Today at 1:30 in the Council Chambers. Also on Channel 20. If you're watching at home, here's a drinking game I put together to help you cope with the loss of downtown's buildings.

A Downtown ontheRange: SandRidge drinking game: "Drinking our Buildings Away" (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/06/sandridge-drinking-game-drinking-our.html)

Yikes.

Charlie Daniel wrote a song about it.

Sittin' on a bar stool actin' like a darn fool
That's what I'm a doin' today
Sitting' her drinkin' tryin' to keep from thinkin'
I'm a boozin' my troubles away
Well now I couldn't make them stay doggone them anyway
They can't say that I didn't try
So pour me another one
Im Finished with the other one
I'm drinkin' my buildings goodbye

Everytime we disagreed
Pops was always askin' me
Are you a man or a mouse
Now that they're gone
He probably thinks I'm home
Just a mopin' around the house
He probably thinks that they're the one thing
I just couldn't get along without
Well wouldn't it surprise them I got a sympathizer
As long as these bottles hold out

Repeat Chorus

Every time I try to sit down and talk to Pops
It always ends up in a fuss
I tried to reason with him right up to the time
He got on that Sandridge bus
It would be better if I could forget 'em
'Cause they sure forgot about me
And if takes all night I'm gonna' do it right
I'm gonna' sit here till I can't see

Repeat Chorus

Today at 1:30 in the Council Chambers. Also on Channel 20. If you're watching at home, here's a drinking game I put together to help you cope with the loss of downtown's buildings.

A Downtown ontheRange: SandRidge drinking game: "Drinking our Buildings Away" (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/06/sandridge-drinking-game-drinking-our.html)

I'm playing only if Doug plays too.

I'm sure he has his Bourbon ready at his side.

Steve: Live blogging?

EDIT: There it is. http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/

Oh yeah, I live blogged... some incredible developments today.....

Think Sandridge was bluffing when they said downtown OKC may not be right for them?

I did not hear the context in which that comment was made but if it was as clear as that, all I can say is...wow! I would have expected a bit more maturity from a corporate citizen.

I get that they are frustrated at the time and expense that they are having to go through whilst trying to do what they think would be great for the City and their stockholders, however it is always more valuable to try and accomodate the citizens and then find some level of compromise.

I am personally of the opinion that the structures with true historic merit need to be given every opportunity to be rehabed. I also don't expect Sandridge to be the one to foot the bill. But if they are unwilling then all they have to do is show that they will give it a go and put that parcel up for sale and let the developers have a go at it. They can still implement the remainder or a modified version of the plan.

But the whole maybe I should take my ball home thought is juvenile and troubling at best. We need them to feel that we are not demonizing them as we really do want them to remain in downtown! I think the passionate expressions of may have given them a bad taste in their mouths but hopefully they have more endurance than this. It would be a loss for the whole city to see the Kerr McGee building vacant once more.

Unfortunately, you can bet that other large corporations who may be looking to relocate to a more business friendly location will be paying attention to this. It is not a small deal 100 million in private investment is nothing to dismiss, and you can bet others are watching this carefully.

I hope cooler heads will prevail and a decent compromise can be reached.

Was there any finality to the hearing today?

It wasn't even SandRidge, it was their attorney. I think everyone in that room was sick and tired of Frank Hill.

The challenge is going to get David Wanzer to somehow unite Jim and Rod on saving both buildings. David is in the middle wanting to save both. Jim wants to save the India Temple. Rod wants to save the Kermac.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Rod talking about the streetwall and the urban experience, but his concerns about the India Temple are that it is not as conducive as the Kermac to being used by SandRidge. I think that will be difficult to bring him to save the India Temple but it can be done by emphasizing that the ordinances talk about the good of the city and not one corporate tenant having free reign over two full blocks. Devon's tower doesn't even take up an entire block, and it will integrate very well with other uses such as the Colcord Hotel and the downtown library that will be adjacent. SandRidge is saying they don't want any other uses on the block. Wrong..

Jim truly seems to understand the intrinsic value of the India Temple and he wants to save that, and he asserted that it can be a valuable component of a campus redevelopment. I just think he doesn't like the Kermac building. Someone needs to assess the architectural and historical qualities of the Kermac with him, and it might not hurt to emphasis the point about the streetwall for his sake, but I really don't think there is a single planning buzzword that can convince Jim of anything. He just goes by his gut and he knows that the India Temple can be a good project if saved and wants to see that. He just needs to be convinced the same of the Kermac.

We're doing well!

Was there any finality to the hearing today?

None. They upheld the DDRC decisions on all buildings except the Kermac and the India Temple. That is good so hopefully they will proceed asap with those demolitions and we can continue to keep the fight up with the ones that matter. There is a real good chance we can save those buildings. This is going very well for urbanists so far..there is a 2-1 in favor support for keeping each building. The problem is we need all three guys to agree due to Jeff Austin recusing himself every time.

Thanks for the summary, Spartan ... I was terribly curious to hear some overall context of how the meeting went today.

What's the deal with Jeff Austin, is he a coward not wanting to deal with controversy? If so, he needs to resign and put someone on the board with guts. If he has a legitimate reason, Steve please let us know.

Sounds like Sandridge needs some cooler heads and better PR coaching, they need to work towards compromise.

David Wanzer is a great guy and takes this very seriously! I knew him well while he was in grad school and I was completing my BArch. I trust his judgement, and he has the cities best interests at heart. I hope a consensus can be reached so that this does not have to drag on for ever.

It makes perfect sense that the attorney would have pulled played on the Cities fear of losing Sandridge. Attorneys do not like to lose, and benefit through conflict. It is an adversarial approach and he will make more if there is conflict. No conflict no further need for him or his services. This kind of thinking is trained into them, and even when they are internal counsel it is hard for them to operate in any other mode.

Sorry if this offends any attorneys out there, but then you know what I am saying is true!

It is a dirty trick aimed precisely at exposing the somewhat still raw nerve that the city has in fear that they will lose a major contributor to downtowns researgence. Dirty, Dirty...hopefully the rest of the board will see through it for what it was a underhanded tactic to add pressure to make a rash decision. Lets hope that logic and the long view of the city will win the war.

Good points I hadn't really thought of, but agree for the most part about the attorney comments. Some older more mature attorneys, will try to work towards settlment and compromise but many are geared towards conflict as you mentioned.

I can't agree with Spartan's analysis. Wanzer clearly favored saving both buildings; he voted to save the India Temple Building, he motioned to save the Kermac (bank) building. It was Baker who was in the middle....
As for Austin, he's a SandRidge vendor. Not sure about Dunn....

Think Sandridge was bluffing when they said downtown OKC may not be right for them?

I think maybe they were right. I really just get the feeling they'd rather have a campus and don't really like downtown. Why else would they tear these buildings down for empty plazas? There's no gain in value with that. It doesn't add anything to downtown. They don't need them. They just want to do it because they don't like these specific buildings and would rather erase them than make them better.

I really get the impression that they feel that have done the city such a favor that it should look the other way when they want to tear it down.

Obviously, the city needs downtown tenants like them if it wants to improve the downtown. But, then again, what good does it do if they don't want to improve it? Does it really make sense to hail a downtown tenant just because they are there, even if all they want to do is tear down a block of downtown? Can you really say a company saves a town if it does so by tearing it down?

In the end, if urban planning and community minded development is inconsequential and, apparently, an annoyance to them, maybe downtown isn't a good fit...

Perhaps Sandridge was trying to go 'all in' without really doing so.

Perhaps they aren't right for downtown. Or Perhaps since others in the game are all building grassy areas outside their buildings, they just wanna play on the same terms.

I don't have a clue. But my gut says it was a bluff, and thus the sooner it is called, the sooner everyone can get past it and go forward, or live with it.

I don't have a clue. But my gut says it was a bluff, and thus the sooner it is called, the sooner everyone can get past it and go forward, or live with it.

I can't really say what Sandridge's true intentions are, but I do know this. Tom Ward is a very humble and surprisingly soft spoken person. I have had the chance to meet him at an energy-related event here in OKC. I doubt he is the kind that would tolerate his staff making threats and pushing his/her weight around, especially when it involves his company that he is working very hard to build up. Something tells me that lawyer got a strong "talk from the boss" today.

SandRidge doesn't seem to care about being a good neighbor. They seem to fit the energy company stereotype, i.e., they're a little more Halliburton/BP than our other wonderful energy companies, Devon and Chesapeake, which are both making extraordinary positive changes to OKC that benefit all citizens. I don't like SandRidge's attitude at all. It's entitled acting and creepy. They may really be a bad fit for downtown.

The conspiracy theorist lurking deep inside me wonders if they know how this is going to go and are playing the game because they don't have the money to do this job anyway. Perhaps they are really planning to scale back the plans but want to blame it on the "urbanists" who "stood in the way of quality investment."

I can't agree with Spartan's analysis. Wanzer clearly favored saving both buildings; he voted to save the India Temple Building, he motioned to save the Kermac (bank) building. It was Baker who was in the middle....
As for Austin, he's a SandRidge vendor. Not sure about Dunn....

No, no. I said Wanzer was in the middle supporting saving both buildings in the sense that Jim Allen wanted India Temple while Rod Baker wanted Kermac saved. That is what I meant.

Posters assert that Sandridge is not a good neighbor like Devon and Chespeake are to the community. No one stops to think that Tom Ward started Chespeake with Aubrey and signed off on all that Chespeake did for the community. Do you really think that Tom Ward changed just because he started Sandridge? I hardly think so. I am certain that Tom Ward has done more for this community in one year than every urbanist in Oklahoma has done for the community in their combined lifetimes. Let Sparky continue telling the group how well you are doing. I will wait for the end game to play out.

I did get one laugh out of the meeting when the preservation lady told the board that 1700 people now supported their cause. That was priceless.

So Sandwhatever is gonna take their ball and go home if they don't get their way? So what.

I hope they move to Houston, get bought out, or go broke (or some combination of those.)

I think just one poster asserted that Sandridge "doesn't seem to care about being a good neighbor". I think most people are pleased Sandridge has chosen to office downtown, which in and of itself is a neighborly thing to do. It's even an urbanist thing to do, so I'm not sure it's fair to separate Sandridge and urbanists as being on two completely different sides of the fence. And, I think most of the urbanists would be happy to save two of the buildings, which seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't really think a plaza is going to make Sandridge's stockholders a lot of money, and I suspect most of them could care less what the building's approach looks like, so I don't think we should be throwing them up as an important factor in this discussion.

Ultimately it boils down to a question of whether older buildings have historic value and are important to a city, and whether a city has some control over what people do with their private property. And it may boil down to whether Sandridge has the ability to compromise. Is having them downtown so important that we're willing to tear down buildings that some people consider worth saving? Also, are we SURE they'll have the financial wherewithal to construct the plaza after demoing the buildings? Are we SURE they will stay downtown for the forseeable future if they get what they want? Are we SURE they won't be bought by a bigger oil company and end up leaving us with an empty building and an empty plaza? If the answer to any of those three questions is no, then the city has a right to some control over what they do with their property, IMO, because we have to consider the long run before we tear down buildings that have any potential to be redeveloped. Just my two cents.

Always very balanced and well thought out, betts.

So Sandwhatever is gonna take their ball and go home if they don't get their way? So what.

I hope they move to Houston, get bought out, or go broke (or some combination of those.)

Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. I am with Posy once again, SandRidge has done more for the community than the urbanists. It may not be what you want, but they are putting money and jobs downtown. Doesn't seem like anyone but the urbanists are getting their panties in a twist over this. Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.

they need to go ahead with the modified plan:

knock down all of the buildings except the KerrMac and India Temple, develop, partner, or sell both as boutique hotel properties with retail on the bottom (maybe KerrMac could be rental residential).
build the new midrise on Robinson
build the new midrise in front of Couch Park
build in the remaining areas as had been planned

This 'modified' would do much more for the city than their other plan, and Sandridge might begin to be seen in the same light as the other big s OKC has.

Otherwise, if Sandridge is not a fit for downtown, they can move or build a campus somewhere else. Im sure there are other companies that could move into Kerr McGee Tower (like American Fidelity or PrePaid Legal, for example).

Maybe Kerr McGee Tower was too big for SandRidge anyways, I think they probably should have taken over Devon's building once Devon moves into their tower. ...

Anyways, hopefully Tom is as aformentionedly described and will come to this rather sweet compromise.

I would LOVE to see India Temple redeveloped as a boutique hotel. Could be along the lines of success that we've seen between the Colcord and Skirvin. India Temple hotel, I like it! :)

(and like Devon, Sandridge would have 'it's own' downtown hotel at it's campus.)

skywest, neither Anadarko, nor Sandridge has entertained selling those buildings. ....

Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.
As I posted in a prior thread, Not "everything" is for sale, if the "price" is beyond any concept of reality then it is NOT for sale and if they won't even listen to offers (as has been reported in the past) then it is really not for sale. Since according to county records that property has been in Kerr-McGee/Sandridge possession since 1911 it doesn't look like anyone has had the opportunity to buy it. When it seems the only way for someone to acquire the property is to perform a hostile takeover of Sandridge then it is not for sale. When you couldn't make a pro forma work for 100 years, it is not really "for sale". Just because some people have a "price" for which they would do anything doesn't mean everyone is that way.

I didn't say they have, I said everything is for sale in this world, you just have to present the right price. My home is not up for sale...doesn't mean I wouldn't take a nice check if someone offered me one high enough.

Well, then we just disagree then.

I'm sure he has his Bourbon ready at his side.
Well, yes ... but, truth is, I flat missed the meeting today and am just now catching up. I thought that the meeting was NEXT Thursday! :doh:

when will be the 'next' meeting?

Yeah...I would take 100K for the BMW I paid 15K for, that doesn't mean that it's really for sale if the price is beyond ridiculous.

The thing is they have turned down offers to even discuss selling those properties, that makes me think that they are pretty much not for sale at any price...other than taking over the entire corporation. I know someone who inquired once (when it was still K-M) and was told flatly they were not for sale and then the phone was hung up on them. This was someone with the ability to buy the building (without financing) and they couldn't even get to the discussion phase. For some reason they have never been interested in losing control of those properties.

Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. I am with Posy once again, SandRidge has done more for the community than the urbanists. It may not be what you want, but they are putting money and jobs downtown. Doesn't seem like anyone but the urbanists are getting their panties in a twist over this. Someone should put forward a big check to buy this property from them. Everything is for sale in this world when you get right down to it because everyone has a price.

So Tom Ward has done more for OKC than person X so he gets to do whatever he wants now? Interesting pecking order system you got there.

Last thing OKC needs is to lose Sandridge. Talk about baby w/ the bathwater. There is an old expression about being careful for what we wish for.

Last thing OKC needs is to lose Sandridge. Talk about baby w/ the bathwater. There is an old expression about being careful for what we wish for.

And it cuts both ways. What if Sandwhatever tears down the buildings, then gets bought up and moves away. Would tearing the buildings down still sound like a good idea?

Be careful for what you wish for indeed.

Unfortunately, the City's website does not contain a schedule of Channel 20s schedule this evening but I assume that the BOA hearing will be replayed. If anyone knows, please post as I would love to watch it. Right now, some other committee/commision's hearing is playing, not sure which one.

And it cuts both ways. What if Sandwhatever tears down the buildings, then gets bought up and moves away. Would tearing the buildings down still sound like a good idea?Be careful for what you wish for indeed.

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

rcjunkie - I think it has been demonstrated many many many times that these building are worth more than $0. Multiple developers have expressed interest in buying them to redevelope them.

Yes, the buildings have no value as is, the cost to renovate not financially responsible.

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

I worry this is turning into a male-member-measuring contest with Tom Ward. He's used to getting what he wants and he's not going to let a group of lily-livered preservationists tell him what to do by God. I think that sucks and makes him less than the besainted humanitarian his apologists are portraying him to be.

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

I worry this is turning into a male-member-measuring contest with Tom Ward. He's used to getting what he wants and he's not going to let a group of lily-livered preservationists tell him what to do by God. I think that sucks and makes him less than the besainted humanitarian his apologists are portraying him to be.
Soonerguru, it isn't the "lilly livered preservations" telling Tom Ward or Sandridge what he/it might need to do that matters, it is the audience that the matter is being addressed to, in this case the Board of Adjustment, that matters and that body gives all appearances of being quite willing and able to reach its own conclusions as to whether the applicable ordinances have been complied with, or not. However this all turns out, that board has, I think, established its own credibility by not being swayed by irrelevant letters of corporate support, or such letters, e-mails, or comments by preservationists which don't go to the heart of the matter, which, of course, is whether ordinances have been complied with or not, pure and simple. It looks to me that the board will make its own independent judgment based upon the ordinances involved, which, I would hope we all agree, it its duty, its job, to do.

Today's vote sends messages ... (1) the board will act in the event that no compromise is reached; (2) compromise is desirable so that all involved get something of value, but, of course, if SandRidge isn't interested in that type of an approach ... all or nothing ... that's its choice to make even if it might be seen as ill-considered for it to present itself as lacking flexibility and a will to compromise. If that position is accurately stated, and so far it seems to be, that doesn't speak well of SandRidge as a good corporate citizen, in my opinion. Like someone else already said, this decision appears to have little if anything to do with SandRidge's economic position and it gives signs of being nothing more than ego-driven, regardless of whether its proposal is in conformity with local ordinances. I wouldn't suppose that SandRidge really wants to have that sort of a reputation in the community.

when will be the 'next' meeting?

I seem to remember July 1?

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.

This is a canard. There have been many reported examples of people trying to buy these properties. The seller(s) aren't selling.

Haha, this is an awesome post, because of one word. I love when people bring up words I haven't seen in...years. Not in Oklahoma at least. You and Doug are both class acts, while Popsy continues his fits of rage against the evil "urbanists" who contribute nothing.

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.

The courts have ruled to the spirit of the law several different times. In trying to find legal precedent you'll notice a lot of court rulings referenced by SandRidge...all from other state's. There's a reason they don't like what our state supreme court has to say..

As for appropriateness of the ordinances, that is all they considered, do you realize that? There is a majority in favor of both the KerMac and the India Temple, just interlocking votes that keep it from being unanimous. Wanzer cited the importance of not having setbacks and the ordinance against demolitions. He suggested that it's really just the corner buildings that are the most important, especially for areas that are already less defined. Baker also talked about the setbacks and even mentioned the importance of the streetwall and directly referenced the report from the planning dept recommending denial of SandRidge. When Baker did that it was the first time any commissioner cited that report when making a decision, since Gigi Faulkner, of course.

Spartan, is it possible for someone to be an "anti-urbanist"?

If they want to call themselves that, sure..though I imagine it would be "realist" or something with less negative verbal implications (pro choice v. pro life, etc). I think some posters just dislike me though (I guess I can be a bit over the top when I'm trying to get people talking), and I hardly think Popsy has anything against downtown.

I can hardly imagine going through this whole process and the board of adjustment simply confirming the DDRC decision. I sure hope they vote to save both buildings. Ironically, it's those two structures with the most historic and cultural value, AND the strongest urban streetwall presence. I think saving those two will enhance the feel of SandRidge's front yard by framing Robert S. Kerr on the east and west.

Doug, I would like to ask you if you heard any discussion by the board members as to weighing the appropriateness of the ordinances. If you did, I would like to borrow your hearing aid. The decisions they were making had to do with what they thought of the buildings, not whether applicable ordinances were violated or not. I still maintain this question will end up in district court.
Well, as I said, by reason of my own incompetence, I missed today's hearing (now yesterday's) but I am presently monitoring Channel 20 to see if it might come up before I crash and go to sleep.

The assumptions that I made and stated were based on the reports that I've read here and elsewhere which seem to indicate, at least to me, support for the conclusions that I stated. But, then, I may well be badly mistaken. I still want to hear the words spoken by all during the hearing. But, at the least, it seems rather indisputable that the BOA established its position as acting "on its own" as an independent body (which it is and should be) and not be persuaded or dissuaded by letters or other expressions of support for either position which really did not relate to the ordinances (the BOA's decision should not be based upon a popularity poll, should it?). So I guess that type of thinking was the springboard for my previous comments ... if such things are not of importance (as they shouldn't be, when the real question before the BOA is whether the DDRC based its decision upon the ordinances involved and whether its findings tracked what the ordinances required), then I suppose that I just jumped (logically) to the conclusion that the BOA was attempting to look at the matter from that perspective. In that, I may have been mistaken. I want to see the hearing so that I will have a better feel for that.

Sorry I missed the meeting. In trying to read through the threads, I am not sure what happened. Who won? Who lost? Why? Willl there be an appeal?

Good questions. I had to work, so I missed out on the action.

What are the "next steps"?

EDIT: Steve's article should clear up your questions: http://www.newsok.com/article/3469383?searched=sandridge&custom_click=search

Spartan, is it possible for someone to be an "anti-urbanist"?


Steve, is it possible for someone to be a journalistic shill?

Wickipedia says that the term is applied metaphorically to journalists or commentators who have vested interests in or associations with parties in a controversial issue. Usually this takes the form of a show or network pretending to be offering news when in fact they are simply repeating talking points offered by a political party. Journalistic ethics require full disclosure of conflicts of interest, and of any interference by other parties with the reportage.

Do you really think that Tom Ward changed just because he started Sandridge? I hardly think so.

I think that is the point. McClendon and Chesapeake for all they have done for the city are not urban minded in their development. They chose to go with a suburban style campus and have torn down a lot to do it. However, they have chosen to do it in a suburban setting. Sandridge and Tom Ward have chosen to do it in an urban downtown setting, something of which we do not have much. They want to erase part of what little urban offering we have in order to create a more suburban environment. This is why maybe they aren't a good fit for downtown.

Aside from historic importance or sentimental feelings towards the city itself, the main problems with the Sandridge plan in my oinion are:

1) WHERE they are doing it

If they want a campus complex AND want to improve the city, then GREAT! There are SO many opportunities in the city to do that it's not even funny. Put it on the river next to Dell or somewhere else like that. I just don't see any justification in our real estate market for tearing down what little urban environment we have just to make an office complex more suburban and campus feeling. The opportunity cost in doing so is so overwhelming it's amazing that some can't see it. Sandridge knew they would have blood on their hands when they went forward with this. They knew they were going against the goals of downtown Oklahoma City. And they didn't care, even though they could have done this virtually anywhere else in the city at absolutely zero opportunity cost to the community.

2) WHY they are doing it.

It's complete vanity. They are not tearing down buildings to improve their coproprate infrastructure due to operations requirements. They don't even need the entire space of the Kerr McGee building. They are doing it for one reason only: they think it will be neat. Again, this is fine, but why do it at the expense of our tiny urban district when the city is full of wide open spaces? They could go a mile in any direction and create a campus with the largest most impressive parks and plazas at zero intrinsic cost to the community and probably at half the actual cost.

It just comes down to the fact that the costs, both real and opportunity costs, so far outweigh the gain in any value this move adds to the community or to the properties itself, it's crazy that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I can't even imagine that those that support what they are doing because they feel corporations should be able to do whatever they want to a community would argue that this is the right place, the best place, or especially the ONLY place Sandridge can achieve this corporate environment they are trying to create by tearing these buildings down.

Steve, is it possible for someone to be a message board shill?

Wickipedia says that the term is applied metaphorically to message board particapant or commentators who have vested interests in or associations with parties in a controversial issue. Usually this takes the form of a show or network pretending to be offering news when in fact they are simply repeating talking points offered by a political party. Message board ethics require... there are no message board ethics.[/QUOTE]

I think that is the point. McClendon and Chesapeake for all they have done for the city are not urban minded in their development. They chose to go with a suburban style campus and have torn down a lot to do it. However, they have chosen to do it in a suburban setting. Sandridge and Tom Ward have chosen to do it in an urban downtown setting, something of which we do not have much. They want to erase part of what little urban offering we have in order to create a more suburban environment. This is why maybe they aren't a good fit for downtown.

Aside from historic importance or sentimental feelings towards the city itself, the main problems with the Sandridge plan in my oinion are:

1) WHERE they are doing it

If they want a campus complex AND want to improve the city, then GREAT! There are SO many opportunities in the city to do that it's not even funny. Put it on the river next to Dell or somewhere else like that. I just don't see any justification in our real estate market for tearing down what little urban environment we have just to make an office complex more suburban and campus feeling. The opportunity cost in doing so is so overwhelming it's amazing that some can't see it. Sandridge knew they would have blood on their hands when they went forward with this. They knew they were going against the goals of downtown Oklahoma City. And they didn't care, even though they could have done this virtually anywhere else in the city at absolutely zero opportunity cost to the community.

2) WHY they are doing it.

It's complete vanity. They are not tearing down buildings to improve their coproprate infrastructure due to operations requirements. They don't even need the entire space of the Kerr McGee building. They are doing it for one reason only: they think it will be neat. Again, this is fine, but why do it at the expense of our tiny urban district when the city is full of wide open spaces? They could go a mile in any direction and create a campus with the largest most impressive parks and plazas at zero intrinsic cost to the community and probably at half the actual cost.

It just comes down to the fact that the costs, both real and opportunity costs, so far outweigh the gain in any value this move adds to the community or to the properties itself, it's crazy that anyone thinks it's a good idea. I can't even imagine that those that support what they are doing because they feel corporations should be able to do whatever they want to a community would argue that this is the right place, the best place, or especially the ONLY place Sandridge can achieve this corporate environment they are trying to create by tearing these buildings down.

:congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: