, if done right, should be a defined space that is its own part of the city. SandRidge is more than welcome to do a 100+ acre park that can become its own part of the city, but they need to do it somewhere other than downtown. The vital thing that has urban advocates up in arms about the C2S park is that we want it done right so that it isn't just another damn plaza. We want it hemmed in by the edges of neighborhoods that will open up into the park. The worst thing we can do for the park is to border it against a superblock structure such as a convention center, and the thing will just be no more than a front lawn for the convention center--just a huge, expensive plaza space when it comes to the side fronting the convention center.

The reality is that in order for the park to be the environment we want it to be then it will have to be surrounded on all sides by activity morning, day, and night. A corporate fortress doesn't generate that, it barely generates activity let alone during the day. Throwing in basketball courts and an auditorium space for SandRidge employees doesn't make the SandRidge Commons proposal mixed-use either. As for the "streetwall," you have a very good point--but consider this: a well-defined park space is the kind of thing that new street wall is built around. SandRidge plaza is being conceived in exactly the opposite manner, by having a chunk of the city hollowed out to make room for nothing.

[Larry OKC]

In the end, don't you have the same thing?

From a practical standpoint what is the difference between a super block (convention center) and a streetwall?

Would it help any if the convention center had residential and mixed use on the exterior walls (so that it didn't even look like a convention center? I know I saw some renderings that indicated that concept (not any of the MAPS 3 renderings). That would also mitigate the loss of the prime space on one edge of the park (since only those units directly fronting it would be maximized).

[Popsy]

I have come to the conclusion that debating this subject is only an effort destined to end in futility. From my perspective I have nothing against an urban environment for downtown if it can occur naturally, such as NYC and Chicago developed. What I have a problem with is the urbanist minority trying to impose their will on everyone else. The urbanist in this forum decry the evils of urban renewal in ruining downtown, but I was around in that era and what they did was tear down some very crappy buildings. Were there some historical buildings that should have been preserved, I have no idea. In my opinion it was not urban renewal that decimated downtown, it was the fact that no one wanted to rebuild downtown. Business wanted to be near where their employees and customers lived, which is natural for a business to be successful. This is why Northwest Expressway and Memorial flourished.

Urbanist complain about the growth on the outskirts of OKC and talk about deannexing large chunks of land to force infill, but that will not work because people have a desire to live where they want to live and infill cannot be forced from deannexation. Do urbanist really think that people want to live in OKC for the sake of living in OKC. This is not the case as evidenced by the growth of Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, etc.

I have come to realize that Urbanism as practiced by the diehard Urbanist, is very much like a religon and debating an Urbanist is similar to debating the bible with the most devout christian. Urbanist have a liturgy that they will repeat constantly and nothing will change from debating the subject. An Urbanist told me a day or two ago that there was no need to try to beat a dead horse and I tend to agree with that, so I will take myself out of the debate unless I read something that makes my blood boil. I do thank the Urbanists however, for allowing me the opportunity to join the discussion.

[lasomeday]

Not taking issue with any of that, but this is where I get confused...if all of that is true...why the HECK DO THEY KEEP BUILDING THEM??

I am not sure about most cities, but in NYC they had zoning rule in the 70s and 80s that to add stories to the buildings they had to add plazas. The larger the plaza the more stories they could build.