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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

:congrats:



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.

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.

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 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/04/10/more-i-didnt-know-on-thursday/) 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 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/04/bye-bye-miss-american-pie.html). 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.

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 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.

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.

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

4/13/10

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"

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! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30796964@N02/4520991430/)

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! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30796964@N02/4520991430/)

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.

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.

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.

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?

Hmm. Steve has also pointed out on his blog of a site named keepdowntownurban (http://www.keepdowntownurban.com).

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.

Hmm. Steve has also pointed out on his blog of a site named keepdowntownurban (http://www.keepdowntownurban.com).

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.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/hotels/ymca02s_gri.jpg

The Old Downtown Guy (Michael Smith) was a point-man in that story. See this link (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2007/03/downtown-hotels.html#YMCA%202).

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.

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.

Steve's article: NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/design-review-process-needs-fix-oklahoma-panel-says/article/3454211?custom_click=lead_story_title)


Design review process needs fix, Oklahoma panel says
Approval of SandRidge demolition plans is under fire

The Downtown Design Review Committee, under fire for its approval of SandRidge Energy’s plans to demolish six buildings, responded Thursday that the group has been compromised in making good decisions, and changes to the design review process could be needed.

Committee members Anthony McDermid, Betsy Brunsteter, Jim Loftis and Chuck Ainsworth all voiced concerns they have been asked to approve designs for major projects like the planned SandRidge Commons development long after conceptual planning was finished.
* * *
Committee member Chuck Ainsworth, who cited a tour of the buildings when he voted "yes,” said he was denied a chance to ask SandRidge representatives questions during the visit.

"We had to look at it, write our questions down, and we weren’t allowed to communicate with the people we were with,” Ainsworth said. "I do believe this committee is severely inhibited in making good decisions because it is very hard to do due diligence on one of these major projects.”

Ainsworth said he thought city planners were being advised and consulted on major projects during conceptual phasing to ensure they comply with urban design guidelines.

Assistant City Planner Scottye Montgomery, who co-wrote the SandRidge report with the city’s preservation architect Catherine Montgomery, said no such advance discussion took place.
* * *
Committee members noted they received several letters protesting their vote. Preservationist Marva Ellard and Norman architect Barrett Williamson both appeared at Thursday’s meeting to question the committee’s actions.

Williamson said after the meeting he could not provide details yet on a possible appeal but confirmed one is in the works.
* * *

Steve's article: NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/design-review-process-needs-fix-oklahoma-panel-says/article/3454211?custom_click=lead_story_title)

It does sound like this is rather disjointed process and in need of being revised to accomplish what was originally intended. It's more like the process failed instead of those involved.

Well Friday is gone.. did it happen?

I don't think so. But, Monday is probably the last day to file.

Steve's article: NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/design-review-process-needs-fix-oklahoma-panel-says/article/3454211?custom_click=lead_story_title)

What a load of crap! If that was the case Anthony McDermid, Betsy Brunsteter, Jim Loftis and Chuck Ainsworth should have voted No. If you keep voting Yes and then say things need to change - they will never change. Vote No and I but you would see some changes to the process pretty damn quick.

What a bunch of *******!

Did they learn this vote and cover move from Stupak?

Spartan, the deadline is Monday.

I call everyone's attention to a website which opened its doors two days ago, on Friday last, www.keepdowntownurban.com (http://www.keepdowntownurban.com/). To me, it's pretty amazing what the owner(s?) of that website have assembled in a very short span of time.

It will be interesting to see if they plan on challenging all of the demolitions, and not just the two that we've balked about.

Realistically, I'm all for removing truly hopeless eyesores. But I'm not for taking the easy way out and compromising the end result.

I'd like to know the same, Nick. I suspect that in the near future those answers will be forthcoming ... we shall see. I don't get the sense from what is present there already that a knee-jerk "absolutely not" position is being taken ... probably, it is an evolving thing. I don't see signs of extremism/absolutism being expressed there from what I've read thus far.

I also note that all opponents to the SandRidge proposal are not of one mind. For example, I personally don't care that much about the former Oklahoma Savings & Loan (and adjoining structures) being demolished as long as a new use which is presented is better ... and personally, I like SandRidge's proposal in its west side ... seems to me that it better integrates SandRidge into downtown and at the same time reduces its relative solation as part of the whole ... but I know that other opponents are concerned about the elimination of the "wall" along Robinson at that point. My own personal concern is the India Temple building, as I've already said.

Lots of concerns are involved.

The appeal was filed yesterday, April 19. I've started a blog article on it, still in progress, but you can presently read the Letter of Appeal by Preservation Oklahoma, Inc., the group which manages the Overholser Mansion in Oklahoma City. I'm quickly adding much more information there, but you can read the appeal document now:

Doug Dawgz Blog: Appeal From SandRidge Decision By Preservation Oklahoma (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/04/appeal-from-sandridge-decision-by.html)

The article is done. It pretty much explains procedure, gives a description of Preservation Oklahoma, the appellant, and some other stuff.

I applaud the efforts of Preservation Oklahoma in this matter. I've spent more time absorbing the "plaza," and the more time I've spent with the renderings, the more disturbed I've gotten. It sucks.

How on earth did this get past the downtown design committee? Or, perhaps, the question should be, "Who is on that committee and what are their qualifications?"

Thanks for the coverage Doug! Great to hear. I hope they will let us know if there is anything we can do to help in their cause.

I applaud the efforts of Preservation Oklahoma in this matter. I've spent more time absorbing the "plaza," and the more time I've spent with the renderings, the more disturbed I've gotten. It sucks.

How on earth did this get past the downtown design committee? Or, perhaps, the question should be, "Who is on that committee and what are their qualifications?"

Some info (pics/names can be found on Steve's blog:
Since You Asked … | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/04/10/since-you-asked/)

as far as qualifications of the individuals I think Steve had that in a recent Oklahoman article but don't have a link handy...

Interesting...


From the AIA:

Speaker Profile | Speaker's Registry (http://speakers.aia.org/speaker/398/profile)

Speaker Profile

Mr. Rob Rogers, FAIA

Rob is a principal at Rogers Marvel Architects (RMA), the New York firm he founded with Jonathan Marvel in 1992. RMA, along with West 8 from Rotterdam, recently won the international competition to redesign Governors Island, a mix of natural and created landscapes that will form a 40 acre World Park. The firm has designed many public spaces in downtown New York City, most notably the New York Public Library Mulberry Street Branch, 55 Water Street’s Elevated Acre and the New York Stock Exchange Streetscapes and Security. RMA has won national, state, and city design awards, including the 2006 AIA Medal of Honor, New York Chapter’s highest honor, for which the firm is recognized “for their steadfast commitment to design excellence on all scales ranging from furniture to building to planning and landscape.”

Rob has taught design studios at Pratt, Columbia, Harvard, Parsons and Washington University in St. Louis. He is a GSA Peer and he lectures frequently at universities and institutions, most recently at the Malaysian Institute of Architects, the National Academy of Sciences, and Harvard University. In 2008 Rob was named a fellow of the AIA.

Rob built his early architecture career at I.M. Pei & Partners, where he worked on projects around the world, including the Grande Louvre in Paris, the Bank of China in Hong Kong, and the Science Center at Choate Rosemary Hall. At Rice University he won the prestigious Fossi Fellowship and graduated in 1983 with a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor in Architecture. In 1989 he earned his Master of Design Studies degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Unlike NYC, we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown, we have plenty of it compared to our lack of density.

Unlike NYC, we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown, we have plenty of it compared to our lack of density.

Are you comparing undeveloped space OKC parks...or saying we need more people in order to justify more parks?

Sandridge isn't making a park - they making open space. OKC doesn't need modern day NYC architects, we need the people from 100 years ago that made NYC urban. If you brought 1,000,000 people into downtown OKC and asked all of them what OKC needs more of, less than 10 would say "more corporate plazas". Unfortunately, Tom Ward is one of the 10. The others are on the Downtown Design Committee.

How anyone can walk into downtown OKC and say what we need is more open space is beyond me.

How anyone can walk into downtown OKC and say what we need is more open space is beyond me.

:congrats:

LOL...here we go again: "we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown"

Yet we are adding a string of parks from Downtown to the River and beyond (MAPS 3/Core to Shore/70 acres+)...we are heavily renovating the Myriad Gardens park space (and according to one of the earlier Devon articles, they are adding a 2+ acre park to their area...this may be what caused some confusion during the MAPS vote, thinking this was the same park as the one in MAPS 3).

Now IF you are saying that because of all of the above we don't need any MORE park space downtown, then we are in agreement.

wer're not adding a string of parks from downtown to the river, we are taking blighted area and making parks out of it.

There is a need for parks downtown, and OKC has and will have enough of them. But there is also more of a need for buildings downtown and with this SandRidge plan, OKC will have less of them.

LOL...here we go again: "we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown"

Yet we are adding a string of parks from Downtown to the River and beyond (MAPS 3/Core to Shore/70 acres+)...we are heavily renovating the Myriad Gardens park space (and according to one of the earlier Devon articles, they are adding a 2+ acre park to their area...this may be what caused some confusion during the MAPS vote, thinking this was the same park as the one in MAPS 3).

Now IF you are saying that because of all of the above we don't need any MORE park space downtown, then we are in agreement.

That is kind of what I am saying. We have 4 things going on so it gets a little complicated.

1. C2S Parks (Promenade and Central parks). South of downtown with the goal of luring residential development like Central Park (NYC) or Boston Common. This area is currently used for junk yards

2. Myriad Gardens Renovations. An existing park that is being rebuilt with funds from a new TIFF district.

3. Devon Tower Park. Small park being built on the site of the Devon Tower. This area was once a parking deck. Am I happy that there will be yet another open space area? Nope. I would have preferred something else but Devon bought a big chunk of land and I don't think they could have covered more of the site with structures if they wanted to. I think the park in front of Devon will be used very very little. Once again - downtown office workers don't lounge around in plazas wearing togas and sandals contemplating the meaning of life. They work.

4. Sandridge Plaza. The Sandridge plan is going to remove 4 structures and replace a 5th. What they are going to out and put in it is place is a corporate plaza that will be useless. We are going to lose a substantial portion of urban fabric in north downtown that will never be replaced.

Sandridge agues that the current buildings block the view of the Sandridge tower from the street - well hell's bells, what do they think a bunch of trees are going to do to the view of Sandridge tower from the street. The scene from 'My Cousin Vinny' where he is asking the eye witness about all the stuff blocking his view of the Sack-o-Suds keeps playing thru my mind. "What do they call these little green things on the trees?" "Leaves."

Come on, lighten up, a little green space downtown won't hurt anything. Moreover, the buildings being demolished downtown won't alter our skyline in any way, the buildings being demolished are not even visible in the skyline silhouette, the buildings that are being demolished, need to be, there are not doing anything for downtown. I say demolish the old OGE building to, and build a new mid-rise.

Come on, lighten up, a little green space downtown won't hurt anything. Moreover, the buildings being demolished downtown won't alter our skyline in any way, the buildings being demolished are not even visible in the skyline silhouette, the buildings that are being demolished, need to be, there are not doing anything for downtown. I say demolish the old OGE building to, and build a new mid-rise.

Shame on you!

I am too far away to do it myself, but how about if someone local (and under the cover of night) takes a cro-bar and removes some of the concrete facing of the India temple and expose what type of history is actually being concealed by the 60's facade; take some pictures and splash it over the news with the headline: "Sandridge has something to hide: namely their disregard for Oklahoma's history". Sounds like a Goldman Sachs scenario to me.

For those of you that care, please, please do something drastic! Strap yourselves to the building or burn an effigy in front of the Sandridge Tower to embarras the hell out of them. I think it is the only thing that will get the public's attention at this point. The time for sweet-talk is over.

embarras the hell out of them

I agree!

LOL...here we go again: "we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown"

Yet we are adding a string of parks from Downtown to the River and beyond (MAPS 3/Core to Shore/70 acres+)...we are heavily renovating the Myriad Gardens park space (and according to one of the earlier Devon articles, they are adding a 2+ acre park to their area...this may be what caused some confusion during the MAPS vote, thinking this was the same park as the one in MAPS 3).

Now IF you are saying that because of all of the above we don't need any MORE park space downtown, then we are in agreement.

Yes, that is why we are saying that, because C2S, MAPS 3, and Project 180/Myriad Gardens reno with planned programming, and Devons park (with planned activities) were already in the works BEFORE Sandridge ever proposed anything. That's why the article in the Gazette I wrote and my comments mentioned those things in mind.

Come on, lighten up, a little green space downtown won't hurt anything. Moreover, the buildings being demolished downtown won't alter our skyline in any way, the buildings being demolished are not even visible in the skyline silhouette, the buildings that are being demolished, need to be, there are not doing anything for downtown. I say demolish the old OGE building to, and build a new mid-rise.

You're kidding right, we've already established that DT will have PLENTY of greenspace with Myriad Gardens, C2S string of parks, Devon's park, park by new Fed building, Memorial grounds, park where new Chamber HQ might be built, Maywood Park, Park at Shartel and 7th, etc. Again, it's not a park, it's a corporate plaza. Why can't Tom Ward be original instead of copying Chesapeake, only in an urban setting.

metro, you are acting like they are demolishing the Sandridge tower, and wanting to replace it with campus, demolishing those outdated building will not hurt the urban fabric of downtown, it will actually help it. Our DT doesn't need to be more dense, it just needs to be upgraded and modernized. Take Houston for example, there is plenty of green space, and leisure area in their DT, and there skyscrapers are spacious and doesn't seem congested, we need to model their downtown design package.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=458&stc=1&d=1271945243

G. Walker, just curious do you live or work DT? I used to work DT and I have lived DT for 4 years. I also sit on 2 different Downtown Residents Boards and hear complaints/comments on a daily basis. I also attend regular urban planning, walkability, sustainability, design and other meetings and conferences. Just curious what your experience on urban design is? And comparing us to Houston is laughable.

park by new Fed building
Speaking of which have you seen the landscaping rendering with the tall grass being proposed where the the Kerr-Mac now stands.
This has already been tried at The Fed building and it was a disaster. Now they are mowing it. Seems like they would know that, but not when they operate in a vacuum.
Here is the link
The Architect's Newspaper (http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4232)

Well said MIKELS

G. Walker, just curious do you live or work DT? I used to work DT and I have lived DT for 4 years. I also sit on 2 different Downtown Residents Boards and hear complaints/comments on a daily basis. I also attend regular urban planning, walkability, sustainability, design and other meetings and conferences. Just curious what your experience on urban design is? And comparing us to Houston is laughable.

No, I don't live in DT, but I do work in downtown, and go downtown on a daily basis, so I see what you are talking about. I live in Norman, and have MPA, nor does my urban planning experience match to yours. But I do my research, and I am not comparing OKC to Houston, I just stated we should model their design package that they implemented in the early 80's. I mean honestly what good will those old building do for downtown? I would rather have a green corporate plaza building downtown that will bring pedestrian traffic downtown to support retail business, and the downtown housing market, rather then a old vacant building just standing there with no use. Its common sense, its not that hard, basic economics.

@G.Walker - Out of curosity, why do you think downtown OKC needs more green space?

Mikels, I do recall that myself come to think of it...

@G.Walker - Out of curosity, why do you think downtown OKC needs more green space?

Parks, plazas, green space, whatever you want to call it, will raise property values in that area, hence we will be able to attract valuable development in those areas. Having old vacant buildings with no use is only lowering property values.