Is Chesapeake Cannibalizing the Western Corridor?

[shane453]

The campus format is probably most logical for their fast-growing business, which needs space NOW and can't wait 1+ years for a tower to be completed. It would have been great to have Devon and Chesapeake towers rising concurrently in a booming inner city, though. Maybe Chesapeake will realize that it's not practical to be so spread out in 4-story buildings, and build a few taller towers on their campus.

[zuluwarrior0760]

First of all, Laredo's was a dump!
and Wendy's was...."Wendy's"

Pearl's has a bit of character, but certainly
not a landmark, but make no mistake....
what Chesapeake owns, Chesapeake Decides....

The landscape on Western is going to change....there's
no doubt in my mind, and as far as them never wanting
to bulldoze the Plaza....if they keep growing at the pace
they are, all I can say is Nichols Hills better get used
to the Color Red.....

[Martin]

i have to say that i went in to this thread expecting another absurd tirade about how big corporations ruin everything. however, i must say that some good points are made and it would be a shame to lose some of the uniqueness to the 63rd & western area.

however, the structures that have been razed so far were not, in my opinion, unique or special. i've long felt that laredo's had neither good curb appeal nor good food. no loss there in my opinion. i don't think that anybody could make the argument that the missing wendy's location bettered the local atmosphere of the corridor other than providing a cheap and fast lunch alternative. however, fast food options are in more than abundance, so no loss there either. the former shopping center to the west of laredo's was not consistent with the purported charm of the area. there were several empty units and while some of the occupied ones were local, there was nothing special about them. honestly, i can't name a store in that former shopping center... i think that there was a chinese food restaurant that served hotdog fried frice... and who doesn't like hotdog fried rice?

to me, pearl's is a different case. the structure and atmosphere are unique and the dining not bad. it will be sad to see it go. while a relocated pearl's will likely provide much better parking and more dining space, the charm and ambiance of the current location will likely be lost. i don't think their food is stellar, but the atmosphere more than makes up for it.

as far as possible expansion north of western, the same is true with irma's as it is with pearl's. the food is good, but the location is unique and quaint and could never be recreated with new construction. to the north of that is a small strip shop with a couple of units. to the immediate west is another small strip shop. any big loss there? however, as you go north from this point you start getting into businesses that seem to be consistent with the desired atmosphere of the area.

so far, while some of the uniqueness of the area is gone, i don't see any major loss. personally, i would prefer to see chesapeake expand their campus east rather than crossing north of western. only at that point would my concern be raised. that's just my opinion.

-M

[BDP]

The campus format is probably most logical for their fast-growing business, which needs space NOW and can't wait 1+ years for a tower to be completed.

Campuses do make sense. It's an easy way to pace expansion of office space with company growth. Chesapeake has, no doubt, built a very nice campus.

so far, while some of the uniqueness of the area is gone, I don't see any major loss. personally, I would prefer to see Chesapeake expand their campus east rather than crossing north of western. only at that point would my concern be raised. that's just my opinion.

I generally agree with you there. I think I have pressed my point further just to get people to consider many aspects of development in their community, which I don't really see much of in Oklahoma City in general. Most seem to share the sentiment of Zulu that if you can pay for it, you can do whatever you want, regardless of how it affects the community or the character of the city.

I don't think much has been lost at this point either and I think Pearl's is the first place to go that many will miss. Maybe that's why they wouldn't confirm anything at this point, so that if it is Chesapeake, they can mitigate the bad pub and spread it out. I do wonder if Pearl's has considered the Iguana Lounge building? Maybe they are worried that if they move there they will only have to move again when Chesapeake gets up there...

In any event, I just wanted everyone to really ask why OKC would have to give up any viable district to accommodate a corporate campus of any quality, given the vast amount of undeveloped property and vacant office space we already have.

First of all, Laredo's was a dump!
and Wendy's was...."Wendy's"

Pearl's has a bit of character, but certainly
not a landmark,

Very few buildings or businesses on Western are of landmark status, but the district as a whole serves OKC in a much different way than most of its endless landscape of strip malls does. You may not care about it, but it is an alternative that helps diversify the city, giving it a broader appeal.

but make no mistake....
what Chesapeake owns, Chesapeake Decides....

Thanks for that insight. Actually, it's good someone said it, because it does represent what I think is the majority sentiment in OKC: development always supersedes community. However, there are places where companies build in consideration of community and also where communities care about the developments going on in their area. I actually think Chesapeake is one of these companies, but that can always change and may be changing right now.

The landscape on Western is going to change....there's
no doubt in my mind, and as far as them never wanting
to bulldoze the Plaza....if they keep growing at the pace
they are, all I can say is Nichols Hills better get used
to the Color Red.....

And so should the city. I don't live in Nichols Hills and I rarely make it up to 63rd, but I don't want to lose any viable districts in Oklahoma City. Truth is we can have both, easily, we're not talking about a land deprived city here...

[BDP]

BTW, I think BG brought up a great looking compromise, or even better than a compromise. If Chesepeake moves in on the strip malls on the east side of 63rd and Western, it could be cool to see them preserve the commerce at the intersection by building something with first floor retail above which they could put offices.

In any event, it does show that there are options that could accomodate both Chesepeake and the district.

[SuctionPrints]

If you're going to "raise concerns" about Chesapeake building without consideration to the community, why are you not asking the same thing of the businesses who are selling to them? Why are they sacrificing what they give to that area? Probably because being unique and ecclectic generally doesn't pay the bills.

And cannibalization? That's extending your poetic license some.

[Patrick]

If you're going to "raise concerns" about Chesapeake building without consideration to the community, why are you not asking the same thing of the businesses who are selling to them? Why are they sacrificing what they give to that area? Probably because being unique and ecclectic generally doesn't pay the bills.

And cannibalization? That's extending your poetic license some.

They are sacrificing because they're getting like 4 or 5 times what their property is worth. At the same time though, we're losing a vauable asset to our city.

If you don't like the word cannibalization, jsut say they're basically destroying the entire Western Avenue District.

[SuctionPrints]

You're implying that the "asset" is more valuable than the property, if it is truly that valuable, why are they selling? Perhaps it's only a valuable asset to you.

Cannibalization, destroying...you just sound grumpy because the Chesapeake is willing to buy and they're willing to sell. Where are you and your own civic group with a counter-offer to buy these properties?

[Midtowner]

I tend to think that "cannibalization" or buying up or whatever is absolutely 100% just fine -- especially in the way Chesapeake is going about it. As far as being corporate citizens, there is none better. Chesapeake has been a true asset to many our charter schools and not-for-profit programs in OKC. The ownership of Chesapeake has also been extremely active in trying to bring us a pro-sports franchise. In fact, just about everything this company has done lately has been to make OKC a better place.

If Chesapeake had been.. oh say Kerr-McGee 20 years ago, instead of paying well above market prices for this land, they would have gone the cheaper route -- get a few shills elected to the relevant offices, have the land condemned via eminent domain, have the city/county/state actually pay for their new construction, then turn around and pay $1.00 per month for 10 years or so and then $5,000 to take the building over (this was actually the common practice in the early 80's/mid 70's).

I for one am glad to have Chesapeake actually attracting high quality white collar workers to this city. Chesapeake = progress. If someone can't handle progress, perhaps OKC isn't the place for them to live

[Patrick]

I have no problem with the way Chesapeake is doing business with the folks they are buying out. I just think they could be better corporate citizens by preserving a historic part of our city, while at the same time, expanding behind the businesses on Western Ave.

My point is if these businesses that are selling out were good corporate citizens they wouldn't sell out. They'd put the history of our city before money.

If we go with SuctionPrints way of thinking, lets just give the keys of downtown to progress, demolish the Skirvin, Colcord, Civic Center, Union Station, and every other historic building you can think of.

By the way, Walgreens is an expanding corporation. Why the fight to save the Gold Dome? Wouldn't a lovely Walgreens sure look nice in its place?

How about the milk bottle building? I bet we could put a lovely new Braums Restaurant right there.

I mean, what's the real point in historical buildings anyways, when you can put lovely stucco box buildings in their place?

How about we demolish both First National and City Place and put a Wal-Mart Supercenter in their place. Hey, it's all in the name of progress.

Why the fight for brick on the new Hampton Inn in Bricktown? That's just holding up progress.

Why the fight to save the historic Walnut Avenue Bridge? Progress guys. Would've been cheaper to build an at grade crossing. Who cares if Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders walked that bridge.

[Patrick]

When Devon runs out of space downtown, and decides to buy both First National and City Place, and demolish them both to build a new HQ, remember, it's all in the name of progress.

[Midtowner]

Patrick:

I can't think of anything in that part of town that is worth saving. Where are the disasters for our history? What I have seen so far is Chesapeake destroying old (and not all that attractive) buildings and replacing them with its very attractive campus structures. They have beautiful grounds, etc. The only mildly objectionable happening so far in my mind has been Chesapeake's acquiring and demolishing the Blinn House.

Your arguments then follow to try to convince us of your truth via false analogy. To prove my point, I'll address them one at a time:

The Skirvin, Colcord, etc. are truly unique structures which are still commercially viable. Even so, if someone were to bring to me a decision as to whether utilize the corner of Park and Broadway for the Skirvin or for a 60-story class-A office tower, I'd gladly choose the later.

And come on.. seriously.. First Nat'l for a Wal-Mart? Maybe First Nat'l for a state-of-the-art mixed use high rise development. I'd take that in a heartbeat.

You then proceed well outside the scope from historical preservation (e.g., 1st Nat'l, etc.) to aesthetic preservation -- (e.g, Walnut, the Brick on the Hampton, etc.) two wildly different concerns.

I'll qualify what I'm saying in that I do believe that progress should take history into account. However, given the choice between preservation and progress, I'm going to go with the later every time. Sometimes they can coexist, other times, they can't.

[Patrick]

Western Avenue District is really the only upscale shopping and dining district in Oklahoma City. I just think losing that would have a huge impact on the diversity of our quality of life here. I don't disagree that the Chesapeake Campus is absolutely beautiful, but it serves the purpose of the folks that work there, not the quality of life of the citizens of OKC or Nichols Hills.

The rest has basically been stated already by BDP.

[SuctionPrints]

I have no problem with the way Chesapeake is doing business with the folks they are buying out. I just think they could be better corporate citizens by preserving a historic part of our city, while at the same time, expanding behind the businesses on Western Ave.

My point is if these businesses that are selling out were good corporate citizens they wouldn't sell out. They'd put the history of our city before money.

Who are you to define what's historic?

If we go with SuctionPrints way of thinking, lets just give the keys of downtown to progress, demolish the Skirvin, Colcord, Civic Center, Union Station, and every other historic building you can think of.

Excuse me, but my way of thinking is that if someone wants to buy the real estate and someone wants to sell the real estate, they should feel free to do so. You just don't like the transaction taking place because it's not as sentimental to them as it is to you, so you have two options: 1) get the capital to make the transaction yourself, or 2) hush up and get over it.

It sounds like you have some issues that need to be cleared up. Not all things that are historic are good, and not all things that represent change are bad.

Why the fight to save the historic Walnut Avenue Bridge? Progress guys. Would've been cheaper to build an at grade crossing. Who cares if Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders walked that bridge.

They walked that bridge for equality and for progress, and here you are ruminating on why you should be able to tell buyers and sellers what they can and can't sell and how. So much for equality and progress.

[Patrick]

I suppose my point shouldn't have referenced the history of the area, but more the uniqueness of the area.

[Patrick]

Excuse me, but my way of thinking is that if someone wants to buy the real estate and someone wants to sell the real estate, they should feel free to do so.

Let's just eliminate every unique feature from our city and make it a city of progress, complete with big box Wal-Marts and Wal-Greens on every corner and concrete walls lining every street. Seems like that's most important to you.

It sounds like you have some issues that need to be cleared up. Not all things that are historic are good, and not all things that represent change are bad.

History isn't really my issue here. It's more the unique elements of the area, that are falling by the way-side. If Chesapeake keeps it up, Western Avenue will look exactly the same from 50th St. all the way to Wilshire. Boy, that will be an attraction for all to see.

They walked that bridge for equality and for progress, and here you are ruminating on why you should be able to tell buyers and sellers what they can and can't sell and how. So much for equality and progress.

Progress isn't always a good thing. Take Belle Isle Station Shopping Center for instance. I'd much rather have Belle Isle Lake back. Now there's a strip mall there that looks like a million other strip malls across the nation.

The loss of Belle Isle Lake was another loss in the world of creativity offered to the citizens of Oklahoma City. Same thing can be said about Spring Lake and Wedgewood.

[Patrick]

Concerning Nichols Hills Plaza. I'm not so sure the city of Nichols Hills would approve permits for the destruction of the plaza to be replaced with Chesapeake office buildings. Such a move would hurt the city of Nichols Hills, not help them.

The city of Oklahoma City in contrast, is going to do whatever it takes to help Chesapeake expand, because the tax dollars they're losing are a drop in the bucket for them. The jobs we're gaining as a city is more important.

[Uptown]

I tend to agree with Patrick and BDP here. Losing the Western Avenue District would be a huge loss to our city. Our city is already lacking in creativity! Lining Western Avenue with seas of brick walls wouldn't be in the best interest of our city, IMHO.

I will say that some of the establishments along Western Avenue aren't the most appealing in the world, but they add to the creativity of the area.

Chesapeake is converting the area from a public-use area to a private-use area. How is that going to benefit me? Why should I be in favor of Chesapeake's conversion of the area?

[Midtowner]

There's plenty of vacant space in the Paseo.

[Uptown]

The Paseo is an art district. Not a fine dining and retail district.

[Midtowner]

Its use could expand. If it had a decent anchor restaurant, it could become a much more popular definition. I know quite a few people who have lived in OKC their entire lives and had no inkling that the Paseo existed.

A decent anchor restaurant could draw more people there, and there are certainly enough blighted structures and run down apartment buildings that should probably be condemned in the area to allow an expansion of the district.

[Uptown]

Just found this on Chesapeake's website:

"We believe Chesapeake's Oklahoma City campus provides the company's employees with the premier working environment in the oil and gas industry. In the high-risk world of oil and gas exploration, attracting top-performing technical and support personnel can mean the difference between a dry hole and an exploratory drilling success. Chesapeake's collegiate style campus and our status as the most active independent oil and gas producer helps encourage the best and brightest to become part of the Chesapeake team. We invite current or prospective shareholders or employees to visit our campus to witness first-hand why so many of the industry's most talented employees have chosen to bring their unique skills to Chesapeake. When you visit our campus, please make sure to visit our dining places "in house." By all means, avoid areas to the north and south of the campus. These areas are part of the Western Avenue District, an eyesore in our city. To encourage you to stay with Chesapeake, we do want to let you know that we've purchased the entire eyesore along Western Avenue. We plan on demolishing every square inch of the district, and replacing it with exactly the same thing you see on our corporate campus. A mile of lovely identical-appearing buildings, surrounding by the mile-long Chesapeake Brick Wall, a symbol of our corporation. Thank you for visiting Chesapeake.

[shane453]

I haven't driven by Chesapeake's campus yet, so I don't really know how well it interacts with the street- sidewalks, distance from them to the buildings, etc etc. It seems to me that it would be a great compromise to start offering ground-floor space in the new buildings to restaurants that are displaced. Get other developers to start putting in some new urban housing nearby and the new, young Chesapeake employees will eat it up. And we get a new urban district instead of a semi-urban one like Western Ave.

It doesn't sound all that bad to me to have a mile of 4-story buildings. (Again, not as good as one or two 50+ story towers downtown, but still nice.) Then again, if I had such a rapidly growing company, I would want to have a better plan for the future than just continuing to buy land and build smallish buildings. I really can't imagine them continuing without at least one larger tower on the campus.

[Uptown]

Why build a tower on the campus, when they have plenty of land to expand? Low slung buildings are much cheaper to build and maintain than towers.

As for putting restaurants at street level, that wouldn't work, as the Chesapeake campus is a gated community, enclosed by a wall.

Any why do we want urban at NW 63rd and Western. Urban belongs downtown. Maybe the developer down there in Bricktown (the one that built Bass Pro and Sonic) needs to switch places with Chesapeake. They seem to be confused about the part of town they're developing in.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Just found this on Chesapeake's website:

"We believe Chesapeake's Oklahoma City campus provides the company's employees with the premier working environment in the oil and gas industry. In the high-risk world of oil and gas exploration, attracting top-performing technical and support personnel can mean the difference between a dry hole and an exploratory drilling success. Chesapeake's collegiate style campus and our status as the most active independent oil and gas producer helps encourage the best and brightest to become part of the Chesapeake team. We invite current or prospective shareholders or employees to visit our campus to witness first-hand why so many of the industry's most talented employees have chosen to bring their unique skills to Chesapeake. When you visit our campus, please make sure to visit our dining places "in house." By all means, avoid areas to the north and south of the campus. These areas are part of the Western Avenue District, an eyesore in our city. To encourage you to stay with Chesapeake, we do want to let you know that we've purchased the entire eyesore along Western Avenue. We plan on demolishing every square inch of the district, and replacing it with exactly the same thing you see on our corporate campus. A mile of lovely identical-appearing buildings, surrounding by the mile-long Chesapeake Brick Wall, a symbol of our corporation. Thank you for visiting Chesapeake.

Thanks for the tongue in cheek post which so pointedly expresses your opinion. IMO however, it is totally inappropriate to misrepresent information in the process. Being blatantly untruthful in the process of trying to be funny is just in bad taste.