SandRidge Center & Commons

[SoonerLakers]

As someone that worked in facilities at Kerr McGee for 17 years, there is something that not very many people are aware of. Back in the 80's before the bust, Dean McGee was considering tearing down the same buildings to build a second tower. It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.

The difference is that he was going to replace the demolished buildings with a tower. Sandridge is proposing replacing them with grass.

[metro]

Not to mention Al Gore invented the internet since then, so we're all more connected to what's going on in real time.

[Doug Loudenback]

As someone that worked in facilities at Kerr McGee for 17 years, there is something that not very many people are aware of. Back in the 80's before the bust, Dean McGee was considering tearing down the same buildings to build a second tower. It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.

I guess that I missed that SandRidge was proposing to build a 2nd tower ... where?

[cad_poke]

I didn't mean that Sandridge was proposing another tower, just that the amount of plaza area would've been about the same and that it would've eliminated the street wall along Robinson.

[Spartan]

Economy may take care of the problem.

Unfortunately, for the KerMac, we dodged that bullet..

[MGE1977]

Please do not take this posting as snark, but are we talking about buildings that are covered up by other buildings that are no longer usable?

And if they are usable, but not desirable what is the use in saving them? It appears that old ordinary construction (which I prefer and think is very charming and character driven) was mopped over by lightweight asthetics (thereby degrading charm.) The very construction of lightweight construction (whether throughout the building or in part) screams temporary by building lifetime standards and as such screams for demolition.

Perhaps I am missing the argument because I am only a 12 year resident in Oklahoma, and perhaps I don't recognize the importance. Just months ago I was involved in heated debate about the foreward mindedness of OKC. It seems like backsliding to consider buildings whose only real appeal lay masked over by contemporary fascade important enough to spend the time and money on. These are old buildings with old components, and the only contribution to the city would be in the histories long since covered up by modernization.

Architecturally they can't offer very much, the age of the building makes renovation a huge undertaking, not to mention the neglect of years past. If you took the capitol building, and wrapped it in a Wal-Mart to spend its remaining existence and then allowed it to languish for a decade or more, would it be worth salvaging the old wise Indian crest, or sit him on a raft into oblivion?

[betts]

Architecturally they can't offer very much, the age of the building makes renovation a huge undertaking, not to mention the neglect of years past. If you took the capitol building, and wrapped it in a Wal-Mart to spend its remaining existence and then allowed it to languish for a decade or more, would it be worth salvaging the old wise Indian crest, or sit him on a raft into oblivion?

Definitely worth salvaging, no matter how long it languished. It's not always that difficult to restore facades. It just depends on how the new one was applied. If the buildings have reasonable structural integrity, I think they're worth saving. It they don't, it depends on the cost.

9th Street is the perfect example of what can be done to fix up buildings that look like the bulldozer is the only solution. Granted, those were houses, but their state of disrepair was remarkable, and not they look amazing. My son bought a house in Jacksonville, FL and when I first went to look at it, the entire back of the house was missing, and there were pigeons roosting on the 2nd floor. It had to be taken down to the studs, rewired, replumbed, new windows, roof, etc. But, it looks great now, and he's got a really nice historic house in a close-in neighborhood. Again, these are houses, but buildings can be restored too. The questions are structural integrity and money.

[Soonerus]

Amazing to me and several of my downtown friends that this debate is even being waged over these abandoned dawgs...

[MGE1977]

I would wholly agree with you Betts. I think it reasonable to investigate the viability of salvage, but not to romanticize based on history that was of such low priority as to be covered up with such cookie cutter flim-flam. As far as I am concerned the building was doomed by other hands, and as it stands, I say swing for the fences, take the bricks and line the walking trails at the Central park.

[Spartan]

MGE, here's what we're upset about that might change your mind, three simple points:

1. The KerMac (Savings & Loan) bldg on Robinson is not in disrepair and still has all of its historic integrity left. Bldg next door in same condition, same age, is being restored.. why not the KerMac? There are redevelopers who want to restore both of these bldgs to housing. Answer: It's being demo'd because it's directly in front of SandRidge Tower, not because it's blighted. Unacceptable.

2. The other bldg we want to be saved is the India Temple, but if it can't be saved, this one is understandable. It's worth looking further into however because, despite being covered up by a new facade that would have to be removed.. the fact remains that the India Temple is THE oldest remaining structure in downtown and once housed the State Legislature for a handful of years.

3. We're trying to save the density, not so much the overall buildings themselves even though there are two specific bldgs that, if all else fails, HAVE to be saved in our opinion--and it would be terrible to not at least preserve the KerMac, which is easily preservable. KMG did perform minimum maintenance to keep it from serious disrepair over the years. Remove that bldg, not only have you lost a beautiful historic bldg that can be repaired easily, but you've also punched holes in the Robinson Avenue streetwall of buildings that line the street at a uniform setback and define the public realm along Robinson, which is one of downtown's best corridors--very few downtown corridors have retained the sense of place and quality of defined space as Robinson has, thanks to the crappy corporate plazas and building setbacks along Broadway and other streets.

Not trying to chomp at you or anything, and if you don't agree with us, that's fine. I just think, judging by your posts, that you would be open to reconsidering your statement that the bldgs are "history that was of such low priority as to be covered up with such cookie cutter flim-flam." It's a shame that in the 70s we were so foolish and must have had something against these old buildings that temporary lightweight hideous I.M. Pei designed-cities were sooo superior. But at some point when something is a shame, you gotta end it. Stop perpetuating damn urban renewal, and start trying to repair the damage done to downtown. We need to rebuild, not tear down.

[ronronnie1]

Isn't the First National Center pretty much abandoned and unused? And hasn't it been said that conversion over to class A office space is near impossible?

TEAR IT DOWN.

[jbrown84]

I don't see any harm, after all it's their money, their land. It could eventually pave the way for bigger and better things in the future.

Yeah!! Like the Century Center and Galleria malls!



DON'T EDMOND MY DOWNTOWN

[jbrown84]

But there is a reason these buildings have been vacant. Nobody wants to rent them.

WRONG. They are not available for rent and haven't been for decades.

A lifeless, underutilized, stagnant park being built downtown for the sole purpose of line-of-sight is not acceptable for the cost of 4 buildings.

Besides, what place jumps to mind when you think "BIG city"? I always think of NYC...............which has a gigantic PARK right in its heart! Central Park is huge, but it provides valuable benefits to that city: namely 'green' in a heart of concrete, a mechanism for cleaning the air--NYC would be worse if not for that park, and an attractive place for its residents and visitors.

Central Park is just a fraction of the whole densely developed island of Manhattan. The green space we already have is more than enough to give us the same ratio of green space to buildings.

It was planned to have been built just west of the existing tower and it would have resulted in the plaza that is in front of the building being expanded to take up all of the southwest corner of the block. It would've been very similar to what Sandridge is proposing. I wonder if there would've been the same uproar then as there is now to tear down those buildings.

No, of course not because that would be adding BUILDINGS. Get it???

[Spartan]

Besides, what place jumps to mind when you think "BIG city"? I always think of NYC...............which has a gigantic PARK right in its heart! Central Park is huge, but it provides valuable benefits to that city: namely 'green' in a heart of concrete, a mechanism for cleaning the air--NYC would be worse if not for that park, and an attractive place for its residents and visitors.

A "park" should be viewed as a positive. Kudos to Sandridge for thinking of doing that; they could just demolish and concrete over the area....or worse, just let the derelict structures become more derelict.

You're going to compare NYC's Central Park, designed by the infamous Frederick Law Olmsted, to SandRidge Commons, a corporate plaza brought to you by SandRidge Energy?

It comes down to definition of space. Seriously compare Central Park:



To a poorly defined, inefficient, gap that's literally just a hole punched in the density of downtown:

[Larry OKC]

Isn't the First National Center pretty much abandoned and unused? And hasn't it been said that conversion over to class A office space is near impossible?

TEAR IT DOWN.

Are we talking about the same building? Mr. Nichols seems to think it is already Class A space...

NewsOK
Devon building, office space are getting ready to hit market (Oklahoman, 5/8/10)

Leased space that Devon will vacate downtown — 222,731 square feet in Chase Tower, 100 N Broadway; 227,835 square feet in First National Center, 120 N Robinson; 102,277 square feet in Corporate Tower, 101 N Robinson; and 40,595 square feet in Oklahoma Tower, 210 Park Ave. — will be a plus for the city, Nichols said.

"To create this much quality Class A space at one time is really an opportunity,” he said, noting that Oklahoma City now has virtually no prime office space to offer downtown. "We’ve looked.”

Freeing up space will make room for more businesses, he said.

[Spartan]

There actually is a TON of Class A space that Devon is freeing up..FNB is not one of those buildings however. Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Chase Tower (or Cotter Ranch Tower, lol), all Class A bldgs.

Is there a reason that the blurb excluded the Mid-America Tower??

[edcrunk]

i wonder if some of these people proposing tearing down these pieces of history are really plants from sandridge! heheh

[Larry OKC]

There actually is a TON of Class A space that Devon is freeing up..FNB is not one of those buildings however. Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Chase Tower (or Cotter Ranch Tower, lol), all Class A bldgs.

Is there a reason that the blurb excluded the Mid-America Tower??

This isn't really for Spartan as I answered in the other thread but just in case someone doesn't get over there...the articles focus was the leased property space that is opening up by Devon's departure. Their Corporate Tower (Mid America) is owner occupied and as long as it sells to another owner occupier it wont count against the vacancy rates. If you add up all of their leased space it is higher than the owned space (200,000 sf/mol) so will definitely have a potential impact.

[MGE1977]

MGE, here's what we're upset about that might change your mind, three simple points:

1. The KerMac (Savings & Loan) bldg on Robinson is not in disrepair and still has all of its historic integrity left. Bldg next door in same condition, same age, is being restored.. why not the KerMac? There are redevelopers who want to restore both of these bldgs to housing. Answer: It's being demo'd because it's directly in front of SandRidge Tower, not because it's blighted. Unacceptable.

2. The other bldg we want to be saved is the India Temple, but if it can't be saved, this one is understandable. It's worth looking further into however because, despite being covered up by a new facade that would have to be removed.. the fact remains that the India Temple is THE oldest remaining structure in downtown and once housed the State Legislature for a handful of years.

3. We're trying to save the density, not so much the overall buildings themselves even though there are two specific bldgs that, if all else fails, HAVE to be saved in our opinion--and it would be terrible to not at least preserve the KerMac, which is easily preservable. KMG did perform minimum maintenance to keep it from serious disrepair over the years. Remove that bldg, not only have you lost a beautiful historic bldg that can be repaired easily, but you've also punched holes in the Robinson Avenue streetwall of buildings that line the street at a uniform setback and define the public realm along Robinson, which is one of downtown's best corridors--very few downtown corridors have retained the sense of place and quality of defined space as Robinson has, thanks to the crappy corporate plazas and building setbacks along Broadway and other streets.

Not trying to chomp at you or anything, and if you don't agree with us, that's fine. I just think, judging by your posts, that you would be open to reconsidering your statement that the bldgs are "history that was of such low priority as to be covered up with such cookie cutter flim-flam." It's a shame that in the 70s we were so foolish and must have had something against these old buildings that temporary lightweight hideous I.M. Pei designed-cities were sooo superior. But at some point when something is a shame, you gotta end it. Stop perpetuating damn urban renewal, and start trying to repair the damage done to downtown. We need to rebuild, not tear down.

For the record, this is very persuasive. Thank you for the info.

[metro]

Are we talking about the same building? Mr. Nichols seems to think it is already Class A space...

NewsOK
Devon building, office space are getting ready to hit market (Oklahoman, 5/8/10)

There actually is a TON of Class A space that Devon is freeing up..FNB is not one of those buildings however. Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Chase Tower (or Cotter Ranch Tower, lol), all Class A bldgs.

Is there a reason that the blurb excluded the Mid-America Tower??

I'm pretty sure that the space Devon occupies in First National was remodeled to Class A space over the last two years. Remember they office in the ANNEX portion of the building, not the actual tower itself.

[Spartan]

Hmm. I have no idea about that... that would imply Milbank has actually done something which I find hard to believe. I know that they had planned to do a lot with the facade of the annex facing Park Ave..but they never did. Did they renovate the Devon floors for certain?

That's interesting that you brought that up, metro.

[metro]

Pretty positive. I'm sure Steve can verify, but I'm almost certain.

[metro]

This is from Preservation Oklahoma regarding their formal appeal of the Sandridge demolition/destruction request. Wish I could get off work again, Doug, I hope you and Steve can make it at least.


Subject: Keep Downtown Urban - Please attend the Board of Adjustment Meeting!

Dear Friends,

Please join us at the City of Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment hearing this Thursday, at 1:30 PM. The hearing will be held at 200 N. Walker, Third Floor (City Council chambers). The hearing will determine the future course of development in downtown Oklahoma City. SandRidge Energy is proposing to demolish 4 historic buildings on two adjacent blocks to make room for a suburban :"campus" While we applaud SandRidge's commitment in moving downtown, we would like them to develop their site in conformance with the intended goals of the City's published ordinances. This action is on direct conflict with the stated goals and objectives of the Oklahoma City Zoning ordinance, and is detrimental to land values and quality of life in the urban core. For more information please visit Keep Downtown Urban and friend us on Facebook (KeepDowntown Urban). If you can't attend, please show your support by emailing a letter to the address listed on the attachment. Feel free to forward on to your friends.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'll be there.

[BDP]

Can't be there, but I will be doing this:

Write a letter of support for the appeal to: Board of Adjustment c/o Kathe Casula, 420 W. Main Street, Ste. 9210, Oklahoma City, OK 73102