SandRidge Center & Commons

[BDP]

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 It's just out of date.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.

[Of Sound Mind]

Maybe not, but we have been given a clear picture of its current state and a very disappointing forecast for at least another generation.

Is it possible that our expectations and dreams are a bit unrealistic?

[BDP]

Is it possible that our expectations and dreams are a bit unrealistic?

Mine were for sure. I had seen it done elsewhere and thought, with the right mix, we could do it too. I even thought we were on our way, but I think I agree now that it will be generations before we see any kind of viable urban development in OKC. It may be that long before we see any desire for it from the city. It is certainly not a pretty picture relative to so many other markets that can viably offer urban options.

I still kind of think if Mid-town's empty spaces are filled in correctly, we may see some urban life come to OKC. Mid-town's redevelopment has kind of been done outside of the city's standard disposable development model to date and it is now screaming potential. But again, it's going to take some angels, given what downtown real estate will be worth for a long time. I just don't think the city, be it its leaders or community, feel that an urban district in downtown is viable or that it would be an asset in marketing the city for growth and in attracting new businesses.

In the end, we just don't have the community support for it or much interest in it from those with the means to make it happen, which seems justified given the long time it will be before it is viable here.

[betts]

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.

But, do you honestly believe those statements? I don't think anyone has enough vision to talk about what will be needed in or feasible for two generations from now. That's such hyperbole that it's laughable, especially coming from anyone involved in real estate. Two generations ago, did anyone have any idea what would be going on in Oklahoma City right now? To me, these are a bunch of statements by people in cahoots, using unprovable projections to get Sandridge what it inexplicably wants.

If nothing else, downtown Oklahoma City could easily support several more rental properties, and the sky seems to be the limit on restaurants. I agree that it's disheartening to see what are probably great old buildings torn down in Oklahoma City, but I think it's WAAAAY premature to say that it will be generations before we have an urban environment downtown.

[Kerry]

BDP - your last three posts have been awesome. Thank you for taking the time to write them.

[Kerry]

But, do you honestly believe those statements? I don't think anyone has enough vision to talk about what will be needed in or feasible for two generations from now. That's such hyperbole that it's laughable, especially coming from anyone involved in real estate. Two generations ago, did anyone have any idea what would be going on in Oklahoma City right now? To me, these are a bunch of statements by people in cahoots, using unprovable projections to get Sandridge what it inexplicably wants.

If nothing else, downtown Oklahoma City could easily support several more rental properties, and the sky seems to be the limit on restaurants. I agree that it's disheartening to see what are probably great old buildings torn down in Oklahoma City, but I think it's WAAAAY premature to say that it will be generations before we have an urban environment downtown.

Betts - did you watch the meeting? Sandridge, using local experts, clearly painted the picture that the highest and best use of downtown real-estate is a plaza. The BofA agreed. Do you think they were all lying just to get the Sandridge Commons approved? They didn't even just limit their comments to the two building under consideration. They identifed the failure of the Park Harvey as a reason to pursue demolition. I didn't even know the Park Harvery was viewed by the downtown money people to be a failure.

[betts]

Truth, in situations like these, is different to different people. Perhaps they honestly believe what they were saying. I don't know if the Park Harvey is a failure or not, but if people exist who wanted to develop the India Temple, then at least those people disagree with the "experts". And my point is that absolutely no one can predict what will happen in two generations. A lot of people failed to predict the housing market collapse months before it happened. If these experts had said five years, I'm still not sure I agree with them, but it's at least a bit more believable. Anyone who exaggerates like that opens their statements to question, IMO.

[Spartan]

How typical of you. You ask if the bickering can stop, but in the previous sentence you claim that the SRers are still making moronic and inaccurate comments. This is laughable in my opinion as I see you as the master of moronic and inaccurate comments. You should take that as a compliment as at least one person has recognized your mastery of something. Also what is it that "one" the day means? Did you mean won the day?

Annoyed, agitated rant self-deleted.

[Rover]

There sure are a lot of gaps and leaps in the logic used to prove that downtown is a lost cause because a few people lost on this issue. Some people just don't get it.

Because THESE projects weren't viable doesn't mean ALL projects are not viable. Because downtown might develop somehow different than this urbanist-elitist narrow view doesn't mean it won't develop.

I started out thinking the urbanists were truly interested in this city and am now convinced most are just interested in being confirmed that they are the smartest, wisest people in town and everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is either corrupt, stupid or both.

Spartan, I exclude you as you seem to be reasonable about now getting busy and going on from here to make OKC the best place possible to live that it can be. I may disagree with you some but I don't find you disagreeable. I hope others can get past this without the hissy fits.

[Spartan]

There sure are a lot of gaps and leaps in the logic used to prove that downtown is a lost cause because a few people lost on this issue. Some people just don't get it.

Because THESE projects weren't viable doesn't mean ALL projects are not viable. Because downtown might develop somehow different than this urbanist-elitist narrow view doesn't mean it won't develop.

I started out thinking the urbanists were truly interested in this city and am now convinced most are just interested in being confirmed that they are the smartest, wisest people in town and everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is either corrupt, stupid or both.

I can certainly understand the viewpoint, and it should be noted that Ford Price and Michael Dunn didn't ever have any intention of making a blanket statement that could be applied to downtown residential as a whole.

I think what we're talking about though is the difference between a residential project in Deep Deuce, and the implied parking situation there, and a residential project in the CBD core, and the implied parking situation there. The CBD's parking situation is the same for Bricktown, as well. So I think Ford Price is in fact an advocate of downtown housing and wants to see more, he just thinks it should be confined to Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc. I think what we need desperately is mixed-uses especially residential IN the CBD and in Bricktown itself, not around those areas--that's what Price and Dunn discounted altogether it seems.

Because you will likely never be able to have attached parking in the CBD or in Bricktown, not at least until the downtown market matures in another 20 years or so, and by then we'll all be driving space cars.

[Popsy]

Popsy, you are the absolute worst poster on here, and I can not stand reading your posts. If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble. And what's more is that I hope you cross over from just minor rude nagging and trolling, to actual transgressions against the TOS that get you banned from here so that you can just go away altogether. That's what I think about you, as a person, as a commentator, and more--and I'm not someone who usually gets personalities mixed up with political differences..but I've seen the way you conduct yourself and share what you have to say on this forum and it's a disgrace, and if you as a person are anything like you are on here, then you as a person are pretty pathetic as well, and that certainly seems to be the case. You would probably be doing thy own self a service by just going back to your chess group and only nag them all day, or did they stop putting up with you as well? You don't even have anything to say that benefits SR Commons in anyway, you're just on here making insults and throwing bombs and watching reactions. The last thing you ever want is for the dust to settle, because you're thriving on controversy. I just hope you realize what a jerk you look like as always and realize that any controversy you can stir up will mostly be about what a jerk you are to people on this forum. Just freaking go away already, or stop being such a jerk. /endrant

There, done venting. Carry on rehashing the same argument that's been playing out for the last 6 months. There couldn't be any more pressing issues to move on to or anything.

Well Spar you're immaturity really came through on that one. It really bothers you to be called out on your excesses. I will grant you that when I get my fill of someone I will take a shot or two, but I really think you need it. I would love to quit posting and just read but when I read some of the things you post something compels me to call bovine excrement on it. I am sure I have ruffled other feathers as well, so maybe, as a group, you could get Pete to take away my ability to post.

[Doug Loudenback]

Sorry to have skipped the above discussion, but I've been thinking about what happened on Monday. Earlier, I stated my observations about my (and perhaps POK's) procedural naivete, but I've now added a new concluding section to my final SandRidge post, this dealing with matters of substance. It is here but it reads,

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: SUBSTANTIVE. Unless common sense and logical thought processes be completely abandoned, a fair conclusion is that something occurred between the last BOA hearing and the one which occurred this past Monday. Earlier, there were serious concerns raised by some of the commissioners about various aspects of the DDRC decision. But, on Monday, following the presentations, in a 3-minute time span, the board discussed the matter for about 2 minutes, only 2 members making any comments during that time, and then in an additional minute a motion was made, seconded, and adopted by a 3-1 vote –– all of that occurring in just 3 minutes of time.

How did it happen that the previous concerns of the board suddenly became condensed to a 2 minute discussion and 1 minute for a motion to be made, seconded and voted upon?

Opinions may vary, but here are mine. In retrospect, there are a few things that can be looked at, and one of them is the report made by Suzette Hatfield on July 24, the Saturday before Monday's BOA meeting. You'd need to read her full comments to get the full picture, but one of the most important pieces of information centers around Ralph McCalmont, 1st president of Preservation Oklahoma and a person with established historic preservation credentials — in other words, someone that Preservation Oklahoma had good reason to trust.

On SandRidge's behalf, he invited POK representatives to come to SandRidge for a meeting which would include a tour of the buildings involved — which POK had long sought and been denied — and at which meeting the long hoped-for compromise would be discussed.

Now, I'm not a member of POK and am not privy to more information than anyone else about them. BUT, were I Katie Friddle or Suzette Hatfield, I would have taken hope in Ralph McCalmont's invitation — the invitation came from a friend who conveyed the message, at long last, that SandRidge was willing to discuss compromise with Preservation Oklahoma.

According to Ms. Hatfield, the "compromise" discussion proved to be anything BUT that. After the tour and in a meeting held in SandRidge's executive conference room with courteous refreshments provided, POK was told in no uncertain terms that SandRidge was completely unwilling to vary one iota from its plan. More, Ralph McCalmont (not SandRidge, but instead its envoy, McCalmont) insisted that POK drop its appeal, right at that moment, else it would suffer the consequences of being marginalized, seen as extremists, and suffer loss of financial support.

Some offer of compromise — quit or die.

Ms. Hatfield also reported that after the meeting that POK board members were receiving calls from Mr. McCalmont and others who had been friends and contributors to POK asking them to pressure POK to stop. POK also learned that at least one business relationship it has had over a lengthy period of time would terminate if POK pursued the matter to district court.

Thinking back on that pre-BOA hearing knowledge and after the fact, was the loss before the BOA a foregone conclusion?

What was the corporate sponsorship that would be lost if an appeal was filed? Now, I won't express an opinion about who that business contributor might be ...

... but I will note that McCalmont is a director of Bank First Corporation ...

One question that occurs to me to wonder about is this: Where was Mr. McCalmont during all of the preceding months that this matter had been under discussion and consideration before the DDRC and then by the BOA? If his concerns in fact existed earlier than last week, why was he reticent about saying so much earlier than then? If his new wisdom was only found last week, what and who was the source of his epiphany?

It is also a concern of mine during Monday's meeting while one POK speaker was addressing the board that commissioner Michael Dunn interrupted the speaker and made a factual statement that Park Harvey Apartments had suffered an occupancy decline from 92% to 49% after Devon acquired the city parking garage for use with its new office tower. Now, I don't know whether those alleged facts are true or false. I do know that I have followed these proceedings closely and IF there has been any testimony or presentation by anyone to such facts I have certainly missed it and I don't think that I have.

IF THAT BE TRUE, where did the information that Michael Dunn reported come from? From evidence presented during the proceedings? If it wasn't from that evidence, it came from somewhere else and from someone outside the record of the proceedings.

Then, consider the remarks by board member Jim Allen during the 2-3 minute discussion by the board on Monday. He said, with regard to the India Temple building,

After further looking at that, I think I made a mistake. After looking at what we've got here, I would say that we need to move forward.

Holy-About-Face, Batman! Allen offered no reasons for why he'd reversed his position; he merely gave as his only reason, "We need to move forward."

Investigate as you will and reach your own conclusions. If my opinions are incorrect, on fair evidence being submitted I'll be glad to reconsider — I am just an outsider trying to look "in" to a very non-transparent process about which I'm an outsider, but, as it stands, the "in" doesn't strike me as being very pretty, not very pretty at all.

The odd thing in all of this, as I've said from my very beginning post in the SandRidge posts in this forum, is that I can easily see that the SandRidge Commons can be a very good thing for the city ... even though I hedged my initial post upon the potential viability of the India Temple ... but ... the thing is, the underhanded manner, in my opinion, in which this has been carried forward by SandRidge is, to me, wholly abhorrent and brings shame upon our city, to its municipal processes, and, since I'm a part of this city, to me.

[Rover]

It seems to me that in most developed urban areas that people live in "areas" that offer amenities or cultures appealing to a semi-homogenous group. So, Bricktown appeals to a certain younger urbanized group. I think that is why the higher priced hill, Bloc 42, etc. has had a difficult time. You have floor plans and location appealing to one group and price points they can't afford. Midtown has appeal to a different kind of resident. I would like to be there if there were nice flats available that would be suitable and appealing to 50-60 year olds (don't want to run up 3 floors to go to bed). The restaurants, entertainment, etc. needs to be comensurate with who is in the neighborhoods. Therefore, the argument that plopping a residential tower in a business neighborhood where the other amenities don't already exist is a difficult proposition is valid. In product development we take market requirements and turn them into products. To build a product as a good idea and to expect the market to find it is very risky.

[Spartan]

It seems to me that in most developed urban areas that people live in "areas" that offer amenities or cultures appealing to a semi-homogenous group. So, Bricktown appeals to a certain younger urbanized group. I think that is why the higher priced hill, Bloc 42, etc. has had a difficult time. You have floor plans and location appealing to one group and price points they can't afford. Midtown has appeal to a different kind of resident. I would like to be there if there were nice flats available that would be suitable and appealing to 50-60 year olds (don't want to run up 3 floors to go to bed). The restaurants, entertainment, etc. needs to be comensurate with who is in the neighborhoods. Therefore, the argument that plopping a residential tower in a business neighborhood where the other amenities don't already exist is a difficult proposition is valid. In product development we take market requirements and turn them into products. To build a product as a good idea and to expect the market to find it is very risky.

Fair enough Rover. So here's the million dollar question I suppose. How do we take the central business district and develop a residential product as economically viable there, enough to make a difference in the vitality of that area?

[pickles]

Popsy, you are the absolute worst poster on here, and I can not stand reading your posts. If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble.

The word is drivel.

The word is not dribble, which is something you can do with a basketball, but drivel, which refers to careless or uninformed bloviation.

[Kerry]

They were pretty clear that if on-site parking isn't available there is no way anything other than office use will ever work downtown, and to add the cost of parking to a project makes it cost prohibitve in OKC. That pretty much rules out ANY downtown conversion of class C office space to residential. I'm not so much 'down in the dumps' about losing these two buidlings to a plaza as I am the bleak outlook for downtown that these people seem to have (unless they made it all up to get their project passed).

[betts]

Fair enough Rover. So here's the million dollar question I suppose. How do we take the central business district and develop a residential product as economically viable there, enough to make a difference in the vitality of that area?

Do we have to, really? We've got enough land around our fairly small downtown, in which you can live and walk to work, still feel as if you're living in an urban environment. I was more interested in saving the buildings than necessarily having to use them as a residential product. I'd like to see more stores and restaurants, open at night, in the CBD, but I don't really feel our downtown will fail if we don't have more residential there.

If I lived in Bricktown, I'd still feel as if I lived downtown. I live in Maywood, and yet consider myself a downtown resident. I hate to keep bringing up Chicago, but since I was just there, I saw lots of what I would call urban living within two miles of downtown, and there's far more residential in close in areas than downtown in among the highrises.

I'd like to see more density downtown and I'd like to see buildings preserved. I'd like to see people walking around the CBD at night in greater numbers than we currently have (although there are people out and about downtown at night, I can guarantee you). But I don't think we have to have strictly high rise living to feel like we're living in an urban area.

[Spartan]

I'm not sure what I said that led you to believe I meant high-rise living, which I recognize isn't really economically feasible unless someone extraordinary steps up.

[OKCisOK4me]

The word is drivel.

The word is not dribble, which is something you can do with a basketball, but drivel, which refers to careless or uninformed bloviation.

It's kinda funny cause when I read the rant, I read drivel, even though it is dribble. Funny how your eyes can be...

[betts]

I'm not sure what I said that led you to believe I meant high-rise living, which I recognize isn't really economically feasible unless someone extraordinary steps up.

Perhaps I misstated and used high rise living as a generalization for living strictly within the CBD. People who live in any CBD have parking issues. It's no different here than anywhere else. The difference is that, in Manhattan, you don't have to have a car to get around. Here, it's tough to do without one and so parking is a bigger issue. I don't see that changing, and that's one of the reasons why I said we may need to focus more on residential immediately adjacent to the CBD, which can still be an urban experience and the population of which can still make the CBD a busier, livelier place in which to spend time. I think it's important to keep and utilize buildings, but I'm not so focused on housing, per se. We have all the Triangle land, as well as land north of it. We have all of the Core to Shore land, Midtown and SoSA land that can be developed for residential, allowing better access to parking, but still having an urban feel. Alternatively, people who really want to live in the CBD or Bricktown may have to accustom themselves to parking a bit farther away than we're accustomed to parking. My daughters in Chicago usually can find a parking space within a four block radius of their apartment and they count themselves lucky if they find one closer in than two blocks. If you want to live in Bricktown, there's a lot of parking between 2nd and Main, and any housing created in Bricktown could offer monthly or annual parking passes to that lot.

[David]

If we had an ignore button I would have used it a long time ago on you so I didn't have to read your dribble.

There is an Add to Ignore List link on every regular poster's profile page.

[Spartan]

Well Spar you're immaturity

Well, if we're going to be the grammar police now..

And thanks David.

Perhaps I misstated and used high rise living as a generalization for living strictly within the CBD. People who live in any CBD have parking issues. It's no different here than anywhere else. The difference is that, in Manhattan, you don't have to have a car to get around. Here, it's tough to do without one and so parking is a bigger issue. I don't see that changing, and that's one of the reasons why I said we may need to focus more on residential immediately adjacent to the CBD, which can still be an urban experience and the population of which can still make the CBD a busier, livelier place in which to spend time. I think it's important to keep and utilize buildings, but I'm not so focused on housing, per se. We have all the Triangle land, as well as land north of it. We have all of the Core to Shore land, Midtown and SoSA land that can be developed for residential, allowing better access to parking, but still having an urban feel. Alternatively, people who really want to live in the CBD or Bricktown may have to accustom themselves to parking a bit farther away than we're accustomed to parking. My daughters in Chicago usually can find a parking space within a four block radius of their apartment and they count themselves lucky if they find one closer in than two blocks. If you want to live in Bricktown, there's a lot of parking between 2nd and Main, and any housing created in Bricktown could offer monthly or annual parking passes to that lot.

Well I think we're fixing to have to combine our efforts as a city to save the First National once and for all. This parking thing is going to become an issue again. Check out the Mercantile Building in Downtown Dallas' business core, which was a great project that put a lot of new life in DTD. Being mostly residential, they had to find a parking solution too, and I don't think it has any attached parking.

There are other examples of making it work in the middle of the CBD as well. Kansas City is a great example of this. I never intended to say that you can't have an urban environment in the fringe areas, I would argue that those areas are ALREADY becoming an urban environment. I would argue that they can be a better urban environment than the skyscraper core...just because something is 500 feet tall doesn't make it urban in my book.

What I'm saying is just.."OK, now what CAN we do with the CBD core?" I'm not even saying I know the way, because I don't. I think betts' idea that it doesn't need residential, and can pick off business from other areas building up residential, is an interesting point as well, and could be right. I think that perspective still needs to overcome the fact that Bricktown and MidTown are developing as the hubs for what betts presumes could go downtown and that will need to be overcome.. right now if downtown is the CBD, then Bricktown is the CED (Central Entertainment District) to invent a new term.

[Rover]

Spartan, the difficulty in the core is that there aren't enough services (grocery, other general retail, etc.) to make a complete lifestyle. I think the scale of the absolute core is so small that we first need to fill it up with high density business activity and fully develop more urban lifestyle areas like is being attempted in deep deuce and mid-town. The development that was proposed by Funk a couple of years ago would have been great. Living deep in the core does not eliminate the need for a car in OKC like in other larger cities because you can't do everything in the core or even get there by public transit. Once the light rail is in and core residents can easily travel out to areas of shopping, medical, etc., I think the demand for residences in the core goes way up and from people who will pay to make it viable. I think this is realistically 10 years out. In the meantime, if we concentrate on finishing Midtown and DD with mid-rise residences and make them affordable to the target audiences then we will build the momentum. Out there you can park a car and use it. Commuting a few blocks to work once out and once back is a lot easier to do than commuting OUT to get to a drug store, laundramat, clinic, coffee shop, etc. every time you need or want to.

I have commented that I am trying to move 2 companies to OKC. We likely won't consider moving to the core until the current 180, Devon, light rail, etc. is complete because of the commotion downtown and the current lack of class A contiguous space. However, in a couple of years it becomes a perfect spot for world headquarters we are planning. I just hope at that time I am young enough and someone has developed the kind of downtown residences that is fitting my age and style choices. And, I want life simpler, not harder.

[Spartan]

I think pretty much the whole downtown area is a blank slate right now. At least the CBD has cleaners and more clothing retail than Bricktown or elsewhere. Now I would agree that the CBD is pretty dead and obviously the side districts are much more vibrant. I think for a coffee house, the north side districts are the only ones with true coffeehouses. There's not a drug store in any of the downtown districts, or a grocery store.

So I guess what I'm saying it that again, you can apply that to the entire downtown area. Aside from there being a central business district and a central entertainment district that clearly do not have mixed-uses, the other areas that are emerging for mixed-uses I think are all on a completely even playing field.

[OKCMallen]

I think pretty much the whole downtown area is a blank slate right now. At least the CBD has cleaners and more clothing retail than Bricktown or elsewhere. Now I would agree that the CBD is pretty dead and obviously the side districts are much more vibrant. I think for a coffee house, the north side districts are the only ones with true coffeehouses. There's not a drug store in any of the downtown districts, or a grocery store.

So I guess what I'm saying it that again, you can apply that to the entire downtown area. Aside from there being a central business district and a central entertainment district that clearly do not have mixed-uses, the other areas that are emerging for mixed-uses I think are all on a completely even playing field.

There is a pharmacy that has some general drug store items on the ground floor in the First National tower.