SandRidge Center & Commons

[OKCMallen]

From what I hear from McDermid and Lackmeyer, they didn't sound like they were beyond repair to me. How is replacing them with grass any better?

If it was economical to retrofit and repurpose those buildings, don't you think someone would have stepped up by now to do it?

[Rover]

Not one of the people on here or otherwise has been willing to actually re-build these structures to be razed. Not one thinks that there is an economic value. Apparently no one has thought enough of the buildings to get them qualified as historical, or if they tried, they couldn't. So instead, everyone wants deteriorating, empty, worthless buildings to stand in the midst of downtown just so we have "density". That makes no sense.

I hope that SR grows, helps attract other companies downtown, and the density of PEOPLE downtown leads to other urban properties being developed. Buildings don't make an urban area, PEOPLE make it. The buildings will come if the people ask for it and are willing to PAY for it.

I hear people on here whine about the cost of living downtown, but they want others to invest alot of money so they can brag about an "urban" skyline. The best way to get it is to invest in it. Move downtown, work downtown, spend downtown. That makes property worth too much to leave setting. The reason developments work downtown in other cities is because people are willing to spend the money to be there.

Folks, we are talking about basic economics.

[OKCMallen]

Not one of the people on here or otherwise has been willing to actually re-build these structures to be razed. Not one thinks that there is an economic value. Apparently no one has thought enough of the buildings to get them qualified as historical, or if they tried, they couldn't. So instead, everyone wants deteriorating, empty, worthless buildings to stand in the midst of downtown just so we have "density". That makes no sense.

I hope that SR grows, helps attract other companies downtown, and the density of PEOPLE downtown leads to other urban properties being developed. Buildings don't make an urban area, PEOPLE make it. The buildings will come if the people ask for it and are willing to PAY for it.

I hear people on here whine about the cost of living downtown, but they want others to invest alot of money so they can brag about an "urban" skyline. The best way to get it is to invest in it. Move downtown, work downtown, spend downtown. That makes property worth too much to leave setting. The reason developments work downtown in other cities is because people are willing to spend the money to be there.

Folks, we are talking about basic economics.

Thank you!

[Kerry]

@Rover and OKCMallen - of the buildings in question - there are people that want to convert them to housing. Unfortunately, what got lost in the debate is the actual plan itself. The plan put forth by Sandridge is not going to be the oasis they think it is going to be. It will be a 100% unused disaster. I offer as proof EVERY corporate plaza in the United States.

As I recommended to everyone, log onto Google Earth, pick your favorite downtown, zoom in so you can see a few blocks at a time, find plazas, switch to Street View and see if people are using them. They are not using them. They are nothing more than barren obstacles that must be crossed to get where people are going. In some cases, people don't even cut across them, they go around them, or avoid the area altogether.

Here are some more examples.

1606 Smith St, Houston, TX. - landscaped green space and no one there. Five people walking by on the sidewalk. I don't understand, why aren't the people that work in the adjacent office building out lounging in the plaza thinking great thoughts?

572 Clay St, Houston, TX - landscaped green space and no one there. Three people walking by on the sidewalk. I don't understand, why aren't the people that work in the adjacent office building out lounging in the plaza thinking great thoughts?

1122 Lamar St, Houson, TX - coporate plaza and it has people there - 6 people waiting for a bus under a small shelter and 5 people walking thru. But still no one lounging around thinking deep thoughts.

1200 McKinney St, Houston, TX - plaza is empty. Where are all of Houston's deep thinkers? Maybe they are at their desks looking out the window at the empty plazas.

[BDP]

how are empty old unusable buildings good for downtown??

This is what they said about the Skirvin and most of bricktown for that matter.

Don't buy the "unusable" label. I have seen many buildings labeled "unusable" that later become functioning icons of the cities and companies that use them.

In the end, it's hard to see how totally empty space is an improvement over empty, but potentially iconic buildings, that could be used again by an owner who cared enough to do it. I think we have already forgoten that Kerr McGee actually had plans to restore some of these "unusable" buildings. I guess they didn't get the memo.

I really think it may take another generation of Oklahoman Citians who are actually used to thinking of downtown as a functioning city center before this changes. A lot of those in charge now still take the "it's better than nothing" approach and feel that anything old is disposable as long as the company doing it has the right profile.

[Architect2010]

Your argument is irrelevant Rover. You fail to realize that we aren't wanting to keep the old buildings just because they 'create density' and are 'timely'. I could care less if they were destroyed, but what irks me is when they are replaced with GRASS. If they built them replacements or at least let the parcels of land be open to future infill rather than a plaza then I would be content. However, they aren't. They have no active plan to ever redevelop what they plan to tear down. It is knocking a hole in our downtown and not even attempting to fix it. Hell, those buildings, like BDG said, could be potential icons; I guarantee that another lifeless plaza isn't going to be economical. If they really wanted to, they could turn those 'useless' buildings into a major profit. So again, your argument is flawed. They just didn't take the ambition. The problem is, something there [deteriorating or new] is better than the encouraged suburbanization of our downtown. There are many other uses they could use for that land, until prospective office building creates infill for the to-be-vacant lots, that could be used for in a downtown than a suburban park and I'm sure you agree.

[Pete]

They had originally planned on razing four building but the total of six must also include the existing parking garage just west of the tower and maybe the one east too, as they both have to give way for one, large structure on the east side (facing Broadway).

[Popsy]

Rover, basic economics does not fly with the forum's urbanists. I can feel their pain right now and I know this wake will help them accept what is happening sometime in the next fifty years. It will be tough on them though, so maybe we should allow them their period of grief without input from the realist members of the forum.

[Pete]

Regarding usability, many times (even in OKC) they gut the whole building, prop up the outside masonry walls, then completely rebuild.

It's never as cheap as building something new, but that's the whole point of design committees, historical registers, preservationists, federal grants, tax incentives, etc. Otherwise, everything would get scraped.

You simply can't replicate character and the details in these older buildings. And once they are gone, they are gone forever.

[Architect2010]

What do you mean Popsy? The continued suburbanization of all America's cities? The death kneel of sustainable culture in our country and? Maybe you're the one that doesn't realize just how wrong you are. I am a realist, and the reality is that this city has a one track mind, and it's not changing anytime soon. Regardless, it's worth trying to fix what we have broken, and so far it has worked. Look at the life of our inner city from the past ten years and your argument of us not being 'realists' goes out the window. We have made progress and it's our very attitudes that have caused it. Not your pessimistic outlook or 'realist' disposition as you so call it.

[Popsy]

A-10, I usually try to avoid debates with children so I will abstain, but I would like to know if I understand what you are saying. What I read of your assertions was that culture is on it's death bed because of suburbanization and the inner city progress made in the last ten years is due to the attitudes of our local urbanists. Interesting view point.

[mugofbeer]

What do you mean Popsy? The continued suburbanization of all America's cities? The death kneel of sustainable culture in our country and? Maybe you're the one that doesn't realize just how wrong you are. I am a realist, and the reality is that this city has a one track mind, and it's not changing anytime soon. Regardless, it's worth trying to fix what we have broken, and so far it has worked. Look at the life of our inner city from the past ten years and your argument of us not being 'realists' goes out the window. We have made progress and it's our very attitudes that have caused it. Not your pessimistic outlook or 'realist' disposition as you so call it.

Architect - I think you're going pretty far overboard. Society and culture aren't dependent on tightly packed downtown buildings. It's dependent on a lot more than that and OKC is well on it's way to becoming far more than it has been. It's unfortunate that these buildings appear to be beyond repair for the most part but they aren't the death knell of the city, for crying out loud (LOL). Get a grip.

[Kerry]

Mug and Popsy, I think they read something that wasn't written. Try reading A-10's post again. All he said was that if American cities turn their pedestrian oriented downtowns in to suburban style office parks we won't have any place left that is pedestrian friendly. That is true.

[Popsy]

Mug and Popsy, I think they read something that wasn't written. Try reading A-10's post again. All he said was that if American cities turn their pedestrian oriented downtowns in to suburban style office parks we won't have any place left that is pedestrian friendly. That is true.

Kerry, I reread his post and failed to find anything about pedestrian oriented and friendly. If you are saying that I failed to interpret his his post as meaning he was referring to pedestrian oriented and pedestrian friendly, you are correct. It sailed right over my head. Sorry A-10.

[mugofbeer]

I understand his point very well. I guess I didn't make my statement clear in the tone it was intended. I just thing you all need to get a grip.

I will ask directly, have any of you actually toured the buildings slated for demolition?

It seems a lot of folks are saying with the exception of one building, that they are in such a state of disrepair, they can't be saved. I would love it if they could be and turned into retail, bars, restaurants, etc but if they can't be saved economically, they can't be saved. I don't see what's so hard about that. If Warren Buffet lived here and had money to burn, he may be able to afford to hire craftsmen who could repair and carefully replace all the structural elements, but there isn't anyone here with that sort of money. It appears renovation is economically not an option.

[Kerry]

Mug - you are missing the point, or we aren't making it clear. I could care less about the actual building themselves. As you can tell from the Politics page, I am not a big preservationist. I am concerned about what is coming, not what is going away. A corporate plaza will be a black hole disaster. I would rather see 4 empty buildings than a landscaped corporate plaza.

[earlywinegareth]

After having read the comments by the committee members, I concur with their decision. This isn't the ideal choice, of course. Ideally, we'd be raving about a new skyscraper breaking ground on the site...but we're nowhere near there yet. This is the next best thing for now and much much much better than having deteriorating eyesores cluttering up the area. Check out the project on the architect's website, it's not so bad.

[Kerry]

This is the next best thing for now and much much much better than having deteriorating eyesores cluttering up the area. Check out the project on the architect's website, it's not so bad.

The buildings are hardly eyesores.

[mugofbeer]

They buildings are hardly eyesores.

But according to most of the people whose comments I have read, they are not economically repairable. Kerry, I understand that you would be satisfied to see them replaced with something else. That can always be done if the courtyard approach doesn't draw the multitudes of crowds.

[Pete]

I think almost everyone would be satisfied if SR merely built a new structure along Robinson instead of making a huge plaza there.

That way the "urban canyon" would be preserved as would a general feeling of density.

This is really my only concern about their current plans, especially since they will be creating plenty of open space even if they did add back a building at that location.

[metro]

@Rover and OKCMallen - of the buildings in question - there are people that want to convert them to housing. Unfortunately, what got lost in the debate is the actual plan itself. The plan put forth by Sandridge is not going to be the oasis they think it is going to be. It will be a 100% unused disaster. I offer as proof EVERY corporate plaza in the United States.

Exactly. Why is this any different especially in OKC that is lacking critical density.

This is what they said about the Skirvin and most of bricktown for that matter.

Don't buy the "unusable" label. I have seen many buildings labeled "unusable" that later become functioning icons of the cities and companies that use them.

In the end, it's hard to see how totally empty space is an improvement over empty, but potentially iconic buildings, that could be used again by an owner who cared enough to do it. I think we have already forgoten that Kerr McGee actually had plans to restore some of these "unusable" buildings. I guess they didn't get the memo.

I really think it may take another generation of Oklahoman Citians who are actually used to thinking of downtown as a functioning city center before this changes. A lot of those in charge now still take the "it's better than nothing" approach and feel that anything old is disposable as long as the company doing it has the right profile.

Agreed. Skirvin was not financially feasible until the City gave millions in tax incentives. Why can't we do the same for the India temple, downtown's oldest remaining building?

Regarding usability, many times (even in OKC) they gut the whole building, prop up the outside masonry walls, then completely rebuild.

It's never as cheap as building something new, but that's the whole point of design committees, historical registers, preservationists, federal grants, tax incentives, etc. Otherwise, everything would get scraped.

You simply can't replicate character and the details in these older buildings. And once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Yep, and remember both Kerr McGee and McDermid had plans to do so just 3-4 years ago.

If it was economical to retrofit and repurpose those buildings, don't you think someone would have stepped up by now to do it?

Remember that Kerr McGee and McDermid tried to, why can't Sandridge do the same. You act as if an energy company doesn't have money to spare. Look at all the philantrophy CHK and Devon have done. I'm not saying we are "owed" it by SD, but they could preserve it if they wanted to, they simply don't care to and that's the sad reality of it.

Not one of the people on here or otherwise has been willing to actually re-build these structures to be razed. Not one thinks that there is an economic value. Apparently no one has thought enough of the buildings to get them qualified as historical, or if they tried, they couldn't. So instead, everyone wants deteriorating, empty, worthless buildings to stand in the midst of downtown just so we have "density". That makes no sense.

I hope that SR grows, helps attract other companies downtown, and the density of PEOPLE downtown leads to other urban properties being developed. Buildings don't make an urban area, PEOPLE make it. The buildings will come if the people ask for it and are willing to PAY for it.

I hear people on here whine about the cost of living downtown, but they want others to invest alot of money so they can brag about an "urban" skyline. The best way to get it is to invest in it. Move downtown, work downtown, spend downtown. That makes property worth too much to leave setting. The reason developments work downtown in other cities is because people are willing to spend the money to be there.

Folks, we are talking about basic economics.

Again your point is irrelevant, the Skirvin was not economically feasible without the federal brownfield grants and the millions the city invested. Should we tear down these 6 buildings and the Skirvin? Then we can make an even larger park with the Skirvin gone. Heck, let's just make all of downtown a giant park except Bricktown, Devon and Sandridge. Then it can be Core2EnergyCompaniesandthemostoverusedwordinOklaho ma

[ultimatesooner]

so glad Sandridge gets to spend their money as they see fit and they don't have to listen to a bunch of people who wanna contol how other people spend their money

[CuatrodeMayo]

Oh please, don't make this a tea-bagging issue...

[Kerry]

so glad Sandridge gets to spend their money as they see fit and they don't have to listen to a bunch of people who wanna contol how other people spend their money

Once again, if you read the Politics page you will not find a stronger supporter of private property rights than me. I don't see anyone arguing that Sandridge can't do what they want with their land, all we are trying to do is point out that there are other things they could do that would have a more positive impact, not just for themselves but for the entire downtown community.

Tom Ward's stated goal was to make their office building more accessable to the public and have a higher profile presence from the street. You can do this in two ways. 1) You can remove everything between the street and the building, thus making a large open space (which they plan to do) or 2) You can bring the building to the sidewalk. Obviously you can't move a 350' building closer to the street but they could have used the same facade design that is on the main tower and applied it to the existing strucutres and created one large unified campus. This has been done in several cities and has worked so well they are considered landmarks. Nowhere is the world is a corporate plaza considered a landmark. Even the corporate plaza at the World Trade Center was empty and it sat at the base of two tower that had over 50,000 people in them. Hell, when you think of what was the entire World Trade Center site the thing people remember is the building facade - not that stuipd empty plaza with a fountain.

Please see the following projects that used unified design across multiple buildings (and multiple city blcoks) to create one entity:

The proverbial ball was dropped!

Embarcadero Center - San Francisco



Peachtree Center - Atlanta



Rockefeller Center - New York City

[ronronnie1]

So I'm assuming Sandridge's plan was approved, and the buildings in question will be destroyed afterall?

How is this happening? Seriously? I don't get it. It seems like such a no brainer to just LEAVE THE FVCKING BUILDINGS ALONE!