SandRidge Center & Commons

[Rover]

When there is a CVS, a Barnes and Noble, and a small grocery in the core you'll attract people more eager to live there. People want normal things in their neighborhood, not just restaurants and bars. Lifestyle is not just partying and shopping. It's about conveniently doing everyday things everyday. In many cities where condos are existing in central business districts it is heavily second homes for highly paid executives who want to leave the office and walk a few blocks to their condo and then they leave for the weekend. Those are now empty, but the affordable lifestyle areas surrounding them are still pretty strong.

[Spartan]

When there is a CVS, a Barnes and Noble, and a small grocery in the core you'll attract people more eager to live there. People want normal things in their neighborhood, not just restaurants and bars. Lifestyle is not just partying and shopping. It's about conveniently doing everyday things everyday. In many cities where condos are existing in central business districts it is heavily second homes for highly paid executives who want to leave the office and walk a few blocks to their condo and then they leave for the weekend. Those are now empty, but the affordable lifestyle areas surrounding them are still pretty strong.

This is puzzling to me, but I recognize that you're privy to a completely different viewpoint on this, and that may be what urban living means to you--but I would point to the number of cities including OKC to a much lesser degree where urban living has taken root despite the lack of amenities. Kansas City, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston, Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis..basically all the major cities around us have a larger degree of residential downtown, and it is viable. People move there not because they are attracted by partying, but for the sake of living there itself. Sometimes where you live is not about what's convenient but sometimes people are willing to assume some inconvenience to have the lifestyle they want. People are attracted to urban living for the sake and style of urban living itself and nothing else. Yeah, in NYC it is convenient..but in OKC it is anything but, and that's okay for the small group that are willing to put up with that.

I agree wholeheartedly that once we get a CVS, a bookstore, and a grocery store that it will make downtown residential far more attractive for a larger number of people, that's not debatable. I just don't think it completely cancels out the opportunity, though--you have to look at it as a microcosm at a time where urban living is becoming so popular, and is becoming one of the main things that cities are being judged on.

I just think we need to sit down again and have a discussion about the values of mixed-uses and downtown residential. Apparently a lot of people tuned it out when we first grappled with the concept and when I thought everybody accepted it, but apparently I was wrong. We all need to just have a downtown powwow where we talk about the need for mixed-use and downtown residential, how we do it, and how it really is possible.

[Rover]

Just curious, what would be considered the area in which residences need to be available to be considered "downtown" and part of the urban community? If we follow national consensus on what would constitute a sustainable urban core of 2% of the area's population, I assume we would have to have demand for 26,000 people living in that area. Would that include deep deuce and midtown? If not, then I think it is improbable we will have that many people wanting to live downtown without other amenities of groceries, shopping, etc. and without more jobs there.

By the way, you mentioned cities like Tulsa. I lived in downtown Tulsa at Center Plaza some time back. It was across from a full size Safeway which was there before the high rises I lived in was. It was one of the things the owner touted when showing me the properties. It had secure parking, shuttle services to the business buildings, close to athletic facilities, a social club, etc. It made it possible to live full time downtown. It was very nice but reasonable. I loved living there. When somebody invests to do something similar in downtown OKC, with something that has real amenities and not just high costs and the only real "amenities" being granite counter tops then people will want to live there. Too many of the new developments down there now are high priced and not suitable for the people who can afford them and not close to what they really need to live there everyday. Give me ONE good mid-high rise with real flats and reasonable prices and amenities that are really proper for the target audience and I think it will be popular. Not lofts with industrial looking ceilings. Not 3 or 4 level townhouses 4 ft wide and 50 ft tall. Not $500,000 condos with no views. If people will build LIVEABLE projects they will do okay. If they build for specific types of buyers they will do okay. Most of it is just common sense. You can't fake the urban experience. It needs to develop.

[BDP]

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.

I wouldn't have believed them coming from Sandridge, but we're talking about Ford Price here who has probably as much interest amd knowledge in the value of Oklahoma City commercial real estate as anyone I have ever met. If he was sandbagging downtown and Oklahoma real estate to help Sandridge, he did it at a great personal cost.

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.

Oh, come on. Let's stop this "elitist" type accusation BS. That's ridiculous. It's not about saying that urban lifestyles are the best or in some way better than any other lifestyle and no one has even said that. What it is about is diversifying the city's lifestyle portfolio so that it can be more competitive. Just about every single major market in the country can offer some option of urban living. We can not. While YOU may not prefer urban living, many do. That doesn't make them better or snobby or elitist, it's just a way a living that many many people really enjoy. Why would it not be in the city's best interest to take a few block that account for a speck on the Oklahoma City map and try and preserve it and develop it with urban living in mind? That's not elitist. That's simply a common sense approach to elevating the city's attractiveness by making it more appealing to a greater number of people in a way that has zero effect on any of the other living options available to people who currently live or are looking at living in Oklahoma City. It is stupid, narrow, and self defeating to think that the city is better off without offering a way of life that millions of people in the country prefer. The only elitist attitude is the one that says we shouldn't make any effort to offer varying living options because the ones we have are good enough for us.

Downtown may still develop, but this has been a clear indicator that it can not support reinvestment in its current assets. That is a statement on the value and viability of downtown's real estate going forward. Maybe I am missing something, and I hope I am, but I am not sure what kind of investors you are thinking about that wouldn't consider these events as a down market indicator for all of downtown. If current downtown real estate is worth more as empty space because the assets currently occupying that space are not viable for a $9 million reinvestment, how much sense does it make to invest much more than that on new development or in renovating other properties? I'm not going to do it. Would you?

[betts]

Downtown may still develop, but this has been a clear indicator that it can not support reinvestment in its current assets. That is a statement on the value and viability of downtown's real estate going forward. Maybe I am missing something, and I hope I am, but I am not sure what kind of investors you are thinking about that wouldn't consider these events as a down market indicator for all of downtown. If current downtown real estate is worth more as empty space because the assets currently occupying that space are not viable for a $9 million reinvestment, how much sense does it make to invest much more than that on new development or in renovating other properties? I'm not going to do it. Would you?

There's potentially a fallacy in your statement, however. If it is true that there were people interested in multiple properties that Sandridge owns, they clearly thought they were viable for investment. If I had $9 million, I believe I'd consider them worth investing in. The Legacy is new development, and I believe it's been successful, and there are certainly rumors of other new development being considered, even in these less than certain economic times. Again, how much credibility does anyone have who is making blanket statements that cover multiple generations? I don't know why Price said that, but his family is certainly cosy with people involved. I'm having a lot of trouble buying his projections, which makes me think they were either calculated or he's got a working crystal ball.

[boomergal]

Of course, the decision was made well before the meeting, it always has been and always will be the case everywhere, that is definitely not something unique to OKC. Those who have the money can buy influence, with influence you can get what you want. That is what happens on small town Main Street and all the way to Washington DC, just the way that it has always been...nothing is going to change. What happened today was what I expected from the start.

This is NOT the way it happens everywhere, and having that attitude is fatal for the city. Yes, people with money and with friends in high places get away with things, but in the many other cities where I've lived, that kind of thing is not tolerated by the public and if they are exposed, people get in massive trouble. Not saying it doesn't happened, but it's not accepted as the norm. I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the outcome of the appeal, but just sitting back and acknowledging that people or entities got away with something, and that the city didn't hold them to the same standard as the general public, is never going to fix the system. Our leaders need to know that they will be leaders no more if they act as if they and their buddies are above the law.

[BDP]

There's potentially a fallacy in your statement, however.

It's not my statement. It's Ford Price's, the BofA's, and the current property owners. If there was collusion to fallaciously sandbag downtown's real estate status for the benefit of Sandridge's development plans, then that in and of itself is a reason to stay out of the market. Then, not only would you have a weak commercial real estate market, but a corrupt one as well. No thank you. I think if I had to deal with corruption, I'd at least do it where my development would actually add value to the property.

[Rover]

Until someone has evidence of real corruption the accusations on here sound more like crying because somebody didn't like the outcome. If you actually knew some of the people whom you all are accusing you would know their character. It is just easier to blame the boogie man when your ideas don't dominate. Cry, blame, throw a fit, threaten to leave, blame everyone else. Ridiculous. Can't we have real discussions without the hysterics and unproved allegations?

[betts]

I'm not hysterical at all, or crying about the outcome. I think it's a shame, but at this point it's water over the dam and like Spartan said or implied, it's time to move on. I'm just saying that no one, be he or she the supreme real estate guru or anyone else, knows what will happen over the next two generations. Anyone who thinks they do either has an ego or intelligence problem and thus, their statement is suspect to begin with. I have no idea whether Price's statement is his own opinion or was designed to tip the scales in Sandridge's favor. I just know there's no way he can know what he is stating he knows, anymore than can any of us. Which is good. Because if he's right, we all might as well just give up any hopes and dreams we have for the downtown and surrounds and retire to Florida.

[bluedogok]

Being in architecture and working on development projects for the past 20-25 years I have seen it happen first hand and been on both the "winning" and "losing" sides of the shenanigans, it's just a fact of life everywhere. OKC is definitely not as bad as some places or as bad as it used to be but if the power brokers want something pushed through, they usually get their way. Those not as well connected (or don't hire those well connected) usually struggle to get something different or controversial through the system and typically have to jump through a few more hoops. Most of the time the politicking/lobbying has been done well before any public hearings occur, I have seen that happen everywhere....that kind of stuff is nothing new. It is why I never doubted that Sandridge would get their way and yes, it is time just to move on.

[kevinpate]

I'm not hysterical at all, or crying about the outcome. I think it's a shame, but at this point it's water over the dam and like Spartan said or implied, it's time to move on. I'm just saying that no one, be he or she the supreme real estate guru or anyone else, knows what will happen over the next two generations. Anyone who thinks they do either has an ego or intelligence problem and thus, their statement is suspect to begin with. I have no idea whether Price's statement is his own opinion or was designed to tip the scales in Sandridge's favor. I just know there's no way he can know what he is stating he knows, anymore than can any of us. Which is good. Because if he's right, we all might as well just give up any hopes and dreams we have for the downtown and surrounds and retire to Florida.

Hmmm, if land is worth more as bare land with grass and trees on it, wonder what, if any, impact that has on the city's intent to buying up land to turn it into grass and trees a few blocks to the southwest?

(yeah, I played with matches as a child ... shows, huh?)

Or maybe
Not saying it would happen

[Rover]

Bluedog an Betts. I appreciate your comments. I just thought the talk of corruption was getting out of control. Playing hardball to win is one thing, but it isn't the same as being corrupt. The people involved on the SR side are used to winning. It should be no surprise they know how to play the game and they do it better than most. On the other side of this is the fact that most all of them are investing 100s of millions of $s in this city and it is part of the reason there will be 100s of millions more invested here.

[Doug Loudenback]

Rover, in the main, as I see it you've been inclined to be very forgiving, if not apologetic (in the academic sense), to and about SandRidge's tactics, and that's fine since it's your province you to state your own opinions. But you really shouldn't expect everyone to share your willingness to forgive or accept your point of view. As I've already said, my view is that the BOA proceedings, particularly from the prior hearing to the last, presents a dark chapter of Oklahoma City history ... and that's fine, too, since it's my province to state my own opinions. You evidently don't see that what I said above is persuasive about the dark side, and that's your assessment to make.

[Soonerus]

Losers always claim conspiracy...

[Kerry]

Losers always claim conspiracy...

There was no conspiracy. It was all out in the open.

Here is the deal. The people representing Sandridge lied in the meeting. There is no way around that. They painted a dim picture of the future of downtown OKC so they could tear down some building to put in a corporate plaza as part of a $100 million project. If they REALLY thought what they were saying was true then there is no way they would be sinking $100 million into the 'will never be developed in 2 generations' downtown OKC. They said what they had to say to get over this hurdle, but they didn't really mean it. I expected more from this group of people.

[Soonerus]

Losers always claim the other side lied...

[Kerry]

Losers always claim the other side lied...

Out of curiosity, why do you think I lost? I only want to see downtown OKC grow and become a true urban center. If the Sandridge Commons plan does that in the end, it makes me wrong, but I still win. I only lose if downtown OKC loses.

I think this is where the 'urbanist' and 'suburbanist' part ways. This isn't about Sandridge and their plan - it is about seeing downtown OKC succeed. If the Sandridge Commons turns out to be a total disaster are Rover, Soonerus, Popsy, and others still going to be running around saying they won? If so, they might be fighting the wrong battle.

[betts]

There was no conspiracy. It was all out in the open.

Here is the deal. The people representing Sandridge lied in the meeting. There is no way around that. They painted a dim picture of the future of downtown OKC so they could tear down some building to put in a corporate plaza as part of a $100 million project. If they REALLY thought what they were saying was true then there is no way they would be sinking $100 million into the 'will never be developed in 2 generations' downtown OKC.

Thank you for pointing out the second reason the statement was illogical. I hadn't thought of it, but you are right. If the future of downtown was as grim as depicted, Sandridge should be running the other direction. I'm not going to go so far as to say they lied deliberately. People can convince themselves of all sorts of things if they have a compelling reason to do so, and sometimes it's subconscious.

[krisb]

I think this is where the 'urbanist' and 'suburbanist' part ways. This isn't about Sandridge and their plan - it is about seeing downtown OKC succeed. If the Sandridge Commons turns out to be a total disaster are Rover, Soonerus, Popsy, and others still going to be running around saying they won? If so, they might be fighting the wrong battle.

Well said. I echo these sentiments.

[Doug Loudenback]

About the claimed lack of viability of downtown housing, why, then, is SandRidge planning on a mixed development for the Braniff?

[Popsy]

Out of curiosity, why do you think I lost? I only want to see downtown OKC grow and become a true urban center. If the Sandridge Commons plan does that in the end, it makes me wrong, but I still win. I only lose if downtown OKC loses.

I think this is where the 'urbanist' and 'suburbanist' part ways. This isn't about Sandridge and their plan - it is about seeing downtown OKC succeed. If the Sandridge Commons turns out to be a total disaster are Rover, Soonerus, Popsy, and others still going to be running around saying they won? If so, they might be fighting the wrong battle.

I do not believe I have once mentioned a word about winning anything. Also I did not view the debate as being between urbanist and suburbanist. It was more of an urbanist/preservationist versus realist debate. The reality of the question was based on what each side could provide the city and Sandridge was viewed as the greater provider of good, thus the business community rallied to their side. This type of situation occurs everywhere. To claim people lied, conspired or whatever is just a waste of time and comes off as sour grapes. There was never a doubt in my mind that Sandridge would prevail.

Doug, if the Braniff was not on the historic register Sandridge would probably have opted to take it down also. Not being able to take it down they are forced to do something with it, so why not throw the urbanist a bone and give them one of the things they clamor for, mixed use.

[Kerry]

I do not believe I have once mentioned a word about winning anything. Also I did not view the debate as being between urbanist and suburbanist. It was more of an urbanist/preservationist versus realist debate. The reality of the question was based on what each side could provide the city and Sandridge was viewed as the greater provider of good, thus the business community rallied to their side. This type of situation occurs everywhere. To claim people lied, conspired or whatever is just a waste of time and comes off as sour grapes. There was never a doubt in my mind that Sandridge would prevail.

Doug, if the Braniff was not on the historic register Sandridge would probably have opted to take it down also. Not being able to take it down they are forced to do something with it, so why not throw the urbanist a bone and give them one of the things they clamor for, mixed use.

See, you start out by claiming you didn't say anything about winning and end the paragraph by saying there was never any doubt in your "mind Sandridge would prevail". We won't know if Sandridge prevails for many years because presumably, their intention is to make downtown OKC better. We will have to wait and see if that happens.

I have to deal with this kind of stuff all the time in my line of work. I can agree with my customer on the goal but we differ on the plan of action on how to get there. Maybe the problem is we don't all agree on the goal. I thought there was a general consensus that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core but maybe I was wrong about that.

Not sure where I got that crazy idea from...

http://www.downtownokc.com/

Downtown OKC Incorporated (DOKC), was created in 2000 as a not-for-profit organization formed to develop, manage and market Downtown Oklahoma City. DOKC serves as an advocate, coordinator, facilitator and communicator of downtown revitalization. As the community development organization with an exclusive downtown focus, DOKC works closely with partners in both the public and private sector to ensure that Downtown continues Going UP!

Take a look at the Staff and Directors and see if any of the names ring a bell. Many of them came out in support of tearing buildings DOWN.

[Popsy]

See, you start out by claiming you didn't say anything about winning and end the paragraph by saying there was never any doubt in your "mind Sandridge would prevail". We won't know if Sandridge prevails for many years because presumably, their intention is to make downtown OKC better. We will have to wait and see if that happens.

I have to deal with this kind of stuff all the time in my line of work. I can agree with my customer on the goal but we differ on the plan of action on how to get there. Maybe the problem is we don't all agree on the goal. I thought there was a general consensus that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core but maybe I was wrong about that.

Not sure where I got that crazy idea from...

http://www.downtownokc.com/

Kerry, I think there is a difference between winning and prevailing. Sandridge prevailed but that doesn't necessarily mean they won. They are the entity rolling the one hundred million dollar dice here, so if they achieve what they are looking for they win, if not they lose.

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core. The only place I have seen that consensus suggested is at OKCtalk and that was from the numerous urbanists that have dominated this forum for so long.

[Kerry]

I am wondering where the general consensus came from that downtown OKC was to become a high density urban core. The only place I have seen that consensus suggested is at OKCtalk and that was from the numerous urbanists that have dominated this forum for so long.

If that is the only place you have seen it then I can't help you. My guess is you have not be paying attention for very long.

[Rover]

I certainly in didn't win or lose anything. I had no skin in this game. I just have a perspective and opinion that might not be as rigid or intellectually legalistic regarding urban design, development and use because of my experiences and observations.

I also am not a "suburbanist". I just didn't think SR's plan was the death of OKC. I love the true urban life. My wife and I have an apartment in New York City part of the year. I spend most of my working time outside of OKC in urban centers. My home office is on Wacker in Chicago. Because I wasn't as opposed to SR and I empathized with their business options, I am labled as not concerned about downtown OKC.....far from it.

Do I like the destruction of significant buildings in downtown....absolutely not. Do I think all buildings are significant...absolutely not. Do I think all plazas are evil...absolutely not. OKC will continue to develop but it won't look like Chicago, New York, Toronto, Vancouver. It will be unique and probably more different in 25 years than you will ever imagine. But it can be great.

Maybe we all can now focus on recruiting the types of developers and investors to do the kinds of things we would all love to see here. If we spend as much effort on trying to facilitate investment to DO things the right way from scratch as we do trying to KEEP PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS we will be ok. Let's find the right buyers for existing lots, buildings, etc. and make it possible for them to make some money while helping us all. Let's go put together an actual list of people who would lease or buy into a building if built. Let's put together petitions showing investors that there are markets and that they CAN make money while meeting our density and lifestyle objectives. Let's be positive to produce and we can get what we want.