Chris Matthews ....

Chris Matthews IS laughable. What other searing logic do you have for us today?

If there was so much value in the out buildings, why didn't the other developers by the complex for the low, low price of $25 mil and then sell off the tower? If the other buildings being renovated is such a great value and it increases the value of the tower, this should have been a no-brainer. And yet no one did. Makes you wonder.

If there was so much value in the out buildings, why didn't the other developers by the complex for the low, low price of $25 mil and then sell off the tower? If the other buildings being renovated is such a great value and it increases the value of the tower, this should have been a no-brainer. And yet no one did. Makes you wonder.

You're kidding right. That would be like buying a house just to get the storage shed and then trying to sell the house. There is a huge price difference between these buildings and the entire property.

I think you missed Rover's point Kerry. I believe what he is saying is that the entire property could be bought for $25 million, then you could turn around and sell the tower for the same amount, thus acquiring all of those wonderful buildings for basically nothing. The problem then becomes will those buildings still sit vacant ten years from now.

Nick/Doug/Steve,

Sounds like City Planner Susan Miller screwed it up at the end of the meeting when the two sides agreed to an engineering report and then she spoke that it didn't matter, so all Preservation Oklahoma was left with is the ability to do a Historical Analysis, not Engineering Analysis. Why is Sandridge so deadset against a structural report? Because they don't want the info to leak out that they might be salvagable?

Nick/Doug/Steve,

Sounds like City Planner Susan Miller screwed it up at the end of the meeting when the two sides agreed to an engineering report and then she spoke that it didn't matter, so all Preservation Oklahoma was left with is the ability to do a Historical Analysis, not Engineering Analysis. Why is Sandridge so deadset against a structural report? Because they don't want the info to leak out that they might be salvagable?

I watched the last two hours of the hearing online. From what I heard Preservation Oklahoma can only do an analysis if Sandridge agrees to one and my impression was that they would not agree.

I got the impression that the commisioners wanted the structural report.

I watched the last two hours of the hearing online. From what I heard Preservation Oklahoma can only do an analysis if Sandridge agrees to one and my impression was that they would not agree.

From Steve's blog I got the impression that they agreed on it, then City Planner Susan Miller took the stand, spoke about how it wasn't necessary, so Sandridge got it dropped.

I believe Susan Miller also said the structural report was not a requirement and it was dropped also. It will be interesting as to what the board will consider on June 17th.

Also note that Susan Miller reported that "structural integrity" was one of the four standards used by the DDRC in ruling in favor of SandRidge. Did Susan Miller help or hurt SandRidge? If the DDRC did base its decision on structural integrity, and that's not supposed to be a factor in their decision, does that back Preservation Oklahoma's claim that the DDRC ruling was based on insufficient information and incorrect standards? I agree with Popsy - June 17 will be very interesting. Get out your popcorn.

What I would more liken it to is to find a beat up old car with a limited edition engine in it. Go buy the car, take the engine out and sell the rest for parts or whatever.

SR obviously believes their asset becomes more valuable after their plans than before. The preservationists don't care whether it costs or makes SR money...they are playing on house money with this bet. The arguement of historical significance may indeed be valid...I wouldn't even have enough knowledge to know. But if it is valuable for the PUBLIC but not for SR, then the PUBLIC ought to go buy the properties and become the developer with whomever they choose (and we know their record on this activity has been steller :LolLolLol). If they can acquire strategic properties under eminant domain, then I am sure if it has the significance claimed then it would be no sweat for them to take it from SR.

BTW, in commercial real-estate of this size, $25 mil was cheap for the tower alone and those interested in the other buildings should have been able to get that money if the other buildings are valuable too. If they paid $25 mil just for the 6 bldgs to be torn down it is just about $4 mil each. Surely they could have found 6 developers willing to pony up $4.25 mil to get to these valuable assets, right? Then, after investing what SR has and is to upgrade the tower to modern standards they could have made a kiling on the tower and paid for their buildings and the cost of rennovating them.

Of course, it is hard to believe that there would have been demand for buying/leasing the new housing without workers downtown to live in them.

Also note that Susan Miller reported that "structural integrity" was one of the four standards used by the DDRC in ruling in favor of SandRidge. Did Susan Miller help or hurt SandRidge? If the DDRC did base its decision on structural integrity, and that's not supposed to be a factor in their decision, does that back Preservation Oklahoma's claim that the DDRC ruling was based on insufficient information and incorrect standards? I agree with Popsy - June 17 will be very interesting. Get out your popcorn.

Steve. If "structural integrity" was not supposed to be a factor, what factors that were supposed to be considered was there insufficient information?

I don't remember the buildings actually being on the market for sale.

Rover, you keep forgetting that Sandridge has no intent of selling those buildings, you keep beating a dead horse. Eminent Domain? Not likely. When is the last case of eminent domain on a major structure in this City?

Steve, thanks for clarifying things a little.

Midwest City wiped out a whole commercial area by eminent domain for its redevelopment on 29th Street...

OKC is not MWC, and MWC's development had no buildings worth saving. #fail

Exactly Soonerus!

They wiped out blighted area for commercial development not open space. The development increased the tax base and did not take away from it.

Land use and zoning requirements are not the same as eminent domain. Not legally speaking and not functionally speaking.

OKC is not MWC, and MWC's development had no buildings worth saving. #fail

Some of the building owners did not feel that way...

SR does not have the power of eminent domain.

How is that wrong? Is it wrong to be advocates of a particular subject, in this case the continuity of Downtown OKC's urban reniassance? No. It's not.

Your argument is flawed. We obviously aren't the only ones without money. If all the urbanists are looking for private money to "fund their agenda", or whatever placeholder word you all can come up with that makes you look intelligent, then why are there developments going on in Midtown by Clagg and associates, and formerly Banta? Why has TAP Architecture erected several urban housing projects? Why are the Humprheys investing in downtown, not to mention Preftakes, Dowell, Mason, and many other names in Downtown? I am merely an advocate for a better Downtown OKC, and if that's such a bad 'agenda', then I sincerely think you opposing sides are bent in the head.

My suggestion to the suburbanists. Maybe your thinking needs to be revised. Private money does not entitle you to anything you want to do in this country. Hello? This country was built on the foundation of keeping powers in check. That includes this private money you are all so ready to defend, even when it threatens your own city.

Did someone above infer that it was ok to wipe out blighted buildings for commercial use? I think Sandridge could make a case that the buildings in question are subsantially a case of blight. Open space not being for commercial use? Seems to me if it increases the value of their tower that would be a commercial purpose. Loss of tax base? Seems to me if the value of the tower increases, the tax rate increases and probably at a higher rate that what exists presently. Loss of pedestrian traffic? Does any exist right now? Seems to me I have been down there and noticed minimal pedestrian traffic. Do you have to be a surburbanist to favor the Sandridge proposal. No, as I am not one. Are urbanist trying to save these buildings for the other residents of our City. No, ninety-nine per cent of them could care less. Who even suggested that SR had the power of eminent domain? Next.

I'm going to disagree, and I am not firmly on either side. I don't believe all of the buildings in question could be described as blighted. Blighted is old broken down warehouses with sagging chain link fences and decaying buildings without any redeeming architectural details.

Again, although it's not apples to apples, look what was done with 9th Street. It is totally amazing that they've turned that into a destination, considering that a couple of years ago the area looked as if it would be a kindness of bulldoze it, and I would actually have described it as blighted.

We talk about Oklahoma City barely looking like a city and we're excited about a new downtown building (Devon). Why not take a little time to make sure we really need to tear these down? If they're structurally unsound and cannot be repaired, that's different. But, it doesn't sound like we absolutely know that is the case. If they have very few redeeming architectural details and no clear-cut use, that's different as well. If Sandridge wanted to tear them down to build a new building in their place and they were either structurally unsound or had few redeeming architectural details, I think everyone here would be very happy that was going to take place. It's just that, when you want your city to look more like a city, not less, it's hard to get excited about a plaza replacing a building. I've seen very few downtown plazas that are anything to get excited about, or that get much use. If it were useful space for Sandridge they needed, I'd be much more firmly on their side.

What I would more liken it to is to find a beat up old car with a limited edition engine in it. Go buy the car, take the engine out and sell the rest for parts or whatever.

SR obviously believes their asset becomes more valuable after their plans than before. The preservationists don't care whether it costs or makes SR money...they are playing on house money with this bet. The arguement of historical significance may indeed be valid...I wouldn't even have enough knowledge to know. But if it is valuable for the PUBLIC but not for SR, then the PUBLIC ought to go buy the properties and become the developer with whomever they choose (and we know their record on this activity has been steller :LolLolLol). If they can acquire strategic properties under eminant domain, then I am sure if it has the significance claimed then it would be no sweat for them to take it from SR.

First of all, I think we'll speak for ourselves..preservationists don't need to use the Rover/Popsy/Soonerus crowd to convey how we feel. We can use our own words for that.

Second, aren't you just clouding the picture with this? If the bldgs have historic value you think the city should use eminent domain and buy them from SandRidge?? That sounds so complicated..here's a better idea. Why doesn't SandRidge just put the buildings on the market??


BTW, in commercial real-estate of this size, $25 mil was cheap for the tower alone and those interested in the other buildings should have been able to get that money if the other buildings are valuable too.

Well, a few years ago you could have bought the First National Center, the largest and most iconic piece of real estate downtown, for a mere $5 mil. The most recent and highest transaction on record had it going for $10 mil. And yeah, SandRidge got a heck of a deal with the entire city block for $25 mil. But is this some secret that the price was so low that it led to development advantages? I don't believe in that anymore, because I've seen a lot of cheap deals amount in nothing to brag about, FNC case in point. The truth is that Downtown OKC real estate is dirt cheap in general, and possibly more devalued that virtually anywhere else in the country that I can think of.

But as for the $25 mil SandRidge Energy deal..keep in mind who was on the other side of that deal, Anadarko Energy and Kerr McGee.


Of course, it is hard to believe that there would have been demand for buying/leasing the new housing without workers downtown to live in them.

Nobody is going to tell you that downtown offices aren't important to feed downtown housing demand, but if you were more informed about downtown housing trends you would know that virtually 90% of the new downtown residents actually commute AWAY from downtown to work. They live downtown for the lifestyle, not always the convenience. We've been trying to little success to sell convenience over lifestyle honestly.

Interesting article that 'relates.'

Turning Downtown into Suburbia ? The Case of Hartford, Connecticut | Planetizen (http://www.planetizen.com/node/44254)

I think you missed Rover's point Kerry. I believe what he is saying is that the entire property could be bought for $25 million, then you could turn around and sell the tower for the same amount, thus acquiring all of those wonderful buildings for basically nothing. The problem then becomes will those buildings still sit vacant ten years from now.

I got his point and my analogy is perfect. Do you know the cost involved in getting a $25 million loan that you plan to try and flip (minus property from the orginal purchase)? I don't think there is a bank in the world that would let you do that.

Nick/Doug/Steve,

Sounds like City Planner Susan Miller screwed it up at the end of the meeting when the two sides agreed to an engineering report and then she spoke that it didn't matter, so all Preservation Oklahoma was left with is the ability to do a Historical Analysis, not Engineering Analysis. Why is Sandridge so deadset against a structural report? Because they don't want the info to leak out that they might be salvagable?

Yeah, keep in mind that the entire show yesterday on SandRidge's side was ran by their attorney who tried his damnedest to not budge on anything. Who knows if SandRidge is really as non-receptive to ideas as they seem, but when you let attorneys run the show, it certainly seems like it. The bottom line is that these buildings are structurally sound, way contrary to what SandRidge wants everyone to believe--and all they've done to prove their case is point out where they think it may have structural issues and any possible difficulties. I believe strongly that you can go through ANY old building and make a case for why it should be demolished. What SandRidge wants left out as much as possible is the revelation of the reasons the building is actually a lot more structurally sound than they make it out to be.

___________________
Steve, as for Susan Miller's part in it..I think she helped SandRidge and this is why: She, without meaning to, gave them an argument to bypass the engineering structural report and insist on its own word being good enough for the record on that matter. All Ms. Miller really intended to say was, "Guys we're so far off on a tangent here.." Unfortunately it was a tangent that seemed to matter A LOT to the committee members and they all wanted to see a true structural report, and her statement just confused everyone even more and then SandRidge's attorney just did some more posturing and asserted himself and basically got what he wanted, which was for that to not happen, and for there to be no true statement as to structural stability. He also tried to insist on SandRidge having a say in who is selected (and paid by the National Trust) to do the historic analysis but he did not get that.

In all honesty it turned into a very crazy, very unorganized meeting at the end after myself, Jonathon Poston, and Mark Beffort were heard for public comment. In fact Mr. Poston's called the meeting a zoo toward the end, and that's exactly what it was..

On the bright side we did get the historic analysis and the National Trust is looking for a contractor asap to get that done within 28 (now 27) days which is going to be a stretch. The historic analysis will hopefully counter some of SandRidge's assertions that the buildings have no historic merit..especially with the KerMac, and it is my hope that the historic analysis will speak to a certain extent to the issue of structural soundness as well.

SR obviously believes their asset becomes more valuable after their plans than before. The preservationists don't care whether it costs or makes SR money...they are playing on house money with this bet.

I'm actually curious what SR believes about this. Because the value of an asset is only important if you need to sell. It's like an NBA team. Every year Forbes tells us what NBA teams are worth. That's all well and good. But, when you go to sell a team (or building) that's when you find out what it's REALLY worth. And it's only worth what someone is willing to pay you. In some cases, that's nothing, like has happened with the Memphis Grizzlies. There are no buyers. It's possible Sandridge values the concept of a plaza but were they to sell, the new buyer wouldn't. So, I'm not sure we can definitively say that preservationists are playing with house money. I think there's too much uncertainty to say that. And, if the preservationists "won" and Sandridge sold the buildings rather than spending money to build the plaza, it's possible they would actually end up with more cash flow, although no plaza. It might be that a new buyer, at some future point in time, would be perfectly happy with a building and no plaza, especially if the surrounding buildings were rehabbed.

Spartan. What I heard was just the opposite. You did not get the historic analysis unless Sand Ridge agrees to it and I do not think they will. Perhaps Steve could clarify.

[Replying to Betts] You have no idea what you are talking about...idle speculation...you are very inconsistent...
You may be right ... Betts may not have been living in Oklahoma City in 1983 when the photo below was taken ... please, please, puhleeze, find me some trees ...

Photo credit: Steve Lackmeyer & Jack Money, OKC: 2nd Time Around

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/myriadgardens/myriadgardens_begins_1983.jpg

I was living here then, although I was pretty busy with kids and medical school so saw a lot of the work via television and newspaper. I was just trying to remember what kind of trees were there because until quite recently, I would walk over to the Myriad Gardens and sneak my dog in. I thought I remembered a lot of short trees, and remembering the era in which the park was planted, thought there were probably a lot of the then very popular Bradford pears. My bad, as I was remembering poorly. I shouldn't have said anything.

Spartan. What I heard was just the opposite. You did not get the historic analysis unless Sand Ridge agrees to it and I do not think they will. Perhaps Steve could clarify.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SandRidge conceded to THAT. It was all very hard to keep track of because their legal counsel was extremely evasive and nondirect in his answers to the committee, the committee was extremely confused, we weren't much more aware of what was going on.. but I believe their attorney DID agree to the historical analysis but not anything specifically focused on the issue of analyzing structural stability.

If I am wrong, then a lot of us are wrong..including Mr. Poston who mentioned to me that he's going to start asap on the historical analysis.

I zoned out with sleep issues, nursed by a little of my buddy W.L. Weller's tonic, and haven't got my blog stuff up yet though I do have a couple of good-as-my-cell-phone-can-do videos of that part which followed the parties' presentations, as well as a few photos. I also have some opinions of several posts made to this point (after the hearing) and I'll give them shortly.

For now, here's a pic of those who spoke in favor of Preservation Oklahoma's position (though Nick was much too quick to throw my India Temple under the truck, IMHO) ...

(click the pic for larger)

Left to Right: Katie Friddle, Executive Director, Preservation Oklahoma; Jonathan H. Poston, Director of the Southwest office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; Suzette Hatfield, board member of Preservation Oklahoma; Barrett Williamson, Architect; Nick Roberts, citizen blogger.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/preservationok_510.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/indiatemple/preservationok.jpg)

All of their presentations were fine but, in my opinion, Suzette's was the superior of the Oklahoma City contingent but Poston's brief, concise and powerful presentation was a knockout.

Very adorable, Nick!


*edit - had to point out this is my 666th post.

You may be right ... Betts may not have been living in Oklahoma City in 1983 when the photo below was taken ... please, please, puhleeze, find me some trees ...

Photo credit: Steve Lackmeyer & Jack Money, OKC: 2nd Time Around

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/myriadgardens/myriadgardens_begins_1983.jpg

If that is a 1983 photo then Oklahoma Tower, which opened its doors in 1982 is invisible.

Library, Leadership Square, IRS building, Devon's current building, Rennasaince Hotel, Myriad (Cox Center) additions, Art Museum, Ford Center ...all good additions on the cleared off land. OKC is 10 times more appealing downtown than it was 25 years ago. I trust the next 25 will be even more special and make OKC downtown a REAL urban community.

Very adorable, Nick!


*edit - had to point out this is my 666th post.

if it's any consolation I'm approaching my 12,666th post. :omg:

I would say that is a late 70's photo...

I'm actually curious what SR believes about this. Because the value of an asset is only important if you need to sell. It's like an NBA team. Every year Forbes tells us what NBA teams are worth. That's all well and good. But, when you go to sell a team (or building) that's when you find out what it's REALLY worth. And it's only worth what someone is willing to pay you. In some cases, that's nothing, like has happened with the Memphis Grizzlies. There are no buyers. It's possible Sandridge values the concept of a plaza but were they to sell, the new buyer wouldn't. So, I'm not sure we can definitively say that preservationists are playing with house money. I think there's too much uncertainty to say that. And, if the preservationists "won" and Sandridge sold the buildings rather than spending money to build the plaza, it's possible they would actually end up with more cash flow, although no plaza. It might be that a new buyer, at some future point in time, would be perfectly happy with a building and no plaza, especially if the surrounding buildings were rehabbed.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one Betts. The value of an asset is also important when one wants to borrow or when one wants to sell their stock. Two things I am sure Sandrige does from time to time.

Library, Leadership Square, IRS building, Devon's current building, Rennasaince Hotel, Myriad (Cox Center) additions, Art Museum, Ford Center ...all good additions on the cleared off land. OKC is 10 times more appealing downtown than it was 25 years ago. I trust the next 25 will be even more special and make OKC downtown a REAL urban community.

The Oklahoma Art Museum is a re use of the historic Centre Theater.
This is a prime example of what the fight is all about.:artist:

I think the only thing left is the location of the cinema and lobby. Otherwise it was a demolish of chronically empty and dilapidated building and build new, wasn't it?

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one Betts. The value of an asset is also important when one wants to borrow or when one wants to sell their stock. Two things I am sure Sandrige does from time to time.

But do you REALLY think a plaza will substantially increase the value of the building? If so, it will definitely be the most impressive plaza I've ever seen. To be honest with you, I've never seen one I like. The last thing I would look at if trying to decide whether to buy Sandridge stock would be the presence or absence of a plaza, and even their building, unless it were something like the Devon building, would have virtually no influence on my decision making. I'd be looking at their business, not their building.

The impression could be important to their banks. Who knows. But the bottom line is that it SR's responsibility to know what is of value to them as a company and what is not. It is not up to the public to dictate. Not in America.

But do you REALLY think a plaza will substantially increase the value of the building? If so, it will definitely be the most impressive plaza I've ever seen. To be honest with you, I've never seen one I like. The last thing I would look at if trying to decide whether to buy Sandridge stock would be the presence or absence of a plaza, and even their building, unless it were something like the Devon building, would have virtually no influence on my decision making. I'd be looking at their business, not their building.

If you look at their business you have to look at their assets also. I do not know if the value of the building would increase or not. I do not know if SR considers the old buildings to be blighted or not as I have never been in them. For all I know those buildings could be infested with rats and/or other vermin that could pose a health risk to all that work downtown. I do feel that it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment for their employees to have to look out at or down at all of those aging empty buildings. Perhaps SR is trying to perform a humanitarian act here and we just don't know all the facts. I also think I know that SR feels strongly about it and seem to have the support of some heavy hitters in town. I think I understand the passion of the urbanists and preservationists and don't blame them for giving it their best shot, but I do not agree and I am just one person with an opinion and I am not trying to sway anyone into thinking as I do.

The impression could be important to their banks. Who knows. But the bottom line is that it SR's responsibility to know what is of value to them as a company and what is not. It is not up to the public to dictate. Not in America.

I think a city belongs to its citizens. If the public never gets to dictate, then perhaps we should do away with all building codes. Those that have the money can build whatever they want wherever they want. Of course that means one could put low budget housing or a gas station next to a $5 million mansion if the builder bought the land. After all, it's not up to his neighbors to dictate, right? One can carry your statement to ridiculous extremes. Preservation is simply a different sort of building code, IMO. It too can be carried to extremes, and should be thoughtful. I think all that's being asked is that we be thoughtful about the value of these buildings. Are they historically significant, are they structurally viable and are they worth preserving. I'm not saying it's a given, but I would certainly like it given some thought. I don't see any need to rush. It's not as if the plaza is needed to house employees, store equipment, etc.

For all I know those buildings could be infested with rats and/or other vermin that could pose a health risk to all that work downtown.

Lol


I do feel that it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment for their employees to have to look out at or down at all of those aging empty buildings.

Lol


Perhaps SR is trying to perform a humanitarian act here and we just don't know all the facts.

Lol

I would say that is a late 70's photo...
I was making my best guess on the date ... the book does not give a date ... but it cannot be too far off. The point is, there were no trees to be felled when the picture was taken. Get it?

The impression could be important to their banks. Who knows. But the bottom line is that it SR's responsibility to know what is of value to them as a company and what is not. It is not up to the public to dictate. Not in America.
Rover, why do you keep saying this kind of thing? EVEN IN AMERICA cities have zoning, improvement, and/or demolition requirements as parts of their ordinances which circumvent the absolute right of a property owner to do as he/she/it pleases. If you own a piece of property within the city's limits, the same principle applies to you, too.

Please, find a new tune to play.

Spartan. What I heard was just the opposite. You did not get the historic analysis unless Sand Ridge agrees to it and I do not think they will. Perhaps Steve could clarify.

I need to visit with Spartan to get a better understanding of what he's saying. Here's is what I know:
1. SandRidge and Preservation Oklahoma are giving very different translations of statements made by Bob Blackburn and the state preservation office. So far Blackburn has not appeared at these meeting and I suspect such confusion will continue unless that changes.
2. I'm also fuzzy on what role historic merit plays in this matter. I'm attempting the clarify that.
3. Poston did view the buildings in question - but did not get an inside tour. What he's offering to pay for is a much more in-depth study - which SandRidge is refusing. I do not know why SandRidge is refusing this offer and they are not granting interviews.
4. What the Board of Adjustment came very close to demanding was a structural engineering report - not a historic analysis - though the historic analysis was also discussed.

I am just worried about the entire development. Sandridge has been around for 5 or 6 years and has only made a profit the first two years. What makes us think that they won't be bought out next year or in 6 months?

These buildings outlasted Kerr McGee. What makes us think that a company basically in its infancy is going to be around in 10 years?

Sandridge is not Devon or Chesapeake. It is a fraction of their size when I say fraction I mean 1/20th the size. They just spend like crazy so people think they are big. They are insanely in debt and we think they can afford to spend $100 million to develop a plaza. We shall see......

Also I think this plaza would be a great place for homeless to hang out at night. It is so disconnected from the street and will be above grade and with all the trees they would not be seen. Perfect place to sleep!

Doug, that photo would be approximately 1978 Here's why:
It doesn't show the Biltmore, which came down in 1977. But it shows the Tivoli Inn, which came down the next year (I'm going on memory).
It also doesn't show the Galleria towers under construction - which were underway 1981-1982. I'm going on memory folks - and I was kid working downtown during that era - but I do recall some trees and higher berms established along the perimeter of the gardens circa 1982. The more I think about this, it is possible that the original plantings did include some Bradford Pears. A lot of the early work was redone before the serious development of the gardens began in the mid-1980s. To get the real story I'd need to visit with Jim Loftis, Jim Tolbert and look at some paperwork I have.

Doug, that photo would be approximately 1978 Here's why:
It doesn't show the Biltmore, which came down in 1977. But it shows the Tivoli Inn, which came down the next year (I'm going on memory).
It also doesn't show the Galleria towers under construction - which were underway 1981-1982. I'm going on memory folks - and I was kid working downtown during that era - but I do recall some trees and higher berms established along the perimeter of the gardens circa 1982. The more I think about this, it is possible that the original plantings did include some Bradford Pears. A lot of the early work was redone before the serious development of the gardens began in the mid-1980s. To get the real story I'd need to visit with Jim Loftis, Jim Tolbert and look at some paperwork I have.

I do remember that the ground breaking ceremony was September 16, 1975. I do have to admit however that I only had to remember the date for a few minutes as I looked it up on the Myriad Gardens website. The gardens were built over the next four years. The Crystal Bridge was not finished until 1986.

Remember also that construction went in spurts - this wasn't your typical construction project.

I do feel that it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment for their employees to have to look out at or down at all of those aging empty buildings.

That is absolutely ludicrous.

We were on the 4th floor, and were the only ones in the building at the time. Had the whole place to ourselves, pretty much. We went around and looked at the other floors, and the only thing different about the 4th floor was that it was the one that had been cleaned up. All the others had empty boxes, old desks, mountains of dust, scattered papers, etc.

I really don't remember any remaining original interior, but then again, I wasn't looking for it at the time. I think the elevator was fairly old, and perhaps the windows. I'm not really sure, though.

There were no safety hazards that we had to worry about. The only thing they warned us against was putting too many file cabinets in the middle of a large open area on the floor. We had probably 200+ boxes of files stacked up and didn't have any problems, but maintenance had warned us not to get too much more than that at any one time.
Thanks, Hoya. At the meeting on Thursday, Frank Hill, the attorney representing SandRidge, said that none of the buildings had been occupied for a large number of years, 20, I think he said. I stand to be corrected on the number, though.

Does anyone have a link to an on-line video of Thursday's session? I'm having trouble finding it at the City's website.

I know it was on Channel 20 on Thursday night. I too would like to find the video online..too bad the only videos Channel 20 makes easily accessible are their most useless videos..

Thanks, Hoya. At the meeting on Thursday, Frank Hill, the attorney representing SandRidge, said that none of the buildings had been occupied for a large number of years, 20, I think he said. I stand to be corrected on the number, though.
Self-correction: Frank Hill said that none of the buildings (excluding Petroleum Club) had been occupied for 25, not 20, years.

Either way, he is wrong. ;)

If there was a way for me to go through the video of it, it would be really interesting to do a percentage calculation of their legal counsel's lies. My guess: probably between 40-60% lies.