SandRidge Center & Commons

[Patrick]

How do you know this?
What would be the timetable for that?

Considering Sandridge is buying the Broadway/Kerr garage from the city, any parking garage on the lots north of TAP would likely come with or after the 2nd tower is built.

[Pete]

I wonder why the City is so willing to sell that garage to SandRidge... Seems like a critical piece of attracting new businesses downtown is having available parking and now this will be for SR's private use and taken off the general market.

SandRidge made the decision to tear down it's own parking and turn a lot of it into a plaza. I'm not so sure the City should just be selling public garages like this, especially since SR has plenty of undeveloped property that could be used for this purpose.


BTW, that Broadway/Kerr Garage has 931 spaces, so SandRidge will still need more parking.

[Steve]

Pete, I'm pretty sure the city is going to have to build a new public parking garage - a pretty big one at that.

[Just the facts]

Pete, I'm pretty sure the city is going to have to build a new public parking garage - a pretty big one at that.

Selling the garage meets the immediate needs of the downtown community and allows Sandridge to start construction on their new tower. The City can then use the money made from the sale to build a new garage that meets the needs of a future downtown.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug Dawg chooses to pass on this invitation. Time to move on.

[Steve]

Once again, Doug proves to be one of the smartest guys in the room.

[G.Walker]

Maybe so.....he likened it to Dowell Center, which I guess is something like 18-20 stories.

Expect something like this in width and height: 22 stories

[ZYX2]

I think that exactly would go nicely right there. It would even compliment the existing tower.

[Spartan]

I seriously doubt there will be another tower built that will be as high or higher than Devon. But are we looking at more mid- to high-rises? Yep. Been saying it for a while, and I'm not backing away from it.

That's kind of like the old "Stoops will finally win another NC" or "OSU will finally win a Bedlam" line. Based on the past attempts, I'll just believe it when I see it, regardless of the innuendo swirling around.

[Spartan]

Let's be pragmatic for a moment...before SandRidge announced its plan to demolish India Temple, was India Temple on anyone's agenda? Was there any kind of preservation movement? No, no one cared enough to do anything. The building had all the appeal of an outhouse and the actions and inaction of others allowed it go to the way of the wrecking ball.

But there's a lesson here that should apply to Stage Center. If people really care about saving it, then they need to act. Get organized, hold meetings, raise funds. Don't expect "them" or "they" to do anything and don't complain when Stage Center is torn down.

Your historical revisions are amusing because the anti-SR group did have successful preservationists and developers behind it. McDermid and Tanenbaum even tried developing it. So what's your point again?

[Architect2010]

Riiiight.

[earlywinegareth]

So there were attempts? I wasn't aware. And why did they not succeed? Enlighten me. Or point me to the right page in this thread b/c I do not recall reading about it.

[lasomeday]

Sandridge $$$$$

[earlywinegareth]

So I read here that a neutral expert was brought in, also preservationists, and everyone agreed preservation of the building was not viable.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...ee-properties/

So on what realistic and rational basis were the urbanists/preservationists arguing it should've been saved?

[Just the facts]

So there were attempts? I wasn't aware. And why did they not succeed? Enlighten me. Or point me to the right page in this thread b/c I do not recall reading about it.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=7236&page=1

Downtown condo deal off, group sues Kerr-McGee
by Ted Streuli
The Journal Record
8/11/2006

OKLAHOMA CITY – A $30 million deal that would have converted vacant downtown offices to condominiums and retail space fell apart Thursday, prompting a legal fight among partners.

The deal, announced in November, called for Corporate Redevelopment Group LLC to convert vacant buildings owned by Kerr-McGee at 324 N. Robinson Ave. and 135 Robert S. Kerr Ave. into 70 condominiums and street-level shops.

Corporate Redevelopment Group, known as CRG, is led by TAParchitecture, which is allied with Kerr-McGee in The Triangle, another downtown housing development. CRG filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Kerr-McGee of a contract breach that cost the plaintiff at least $8 million.

“We anticipated it closing today, but we reached an impasse,” said TAParchitecture principal Anthony McDermid. “I’m very disappointed for our development group and the prospect of the project for downtown.”

In exchange for the property, CRG agreed to build a parking garage near Kerr-McGee’s offices for the company’s use.

“After that was completed, Kerr-McGee would provide to CRG the properties,” said Kerr-McGee spokesman John Christiansen. “Awarding of the properties was contingent upon the garage. We stand ready to perform under the terms of that contract, but CRG sought to change the terms.”

When Kerr-McGee’s sale to Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum was announced in June, Christiansen said the real estate deals would move forward as planned. But CRG argued in its lawsuit that Kerr-McGee made plans to squelch the deal as soon as the Anadarko deal was struck.

“A representative of Kerr-McGee even informed CRG, after the proposed merger was announced, that Kerr-McGee Corp.’s new parent company was not interested in proceeding with the projects,” the plaintiff said in the petition.

McDermid said Anadarko officials last week refused a request to meet with CRG.

Anadarko completed its acquisition of Kerr-McGee on Thursday, but Christiansen said the two scheduled closings and their outcomes were unrelated.

McDermid said June 25 that the project to rehabilitate the former office buildings was in the design stages. The site at 135 Robert S. Kerr Ave. is an 11-story building built in 1921 with 155,911 square feet; 324 N. Robinson Ave. is a 10-story building with 75,584 square feet and was built in 1923. A third building, at 111 Robert S. Kerr Ave., was part of the deal, but its future had not yet been planned. That structure, a 38,736-square-foot, seven-story building, was built in 1902.

“I can’t quantify it, but it will certainly have a slowing effect on the delivery of any for-sale housing in the central business district,” McDermid said. “But we believe so strongly in the merit of the project that we are still open to any prospects to complete it.”

[earlywinegareth]

I'm getting out the popcorn and getting comfortable in my seat. Hmmm.... where will Doug begin to blast away? With facts surrounding previous efforts to develop the buildings? With facts about Kerr-McGee's history of rebuffing such efforts prior to doing a deal with the Triangle boys? Or will Doug share photos of what could be seen underneath the concrete facade at the India Temple building? At what point will the opponent realize Doug is an attorney, and is no one's fool? Yep, this will be fun.

Steve, these are your words:

Architect Anthony McDermid was once part of a team chosen by Kerr-McGee to redevelop these old buildings into housing. The team did a lot of work – they obtained TIF money to tear down the old YMCA building and replace it with a modern garage for the Kerr-McGee workers and the future residents of the Braniff Tower and neighboring KerMac Building. The deal fell apart just as they were about to seek building permits. From the start, McDermid shied away from stating any plans for the India Temple Building.

Three years later, McDermid admits they likely never would have pursued housing for the 107-year-old building.
Here’s what didn’t make today’s paper:

The building at 111 Robert S. Kerr, would, at first glance, seem to be most historic property on the block. The building, built in 1902, briefly housed the state legislature and its ornate façade, if it still existed, would be a unique reminder of an era that was removed entirely during the Urban Renewal era.

But McDermid, who surveyed the buildings extensively, said he came to the same conclusion reached by SandRidge Energy – the former India Temple building was too far damaged by Kerr-McGee to be restored.
“We even had someone from the State Historical Preservation Office look at it,” McDermid said. “He came, we walked the entire building and evaluated what was going on with it. It had been so altered – a new floor had been added into the two-story lobby, it had been torn up inside, and while we never pulled the outside panels, we had eyewitness reports the exterior features had been sawn off.”


McDermid has no involvement with SandRidge Energy, the campus makeover, or any of the old buildings. So one might conclude he’s a good neutral judge of whether the India Temple Building could be brought back to life.

Consider this account by yet another team of respected developers who looked at the building in the early 1990s:

Mark Ruffin, Nicholas Preftakes and Jim Parrack looked at the odds of renovating the buildings and walked away.

“The bones weren’t really that conducive,” Ruffin said. “They had low clearance heights, they had significant asbestos issues. From a functional standpoint, they just weren’t that conducive.”

--------------------------------

So, Kerr-McGee did make a serious attempt and did it's due diligence by calling in various experts to provide a recommendation. Their decision-making process was sound. I rest my case.

[Just the facts]

A couple of things EWG

1) The orignal facade was there and you could see it during demo.
2) As for McDermid, he resigned from the Downtown Design Review Committee that approved the demolition with his now infamous "blood on our hands' comment.

[Spartan]

Why are we still having this debate?

[lasomeday]

Early!

Read this entire thread and you will see what we are talking about. You obviously are coming up with your own conclusions. We are tired of talking about it.

[Just the facts]

Why are we still having this debate?

We aren't debating whether to save the building or not - they are gone. We are just trying to set the historical record correctly. Comments and assumptions were made by people in this thread that are simply not true. You can't just let stuff like that go by without correcting it.

[Steve]

Steve, these are your words:

Architect Anthony McDermid was once part of a team chosen by Kerr-McGee to redevelop these old buildings into housing. The team did a lot of work – they obtained TIF money to tear down the old YMCA building and replace it with a modern garage for the Kerr-McGee workers and the future residents of the Braniff Tower and neighboring KerMac Building. The deal fell apart just as they were about to seek building permits. From the start, McDermid shied away from stating any plans for the India Temple Building.

Three years later, McDermid admits they likely never would have pursued housing for the 107-year-old building.
Here’s what didn’t make today’s paper:

The building at 111 Robert S. Kerr, would, at first glance, seem to be most historic property on the block. The building, built in 1902, briefly housed the state legislature and its ornate façade, if it still existed, would be a unique reminder of an era that was removed entirely during the Urban Renewal era.

But McDermid, who surveyed the buildings extensively, said he came to the same conclusion reached by SandRidge Energy – the former India Temple building was too far damaged by Kerr-McGee to be restored.
“We even had someone from the State Historical Preservation Office look at it,” McDermid said. “He came, we walked the entire building and evaluated what was going on with it. It had been so altered – a new floor had been added into the two-story lobby, it had been torn up inside, and while we never pulled the outside panels, we had eyewitness reports the exterior features had been sawn off.”


McDermid has no involvement with SandRidge Energy, the campus makeover, or any of the old buildings. So one might conclude he’s a good neutral judge of whether the India Temple Building could be brought back to life.

Consider this account by yet another team of respected developers who looked at the building in the early 1990s:

Mark Ruffin, Nicholas Preftakes and Jim Parrack looked at the odds of renovating the buildings and walked away.

“The bones weren’t really that conducive,” Ruffin said. “They had low clearance heights, they had significant asbestos issues. From a functional standpoint, they just weren’t that conducive.”

--------------------------------

So, Kerr-McGee did make a serious attempt and did it's due diligence by calling in various experts to provide a recommendation. Their decision-making process was sound. I rest my case.

Um, I love it when things are quoted out of context. McDermid's comments applied only to the India Temple building, not to the Braniff and Kermac buildings. They were on the verge of doing housing in those buildings. As for India Temple, it is correct - McDermid was gun shy about tackling that one. Early, no offense, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally engaging in historical revisionism.

[Steve]

No skin off my back...

[kevinpate]

No skin off my back...

Oh good. Does that mean the floggings haven't begun by the new owners yet?

[Pete]

From today... Can't be very close to building a new tower if they are improving the old garage/amenities building:

[G.Walker]

Because that's not where the new tower is going. It's going where the Sante Fe garage is now, that's why they are purchasing it from Central Oklahoma Parking Authority.