SandRidge Center & Commons

[rcjunkie]

But if Sandridge doesn't have all the money to responsibly create an urban campus, do you think they should be proposing these Commons at all? Is a half-assed plan really what's best for the "community"? Perhaps if they were to wait until they had more money to spend on the Commons, then it could become something that both the community and they would thoroughly be proud of while also encouraging a vibrant and mixed-use downtown. As it stands now, only the business community will benefit from such plans; this will secure the CBD as a weekday, 7-5 work area. The Commons as they stand will be a huge blow to the viability of north Downtown as a vibrant community. It is undeniable.

Now, I emphasized only because that is the bad part. It's good that the business community will benefit, but it's really just a tragedy that only the business community will do so when potentially this could also be an expediant for downtown to become something grander ala residences and a 24-7 mixed-use and pedestrian oriented atmosphere. This is where I'm baffled by Sandridge. They have the infrastructure there, all of Downtown has it, but what they don't have is vision or initiative. Any one can place a damn park anywhere. Someone answer me this question: What is going to make Sandridge's park any better than say Kerr Park, the renovated Myriad Gardens, the Devon Park, Civic Center Plaza, Bicentennial Plaza, etc? Anyone that truly believes this is the best use for the space has some severely flawed thinking.

In conclusion. I'm not advocating the saving of any of those old buildings, but good lord have some forethought and state of mind to realize that when those buildings are demolished that a park isn't the best use for that space. It's simply just not.

I agree that a new park is not what's best for this location, but it's far better then having unused buildings setting empty for years to come.

[soonerguru]

SandRidge is a "me too" company. Like Chesapeake and Devon, they feel the need to offer "green space" near their corporate "campus."

Unlike Chesapeake and Devon, their version of "green space" is not a value to the broader community.

Devon and Chesapeake -- and other companies like American Fidelity -- are admired because they make a positive difference in the community.

Clearly, SandRidge doesn't really care how it's viewed by its neighbors or whether its decisions harm its community. This is not a company to be admired and it speaks volumes about what its corporate culture is like (probably not a great place to work).

[bluedogok]

Well, corporations do have a mandate from their stockholders to look out for their interests first, so that should not come as a surprise to anyone. So far as competition for tenants, Sandridge might very well be in a position soon through acquisitions to fill their tower with just their employees. Sandridge will be an excellent ally of promoting downtown if they are successful. From my perspective I would like to see numerous new residential towers built downtown instead of the old buildings being renovated at a tremendous cost.

New residential towers aren't going to be built in Downtown OKC anytime soon since it didn't occur during the recent boom. The financial markets aren't going to take speculative chances on Downtown OKC high rise residential for quite sometime. It is going to take getting more people living in downtown to get that type of development and that is best achieved through converting existing commercial buildings. There is an overabundance of Class C office space that is more than viable to be taken off the market and renovated into residential. Buildings like First National which don't have the ability to draw in the larger commercial tenants are prime for a multi-use redevelopment into a combination of retail, smaller office and residential. A renovated Braniff Building they are proposing tearing down would make a dynamic addition to their campus, much more than a plaza that gets used occasionally would. I just don't see where a "plaza" significantly improves the current building or shareholder value.

Or perhaps the Sandridge folks just don't agree with you and have a different opinion. You could fix those buildings if they were made of sand by throwing an unlimited amount of money at them. Sandridge simply may not have that kind of money and may not feel it's financially feasible to save them.

It also wouldn't take "unlimited funds" to make them into viable income generating properties. The fact that they have (reportedly) never listened to offers to buy the properties from others is curious.

No need to start the greed/profit monger/selfishness talk.

In the second paragraph I was speaking in more "general terms" of the business/investment climate that exists now rather than about Sandridge directly. I think shareholder expectations are ridiculous anymore, people got so greedy when things went up, and up, and up that they just can't seem to fathom that things just can't continue on the same path endlessly...even after experiencing the past (almost) two years they don't seem to have adjusted their expectations. Shareholder pressure for higher and higher profits is unrealistic and tends to ruin more companies than helps them. Things have swung too far towards the shareholder and their typically very short term profit motives rather than long term health and viability of corporations.

Too many shareholders are no longer "investors" they are nothing more than profiteers looking for a quick flip which does no one any good, those types are really what has decimated the housing market in this country in many areas. We need to go back to the days when there were more investors who look at a term longer than the next quarterly report.

[Architect2010]

[/COLOR]I agree that a new park is not what's best for this location, but it's far better then having unused buildings setting empty for years to come.

And that may be true, but a park also isn't what is best for Downtown as a whole. So a compromise may have been that when they convert that land into a park, that the lots that were previously structures are only converted into temporary parkland. This would allow for them to strategically remove that piece of the park when demand calls for more office, residential, retail, or a mix of the three to take it's place. This keeps empty and expensive buildings from draining their finances, allows them to have a park, and promotes the Downtown community. However, they again failed to take the initiative. According to the Downtown Design Review Committee, that park will become a permanent fixture of Downtown OKC with no future development on site unless Sandridge somehow flips the script unexpectedly; which is unlikely.

It is obvious, and let me state that again, very obvious by Sandridge's actions that there was not an alternative analysis of every possible scenario that could have positively benefited Downtown. Sandridge had in mind what it wanted and they received it, but at the expense of north downtown.

[SkyWestOKC]

I have changed my side, I am now siding with Sandridge on one basis only: who owns it. It's their property, if they want to turn it into a prairie that is their decision not ours. However, as much as I would like to see the buildings remain, if you (urbanists) had a large bank account ready, I am sure you could buy the land. Everyone has a price.

Think of it this way: when the buildings are gone, there will be less office space in downtown. When the current office space is beginning to fill, we will see the opportunity for new mid-rise or even possible high-rise structures because the demand will push for it. If Sandridge hits gold so to speak, and they need office space on property....well, they may axe their current plans find a way to demo and rebuild or salvage. I am leaning toward demo and rebuild.

[Popsy]

Good to see you made it to the point of seeing the Big Picture SWOKC. I have come to the conclusion that urbanists don't always see the big picture because they are concentrating too hard on the basics of long standing urbanist principals which clouds the recognition of the BP.

[bluedogok]

I have changed my side, I am now siding with Sandridge on one basis only: who owns it. It's their property, if they want to turn it into a prairie that is their decision not ours. However, as much as I would like to see the buildings remain, if you (urbanists) had a large bank account ready, I am sure you could buy the land. Everyone has a price.

That doesn't seem to be the case from all the reports that I have read. Both Sandridge and Kerr-McGee turned down offers and have basically stated those properties weren't for sale for many years. Pricing a property well above market to the point that you could never get a pro forma to work is pretty much the same as saying it isn't for sale. Sure if someone offered me a ridiculous amount for my BMW or Triumph I would sell it, but that doesn't mean that they are really "for sale" and I also know that it isn't going to happen.

Good to see you made it to the point of seeing the Big Picture SWOKC. I have come to the conclusion that urbanists don't always see the big picture because they are concentrating too hard on the basics of long standing urbanist principals which clouds the recognition of the BP.

The "big picture" is it doesn't help a downtown that for the most part been stagnant for most of our lives. I am 46 years old and have just seen too much destruction of Downtown OKC over the years that led to nothing other than being a surface parking lot forever that I get wary of it. I have seen a lot of grand schemes and plans that never came to fruition. If a building is not dangerous to the public I would prefer to see it remain for the possibility of renovation. I am in architecture and don't necessarily like seeing what has a ton of possibilities torn down for no apparent reason other than "we want to".

I also don't necessarily believe the gov't should force the owners to do what they are completely opposed to. I just wish that the owners would be more responsible stewards of their properties and understand they are part of a much larger community. It seems at times that too many companies (in general) operate in a vacuum oblivious to others, it seems to me this proposal has a bit of that to it, Sandridge wants what it wants regardless of what the many in the general public wants. That may be their right but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.

I don't consider myself an "urbanist", in fact we are looking to move out of Austin proper (we are about 5 miles south of downtown now) to the north shore of Lake Travis and not into a condo.

[Larry OKC]

I have changed my side, I am now siding with Sandridge on one basis only: who owns it. It's their property, if they want to turn it into a prairie that is their decision not ours. However, as much as I would like to see the buildings remain, if you (urbanists) had a large bank account ready, I am sure you could buy the land. Everyone has a price.

Think of it this way: when the buildings are gone, there will be less office space in downtown. When the current office space is beginning to fill, we will see the opportunity for new mid-rise or even possible high-rise structures because the demand will push for it. If Sandridge hits gold so to speak, and they need office space on property....well, they may axe their current plans find a way to demo and rebuild or salvage. I am leaning toward demo and rebuild.

Please change your side again.

Has been brought up before by others but since the SandRidge is owner/occupied it doesn't count towards occupancy rates etc. These buildings/office space aren't currently on the market and with their removal , won't make a bit of difference. Once those buildings are gone, they are gone.

They can be repurposed and add to the urban fabric (and I am by no means an urbanist) rather than detracting from it.

At first I was in agreement with RC, but have changed my position on it (that it is better to have park space than an empty building) Especially when the owner refuses to allow it to be occupied. Just as bad as those Bricktown Canal property owners that refuse to develop even after a decade since the Canal opened? Guess we should just tear down those empty, boarded up (and in some cases not even boarded up, with broken glass) buildings too.

[SkyWestOKC]

Although I don't support the plaza idea or the demo, it is what it is. It's their property and they can freely do as they wish with it. (within the law)

Someone should have purchased the land before Sandridge did.

[ljbab728]

I have changed my side, I am now siding with Sandridge on one basis only: who owns it. It's their property, if they want to turn it into a prairie that is their decision not ours. However, as much as I would like to see the buildings remain, if you (urbanists) had a large bank account ready, I am sure you could buy the land. Everyone has a price.

Think of it this way: when the buildings are gone, there will be less office space in downtown. When the current office space is beginning to fill, we will see the opportunity for new mid-rise or even possible high-rise structures because the demand will push for it. If Sandridge hits gold so to speak, and they need office space on property....well, they may axe their current plans find a way to demo and rebuild or salvage. I am leaning toward demo and rebuild.

That sounds like a logical idea but maybe you should think of it this way. If the person who owns the land next to your house decides they want to build a strip club on it would you think the same way because it is their property and should be their decision? I guess if you didn't like that idea you could just buy the land from them.

[SkyWestOKC]

This would be like my neighbor taking out their carport and shed and replacing it with a garden. As ugly as that garden is, it's their stuff. Also, a strip club is commercial and I think there are laws as to how close in proximity one can be to a zoned residential area or a school or church. So, that would be illegal. The shed demolition would be legal.

[ljbab728]

This would be like my neighbor taking out their carport and shed and replacing it with a garden. As ugly as that garden is, it's their stuff. Also, a strip club is commercial and I think there are laws as to how close in proximity one can be to a zoned residential area or a school or church. So, that would be illegal. The shed demolition would be legal.

But that wasn't what you were saying. You said if it was their property they should be able to do whatever they wanted. But for purposes of argument, what if you live next to a commercial lot that had a flower shop. The owner wants to tear it down and build an all night convenience store which would have noise and traffic at all hours. While there would be little you could do about it would think it was fine because it was their land? There just has to be some consideration given to how development affects others even if it is legal.

[SkyWestOKC]

But what Sandridge is doing does not change anything to jeopardize someone's personal life, disrupt their sleep, or really even inconvenience others.

Get your analogies right: we are talking demo not construction.

[ljbab728]

But what Sandridge is doing does not change anything to jeopardize someone's personal life, disrupt their sleep, or really even inconvenience others.

Get your analogies right: we are talking demo not construction.

My analogies are fine. According to what you said, as long as it's legal we shouldn't care, not that it is OK as long it doesn't affect someone personally. We are talking about quality of life issues and what happens downtown affects in some ways the quality of life for all of us.

Keep in mind that having a more dense area around Sandridge can definitely affect retail businesses in that area in a positive way and the plazas and parks would tend to drive businesses out of the area. That could be considered an inconvenience.

[SkyWestOKC]

It would be my fault for moving next to a commercially zoned area. If it's legal, then it's legal. The only way to stop it would be to convince Devon, not the city. The city can't stop this based on personal opinion. It has to go against what the law says.

I don't like the idea as much as anyone else, but this is a legal move by SandRidge. That's all I am getting at.

[Spartan]

This must be the 15th time this debate has become a hot topic.

[bluedogok]

Someone should have purchased the land before Sandridge did.

That would have been difficult to do since it came with the Kerr-McGee company buyout and the property was never available as a separate purchase from either Kerr-McGee or Sandridge. From county records it looks like the block has been under Kerr-McGee control since 1911.

123 Robert S. Kerr - Building built in 1902

324 N Robinson Ave - Building built in 1923

135 Robert S. Kerr - Buildings built in 1918, 1921 and 1959

Sandridge Tower - Built in 1973

[flintysooner]

I think it is unlikely that my opinion about this matter has any significance at all.

Really I haven't been on a side except for my opinion that downtown development is better than nothing.

Philosophically I am sympathetic to many of the new urbanism concepts that support and promote community. But I also believe that the creation of real community has to be organic and does neither necessarily nor solely arise from the imposition of external constraint.

On the issue of private property rights it does appear to me that these are rightfully constrained in certain public circumstances. Surely one entire city block in the core of downtown with several significant structures should qualify the project for public concern and input.

All that said it does appear to me that there is a potential loss of opportunity for downtown community building if the project proceeds as proposed.

It appears to me that there should be some room for compromise but perhaps not.

[Popsy]

Flinty. When you stated in your third paragraph that you are sympathetic to the "new" urban concepts it made me wonder if these concepts are new or old. I had always thought they were old concepts as they seem to be based on the development of NYC and Chicago. Perhaps someone could clarify.

[flintysooner]

Flinty. When you stated in your third paragraph that you are sympathetic to the "new" urban concepts it made me wonder if these concepts are new or old. I had always thought they were old concepts as they seem to be based on the development of NYC and Chicago. Perhaps someone could clarify.

I am not so much concerned about the labels as I am the development of community. And for me community is about people and how they live and interact.

I discovered something important for me some years ago when I was involved in a building project for a restaurant. Initially there was a very small outdoor patio space planned for this project. But several people promoted making the outdoor space much larger and making it more inviting and usable and that was done although the owner bore the entire cost of the additional work. There was a lot of negative input, too, including the fact that "this is Oklahoma and who wants to stand outside in the wind and cold and heat."

On occasion I now drive by that very place and there are usually people on that patio and oftentimes there are many people there.

That important thing I learned is that while I am still very happy with the architecture and its use what gives me the greatest joy and pride and sense of accomplishment is the crowd of people gathered on that patio.

So that's how I think of things now when I try to imagine what a development project will be like: will there be a patio or its equivalent and will there be people there and will they be enjoying themselves interacting?

[mburlison]

I tend to agree w/ that kind of thinking too, Flinty, when I'm in NYC or Chicago... but particulary Manhattan, the parks are the thing that really stand out. Sure, I love the old historical buildings, especially the ones w/ those old water storage towers on top, the old department stores along 5th avenue... but it's Bryant, Washington, Central parks and many others that I can see people 'enjoying' New York City. When I worked downtown Oklahoma City (City Place building), we sure enjoyed the park there w/ the concerts, farmers market and all. (Not so much the vagrants who slept behind the bushes, THAT needs to be addressed.) I think there will be plenty of buildings, but the social areas (something besides a Club!) are nice too.

[Spartan]

It would be my fault for moving next to a commercially zoned area. If it's legal, then it's legal. The only way to stop it would be to convince Devon, not the city. The city can't stop this based on personal opinion. It has to go against what the law says.

I don't like the idea as much as anyone else, but this is a legal move by SandRidge. That's all I am getting at.

SkyWest--did you know that city ordinance is actually against SandRidge? That is the sole basis of the appeal, that the DDRC grossly ruled without taking into affect any city ordinances, let alone the planning staff recommendation against SandRidge.

[Spartan]

Good to see you made it to the point of seeing the Big Picture SWOKC. I have come to the conclusion that urbanists don't always see the big picture because they are concentrating too hard on the basics of long standing urbanist principals which clouds the recognition of the BP.

I'm guessing BP is your hero, also. After all, they owned that oil platform. They can do whatever they want with it.

[Popsy]

Sorry Sparky. The BP represented the "Big Picture," which I referenced twice previously in the post. I can understand how you could miss that, as I doubt, after reading your posts for several years, that you have ever been able to see the "Big Picture" in any of your endeavors. Makes me somewhat sad for your future. You are still young, so perhaps you can over come it.

[Spartan]

Wow, I'm honored to have such a devoted follower.