SandRidge Center & Commons

[BoulderSooner]

Because the answer to bad urbanism isn't nature, it is good urbanism. Building a forest in downtown OKC isn't a solution to revitalizing a rundown part of downtown. Creating a vibrant urban district is the answer. Sandridge will figure out, and since they are smart people, they will figure it out pretty fast. I bet less than 10 years. The only real question is how long do they plan to stay committed to a bad idea.

Anyhow, it isn't worth arguing about. I have time to wait.

the sandridge mission wasn't to find a "solution to revitalizing a rundown part of downtown" .. or to create an urban district

[Architect2010]

the sandridge mission wasn't to find a "solution to revitalizing a rundown part of downtown" .. or to create an urban district

Actually, it was. Their mission was to revitalize the urban, rundown, downtown properties they purchased in a manner that is conducive to a healthy, vibrant, and forward-thinking corporate environment (Obviously, there are different opinions on how that can be accomplished). Hell, their "district" even has a name: Sandridge Commons. Also, they didn't really have a choice with it being urban or not since those properties were located in such an environment already. As if their urban design wasn't already precluded in the package of acquisition... their uniqueness in comparison to the rest of our city should have been the focus, not the back-burner. That uniqueness just so happened to be their urbanity.

Okay done with that now. I know we're over it but lord, I don't know how you can say their mission wasn't to revitalize a rundown part of downtown or to create an urban district, when THEY PURCHASED RUNDOWN PROPERTY IN AN URBAN DISTRICT!

[okcRE]

is there a plan for the lighting on Sandridge main building? The recent additions of Continental and Enorgex? have helped brighten up downtown tremendously.
Sandridge is such a large building that is basically hiding in the dark. Basic outline lighting along with Sandridge logo at the top would do wonder to the building and downtown at night time.

[Spartan]

I really liked back when the building was illuminated.

[CaptDave]

I really liked back when the building was illuminated.

I agree - hopefully there is a plan to add lighting to the exterior and something at the top. I think overall their complex is going to be pretty decent once complete. I think the Braniff building will be my favorite by far though.

[Spartan]

I agree, it will look good in 5 years, but I am with Kerry, Pete, and the others pointing out that the hideous AT&T bldg is going to loom large over this.

[CaptDave]

Maybe AT&T will eventually remove the decommissioned equipment and it will better screen the rest. The "big box" is going to be a reality to be worked around though - I see those buildings in nearly every city.

[catch22]

As mentioned before, a great temporary solution to that AT&T building would be to put out an RFP to the local art community on a large painted mural. Even a fake facade with fake windows would probably be an improvement to at least make that wall a little more human.

[jn1780]

As mentioned before, a great temporary solution to that AT&T building would be to put out an RFP to the local art community on a large painted mural. Even a fake facade with fake windows would probably be an improvement to at least make that wall a little more human.

A mirrored glass facade would be the best solution. Of course, ATT isn't going to pay for that.

[Pete]

This is a newer rendering of Sandridge Commons, as you can see they've now added the green roof to the Amenities Building and have a more accurate depiction of the huge metal canopy.

But what's really interesting are changes to the building to the east of the tower; looks to be 11-12 floors.

We all know SR is still trying to decide how much space they will need and that will influence the building size, but this is a new image and it seems to communicate they don't want it to overshadow the Tower, which is the centerpiece of their development:

Here is the previous version:

[BoulderSooner]

that would be great ..

[wschnitt]

The new version does not make it look like it is pushed out all the way to Broadway.

[Just the facts]

I noticed the new tower is set back pretty far from Broadway. The old rendering had it pushed out to the sidewalk. I hope this footprint change isn't approved.

[Pete]

I believe there will still be retail along Broadway, as that has always been a part of their plan.

They plan to add retail to the expanded Broadway/Kerr garage as well.


If you look really close at the lower right-hand corner of the new rendering, it looks like the new building might extend to the east on the lower level.

[Just the facts]

I believe there will still be retail along Broadway, as that has always been a part of their plan.

They plan to add retail to the expanded Broadway/Kerr garage as well.


If you look really close at the lower right-hand corner of the new rendering, it looks like the new building might extend to the east on the lower level.

I was trying to figure out if that was what I was seeing. I hope you are correct. City code doesn't permit large set backs in the CBD.

[wschnitt]

Im confused. Without spending the next hour going back and reading, the updated version shows the new tower to be taller, correct?

[Just the facts]

Im confused. Without spending the next hour going back and reading, the updated version shows the new tower to be taller, correct?

Yes, the new version is taller and has a wedding cake design. The bulk of the building was also moved closer to the main tower.

[CuatrodeMayo]

From an architectural perspective, I am really excited about the Amenities Building. It is going to be quite dramatic.

[Pete]

I was trying to figure out if that was what I was seeing. I hope you are correct. City code doesn't permit large set backs in the CBD.

Yet this rendering does show the new building to have a deep set-back from Robert S Kerr.

[catch22]

Yet this rendering does show the new building to have a deep set-back from Robert S Kerr.

They appear to be building a streetwall in line with their tower along RSK. The south side of the Braniff building has a similar setback from RSK as the main tower, and the new building as depicted would have the same setback from RSK as the tower. The setback is 100 feet (!!).

[Pete]

Yes, the Tower originally had that huge, cold plaza that has since been demolished.

I know SR really wants good sight lines to the Tower, as this was one of the reasons given for demolishing the buildings near Robinson.


Of course, the old India Temple building was right on both RSK and Broadway.

[catch22]

[Just the facts]

I think the setback is only limited to the front of the building. I don't think the intent was to make evey new building cover an entire city block.

[catch22]

I think the setback is only limited to the front of the building. I don't think the intent was to make evey new building cover an entire city block.

Of course. But you are still leaving a huge setback fronting a major through street.

[Just the facts]

Of course. But you are still leaving a huge setback fronting a major through street.

I agree, but what can you do? I have never been a fan of any part of Sandridge Commons.