SandRidge Center & Commons

[OUGrad05]

As long as SD stays in business they could potentially redevelope part of the land down the road. If their downtown presence increases in teh coming years it could be a good thing. this is not 100% bad, but on the surface definately seems more bad than good to me at least...

[Kerry]

As long as SD stays in business they could potentially redevelope part of the land down the road. If their downtown presence increases in teh coming years it could be a good thing. this is not 100% bad, but on the surface definately seems more bad than good to me at least...

Good luck trying to build a new building on park land. Once you go park, you never go back.

[mugofbeer]

Good luck trying to build a new building on park land. Once you go park, you never go back.

It wouldn't be park land. It would be private property. If the plaze became so beloved that they could never build on it, then it was probably a success.

[OUGrad05]

Good luck trying to build a new building on park land. Once you go park, you never go back.

Thats a good point, I didn't know it was actually getting rezoned park land?

[BDP]

everyone wants deteriorating, empty, worthless buildings to stand in the midst of downtown just so we have "density". That makes no sense.

Not really.

1) They're far from worthless. They have the potential to be worth far more than an empty lot ever will be.

2) I think people are arguing that we want Oklahoma City to have a chance to achieve some density at some point. Sandridge's development plans create a barrier to this. Oklahoma City lack of density hinders its development potential and demographic make up to a level that makes it hard to attract new entities relative to other markets. We have seen it time and time again.

Oklahoma City RULES in terms of empty space and undeveloped land. It really is not asking much or going off the deep end to at least try and protect the few assets that we actually have. Oklahoma City needs to carve out at least a small niche of dense active urban space so that it can at least offer a small sliver of that to potential companies and residents. Look, Oklahoma City is so sprawled out and has so much more room for sprawl that spreading out the one area of potential density doesn't really make sense, nor is it really irrational economically.

If a company wants cheap unused land to build a vast low profile campus with easy freeway access and acres and acres of surface parking, we got it... tons of it. If a company wants to offer its employees the chance to work and maybe even (gasp!) live in a vibrant active full service urban community setting with all the unique amenities and conveniences that many desire today, we just can't do it, yet.

It's not about bullying corporations or telling them how to spend their money. It's about economically diversifying our portfolio to attempt to attract more companies in more fields with the bonus of building a better sense of pride in the community through preserving the history and past accomplishments of that community. I realize that many in OKC place little to no importance on the latter, but maybe a little bit of preservation today will help future generations take more pride in the city as a whole. You actually now have a generation of people coming up who don't know Oklahoma City without bricktown and would probably look at you funny if you suggested that 20 years ago we should have demolished those economically unusable buildings when we had the chance.

[Popsy]

BDP, that was a very well reasoned response. However, the trend does seem to sway towards the "vast low profile campus with easy freeway access and acres and acres of surface parking". The challange for downtown in the next decade or two will be filling up the empty space that exists. Residential could be the answer, but costs will be the key.

[BDP]

the trend does seem to sway towards the "vast low profile campus with easy freeway access and acres and acres of surface parking".

I'd agree with that maybe 20 years ago. Since then, a lot of companies have been locating in city cores as sprawl living has gone more and more out of favor. This is why so many cities saw so many towers built this last decade after a lull of about 20 years of such construction in America. And during that time, even a lot development outside of city core has become more urban/pedestrian minded with more mixed used development even in the defacto suburbs.

In any event, most major cities have both and we can't really say that. I'm just saying that if Sandridge wants a sprawling campus, why does it have to be at the expense of the city's opportunity to create more alternatives? They can have this anywhere, but have chosen to destroy current assets in the core to get it.

It's just ironic to me that when they decided to fill some space vacated by Kerr McGee they were lauded as a savior to downtown. Now they're going to tear down a chunk of it.

[Kerry]

It wouldn't be park land. It would be private property. If the plaze became so beloved that they could never build on it, then it was probably a success.

I don't know how it works in Oklahoma City but here in Florida it doesn't have to be zoned park land for it be treated like park land. Once land is designated open space - that's it. You can't use it for anything else unless you buy more land and swap it out. I have an area on my property deemed 'open space'. I will never be able to do anything with it (not that I even want to).

[jbrown84]

I don't know how it works in Oklahoma City but here in Florida it doesn't have to be zoned park land for it be treated like park land. Once land is designated open space - that's it. You can't use it for anything else unless you buy more land and swap it out.

How odd. I don't think we have that here. An example would be the future Chamber site. That isn't an actual park but has been used like one. The Chamber is obviously not being required to "replace" that open space anywhere.

So instead, everyone wants deteriorating, empty, worthless buildings to stand in the midst of downtown just so we have "density". That makes no sense.

WRONG. I and many others concede that most or all of the buildings in question are unusable or unsalvageable. We just want the buildings replaced with something other than empty space. But the pro-Sandridge side (including the architect) is hung up on the preservation issue.

In the end, it's hard to see how totally empty space is an improvement over empty, but potentially iconic buildings, that could be used again by an owner who cared enough to do it.

In many aspect it is.............the same goes for what has happened with the Sandridge development. The same happened when I.M. Pei was hired to design a "New Modern" downtown CBD......

Can you please explain what about the new Myriad Gardens design you don't like? As I already said, this (unlike the Sandridge Plan) is not a case of a huge out of state firm designing from afar. The head of the firm, Jim Burnett himself is heavily involved with the project and spends a great deal of time here in OKC.

[Kerry]

How odd. I don't think we have that here. An example would be the future Chamber site. That isn't an actual park but has been used like one. The Chamber is obviously not being required to "replace" that open space anywhere.

It is kind of wierd how it works here. When I lived in Tampa the area behind our home was zoned "Preservation". The school board filed a petition to change the zoning to allow a high school to be built. The zoning was changed and the part of the property that wasn't used for the high school was sold to a conservation group.

Here in Jax my home is in a subdivision that is zoned residential. However, on our property survey is a 50 foot wide section of our yard called 'open space'. I can never do anything on it. I'm not even supposed to maintain it. It isn't an easment either because we have one of those as well. I don't think we pay property tax on the part marked 'open space' but I would have to check with the little lady of the house to be sure.

[Doug Loudenback]

Earlier somewhere in this thread, I expressed qualified approval of SandRidge's plan. The approval was conditioned upon the India Temple NOT being reasonably salvageable. However, in Steve's OkcCentral blog, it now appears that it IS apparently reasonably salvageable. So, as I said in a comment to this post there, one of his several on the topic, I have now formed an opinion, for whatever it may be worth. In to that post, I said,

The Plainsman, I don’t really have heartburn over any single building in the project other than the India Temple. It holds a unique position in downtown buildings in 2 ways: (1) it is the oldest remaining building downtown; and (2) it served as Oklahoma’s Legislature between 1913-1917. My earlier view was that IF the building was reasonably savable, those 2 factors would be persuasive to me not only that it should be saved but that it would behoove SandRidge to make that type of contribution to the community, as well as its plaza area to the west which is more self-serving (and there’s nothing wrong with that) which could be done as well.

Until learning (from Steve’s posts here) that, in fact, the India Temple apparently remains quite redeemable, I was on the fence … if the building was trash, I’d say, go ahead, trash it. But that is apparently not at all the case. So, about this building, my opinion has solidified … not that I have any notion that my opinion counts for anything other than myself.

But, regardless of my opinion’s uselessness, I’ve commenced writing about this building … it’s not done but a starter flash file is here. I expect to have the post completed tomorrow sometime. If I can get a copy of it (I’m trying), the City Planning Department’s earlier report, not favorable to the project, will be included, as well. I don’t intend the article to be polemic … there are legitimate positions to be made on both sides of the matter … but I remain hopeful, perhaps foolishly so, that a middle ground can be found.

I've not finished my blog article yet but a flash file is presently there, to the tune, "Bye Bye Miss American Pie." I have more substantive thoughts to express, but that gets it started.

[Architect2010]

I encourage everyone to email the Downtown Design Review Committee. I got a very warm reply from Betsy Brunsteter. While it's too late to change everything, it should be known that we are very upset with the decision they have made. Don't hesitate. Steve has the Committee's contact information on his blog.

[Kerry]

I encourage everyone to email the Downtown Design Review Committee. I got a very warm reply from Betsy Brunsteter. While it's too late to change everything, it should be known that we are very upset with the decision they have made. Don't hesitate. Steve has the Committee's contact information on his blog.

I'll leave moral victories to those that seek it. I'm in it to win it and will save this episode as a "see I told you so" moment. I was in favor of the Bass Pro Shop deal and I learned my lesson that you can't put something on an island by itself (whether it be a large corporate plaza or a parking lot) and expect it to be pedestrian friendly.

I learned this first hand while visiting downtown OKC last Thanksgiving. We walked all over downtown OKC but we just weren't up for a long walk across a parking lot to visit Bass Pro, so we didn't do it. Once we got back to our car the last thing we wanted to do was drive to Bass Pro and get out again.

Granted the building that are being lost are empty now but if Sandridge is successful and eventually employ 750 people downtown those spaces would have made prime locations for business to service those 750 people. That opportunity is lost forever.

[mugofbeer]

Granted the building that are being lost are empty now but if Sandridge is successful and eventually employ 750 people downtown those spaces would have made prime locations for business to service those 750 people. That opportunity is lost forever.

I am still up in the air on this one but while I agree that space is being lost that could have served those 750 future people as well as others in the area, I hear and read from all corners that except for the India Temple building, the rest are not structurally sound at a financially resonable cost. There is nothing that says if Sandridge finds it reasonable, they could build new buildings in the future.

[Architect2010]

I'll leave moral victories to those that seek it. I'm in it to win it and will save this episode as a "see I told you so" moment. I was in favor of the Bass Pro Shop deal and I learned my lesson that you can't put something on an island by itself (whether it be a large corporate plaza or a parking lot) and expect it to be pedestrian friendly.

I learned this first hand while visiting downtown OKC last Thanksgiving. We walked all over downtown OKC but we just weren't up for a long walk across a parking lot to visit Bass Pro, so we didn't do it. Once we got back to our car the last thing we wanted to do was drive to Bass Pro and get out again.

Granted the building that are being lost are empty now but if Sandridge is successful and eventually employ 750 people downtown those spaces would have made prime locations for business to service those 750 people. That opportunity is lost forever.

So why quote me?

Kiddin' :P

[maygog]

4/13/10

[Steve]

It's actually not too late on this matter. An appeal can be filed - but it must be by Friday - by a person or entity "of standing"

[CaseyCornett]

I didn't want to start a new forum for just this one photo, but for those that haven't seen SandRidge's enormous banner hanging from their building, "Let's Go Thunder" I took a photo of it this morning: SandRidge Energy building "Go Thunder" 4-14-2010 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Kerry]

I didn't want to start a new forum for just this one photo, but for those that haven't seen SandRidge's enormous banner hanging from their building, "Let's Go Thunder" I took a photo of it this morning: SandRidge Energy building "Go Thunder" 4-14-2010 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Is there anything they can do about that building in the foregroud? It is blocking my view of the whole building.

BTW - thanks for the photo. I just had to take the cheap shot.

[Kerry]

It's actually not too late on this matter. An appeal can be filed - but it must be by Friday - by a person or entity "of standing"

My guess is there isn't anyone that fits that requirment.

[Doug Loudenback]

My guess is there isn't anyone that fits that requirment.

I'm pretty clueless about municipal law, but I'd be amazed if quite a number of individuals and/or groups would not have standing to appeal.

[metro]

It's actually not too late on this matter. An appeal can be filed - but it must be by Friday - by a person or entity "of standing"

How does one go about filing such an appeal? What is the cost? What is the process?

[Architect2010]

Hmm. Steve has also pointed out on his blog of a site named keepdowntownurban.

The website isn't completely revealed yet, but it has an interesting quote from Anthony McDermid. Also, the site will be unveiled on Friday the 16th. The last day an appeal may be filed.

Steve. What's going on? Elaborate on the 'standing' one must have to appeal the DDRC's decision.

[Doug Loudenback]

Hmm. Steve has also pointed out on his blog of a site named keepdowntownurban.

The website isn't completely revealed yet, but it has an interesting quote from Anthony McDermid. Also, the site will be unveiled on Friday the 16th. The last day an appeal may be filed.

Steve. What's going on? Elaborate on the 'standing' one must have to appeal the DDRC's decision.

I don't have the legal knowledge to speak authoritatively about who has "standing" to file an appeal, but I, too, understand that a legal challenge will be filed today or tomorrow. While I'm not qualified to offer a legal opinion as to who has "standing" to challenge the decision, I'm certain that someone/some group does have standing. Although the matter is not completely analogous, after the Murrah Bombing, although the former YMCA was damaged, it was not rendered structurally unsound. The property had been purchased by someone (I don't recall who) and he requested that the building be razed so that he could make a street-level parking lot there.



The Old Downtown Guy (Michael Smith) was a point-man in that story. See this link.

The protesters eventually dismissed their case -- it became too expensive -- but the point is, it can be done. Whether that will happen in this instance remains to be seen.

[Kerry]

I don't see much hope for it. I am less interested in saving the buildings as I am in preventing another wasteland of corporate plazas. I would just as soon they leave holes in the Earth where the buildings stood.