SIRE WebCenter - Published Meeting Viewer (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=862&doctype=AGENDA)

Try that!

The chair of the board of adjustment reminds me a bit of Steve Carell.

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.


Although POK would love to see bona fide structural engineering reports on the properties, it wouldn't make any difference. The ordinance does not include any language regarding structural integrity. If the reports were completed and showed that the buildings are solid and, if the BOA denied any part of SandRidge's plan based on those reports, SandRidge would appeal the decision to district court. The historic building assessment is another story because there is language about historic significance in the ordinance.

I believe SandRidge will fight any historic or other assessment of the properties. Frank Hill said they had been "assessed enough."

Suzette, clarify something for us: can the national trust only do an assessment if it's done with the support of SandRidge, or can the assessment go forward anyway?

SandRidge would have to approve. It's their property, after all. That being said, if the Board of Adjustment believes that such assessment is essential to make an educated decision about the historic significance of the buildings, they may ask SandRidge to cooperate. If SandRidge refuses to cooperate, well, that doesn't send the best signal to the BOA.

I seem to remember the chairman saying something like, "if you want to go any farther with us", when the subject of the engineering reports came up.

OK, I'm still confused: I thought the owner's approval is only needed for "placement" on the national register, and not to "determine eligibility" for placement on the national register.

I just watched some of the meeting on Ch. 20, watching the tail end now, who is this guy on the committee that keeps threatening to leave? He's threatened like 3 times now, if he needs to leave leave. What do you guys think? If he's on the committee shouldn't he be prepared to stay and here out the fullness of both sides?

I'm not the expert on registration that Katie is. Here's a clip from a wiki regarding placement. You're right that eligibility may be determined by someone other than the property owner and the actual nomination for a property may be done without the consent of the owner. However, actual placement is done with owner consent. There are incentives that go with that. Building assessments that require entrance to a property fall under local laws.

National Register of Historic Places - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places)
Any individual can prepare a National Register nomination, although historians and historic preservation consultants often are employed for this work. The nomination contains basic information on the type of significance embodied in the building, district, or site.[19] The State Historic Preservation Office receives National Register nominations and supplies feedback to the nominating individual or group, which is accomplished via a standard nomination form. The SHPO sends each nomination to the state's historic preservation advisory board, which then recommends whether the State Historic Preservation Officer should forward it to the Keeper of the Register. Only the State Historic Preservation Officer may officially nominate a property for inclusion in the National Register. The nomination is sent to the National Park Service, which then approves or denies the nomination. If approved, it is officially entered by the Keeper of the Register into the National Register of Historic Places.[19] Owners also are informed of the nomination during the review by the SHPO. If an owner objects to a nomination, or in the case of a historic district, a majority of owners, then the property cannot be listed in the National Register of Historic Places.[19]

That is absolutely ludicrous.

Congratulations 84. You actually picked up on the intent of the sentence.

I just watched some of the meeting on Ch. 20, watching the tail end now, who is this guy on the committee that keeps threatening to leave? He's threatened like 3 times now, if he needs to leave leave. What do you guys think? If he's on the committee shouldn't he be prepared to stay and here out the fullness of both sides?

I don't think anyone expected the meeting to go past 4:00, much less 5:30. He obviously already had plans at 5:00. I admire his dedication to his duty to the BOA that he stayed to the bitter end.

Metro, actually you've got to give Jim Allen credit - he came in for the meeting even though he was still nursing some injuries (this is what they said at the start of the meeting).
I don't know that anyone anticipated the meeting would go on for four hours. Also, remember - these folks are volunteers - it's not like they're getting paid for their time. It's amazing how much they sacrifice for the good of the community.

I just reviewed the latest lot of letters submitted to the Board of Adjustment in this case. Popsy wrote:

There is currently a push on at OKCTalk, a social networking internet site, to flood your office with emails protesting the Sandridge proposal. The number of people that are for the Sandridge proposal far out number these folks, but because they are not as passionate about the subject they will not voice their opinion like the anti group will. Please let the Board of Adjustment know that this small group does not reflect the consensus of opinion in our City. Thank you.

Popsy, I appreciate that you took the time to express yourself as a concerned citizen. I hate to tell you that you were outnumbered 9 to 1. It didn't look like an OKCTalk crowd to me.

Steve, regarding assessments, eligibility, etc. Perhaps there's confusion between the historic building assessment (this is what the National Trust offered to fund) and an eligibility assessment.

Here's a link to a description of the process involved in the historic building assessment:
http://www.lchip.org/pdf/Historic%20Building%20Assessment%20with%20Preserva tion%20Guidelines%20and%20Historic%20Structure%20R eports.pdf

When POK and Jonathan Poston met with SandRidge, Jonathan brought up the assessment. They recoiled. He told him that the assessments were unbiased and that they were not designed to prove that a building is historic. He told them that, if they were "secure" with their own judgments about the properties, they had nothing to fear because the historic building assessment would likely concur. They didn't want to go there.

Sally Schwenk, in the Downtown Intensive study, gave an informal eligibility assessment for some of the buildings and, I believe, there were 3 or 4 of the demolition targets that she believed may be individually eligible for placement on the Register. Of course, such placement would have to be approved by SandRidge.

I just watched some of the meeting on Ch. 20, watching the tail end now, who is this guy on the committee that keeps threatening to leave? He's threatened like 3 times now, if he needs to leave leave. What do you guys think? If he's on the committee shouldn't he be prepared to stay and here out the fullness of both sides?
Actually, that "guy" is Jim Allen, the one who initially said that he wanted to see structural studies on the properties before he could vote one way or another. The meeting was scheduled to end a 5:00 even though it lasted at least 20 minutes beyond that. You are unfairly characterizing him as making threats ... he was not obligated to stay beyond 5:00 p.m. He was just saying, I'm going to leave. If a hearing in regular court does not get finished by the appointed time (normally 5:00 pm at the latest), the hearing most often is continued to some point in the future. Judges do not have a duty to stay "in court" beyond the pre-existing time slot scheduled for a hearing.

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.
Nick, you would have greater persuasion of you stopped characterizing people as being liars. You need to learn to reign it in.

The chair of the board of adjustment reminds me a bit of Steve Carell.
I don't know who Steve Carell is or what you meant to say, but I thought that Chair Rod Baker was very even handed in his handling of the meeting. He gets high marks from me, regardless of how this all concludes.

I just reviewed the latest lot of letters submitted to the Board of Adjustment in this case. Popsy wrote:

There is currently a push on at OKCTalk, a social networking internet site, to flood your office with emails protesting the Sandridge proposal. The number of people that are for the Sandridge proposal far out number these folks, but because they are not as passionate about the subject they will not voice their opinion like the anti group will. Please let the Board of Adjustment know that this small group does not reflect the consensus of opinion in our City. Thank you.

Popsy, I appreciate that you took the time to express yourself as a concerned citizen. I hate to tell you that you were outnumbered 9 to 1. It didn't look like an OKCTalk crowd to me.
Popsy (I assumed you used a real name in your letter if you actually wrote one, even though you remain an anonymous person here), DID YOU ACTUALLY SAY THAT? Good gawd ... what a scum bag thing to do, if you actually used those words.

Popsy, please tell me that it ain't so.

Doug, now you're letting your emotions get a bit out of control.
Now, that said, it's my experience that OKC Talk has a lot of diversity to it and personally I wouldn't dismiss it. It's on my mandatory daily reading - even when I'm the least popular guy on the board.

Which emotions?

Speaking of emotions..

I just want to say I am sorry if I have embarrassed anyone on the preservation side. I understand my remarks to the BoA were too long. I just had a lot to say and knew I'd never again be heard by SandRidge and Rob Rogers..not to mention the BoA, although I consider being heard by SandRidge to be more important. I won't be speaking next time, just attending and showing support. I am also sorry if some of my over-stated opinions made the building huggers look bad..

I don't know who Steve Carell is or what you meant to say, but I thought that Chair Rod Baker was very even handed in his handling of the meeting. He gets high marks from me, regardless of how this all concludes.

Think it is Steve Carell formerly of the Daily Show and more recently, he stars in The Office, was also Uncle Arthur in the Bewitched movie a couple of years ago and was recently starred in a movie with SNL/30 Rock's, Tina Fey?

Speaking of emotions..

I just want to say I am sorry if I have embarrassed anyone on the preservation side. I understand my remarks to the BoA were too long. I just had a lot to say and knew I'd never again be heard by SandRidge and Rob Rogers..not to mention the BoA, although I consider being heard by SandRidge to be more important. I won't be speaking next time, just attending and showing support. I am also sorry if some of my over-stated opinions made the building huggers look bad..
Not to worry, Nick. Even being on the same general side, no need exists that everyone see everything eye to eye. You should be proud of your gumption and doing what you did.

SIRE WebCenter - Published Meeting Viewer (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=862&doctype=AGENDA)

Try that!
Thanks! I'm trying to do a download and if that is successful I'll try to snip out the non-SandRidge parts.

Popsy (I assumed you used a real name in your letter if you actually wrote one, even though you remain an anonymous person here), DID YOU ACTUALLY SAY THAT? Good gawd ... what a scum bag thing to do, if you actually used those words.

Popsy, please tell me that it ain't so.

Yes Doug, I used my real name and I stand behind every word I wrote as this is how I feel about the situation. Ms. SuzHat seems to take some pleasure in telling me that I was outnumbered 9-1, however I see that as confirming exactly what I wrote. I actually thought 100-200 preservationists/urbanist would write to the Board of Adjustment cosidering the push in the forum to get members to email the BOA. Only nine taking the time to do it makes me think there are many on here that talk the talk but are not ready to walk the walk. You surely must realize the per centage of P/U's in OKC is insignificant to the total poplulation. So where did I lie, misrepresent or do anything to deserve your reference to a scumbag. You are probably still not over the whiner tag. So be it. As to my name, I'm sure Ms. SuzHat could give you my name, but to save time I will tell you it is J. D. Foster.

As to Ms. SuzHat, I would like to ask if it is City policy for their employees to publish letters to City representatives in Social Forums. Please advise me as to the name of your department manager and I will ask him if you do not want to share the information. The least you could have done was detail the other nine letters. There might have been some scumbags amongst them and Doug could have been all inclusive in rooting them out. On second thought, my quess is Dougie only uses that word on people that do not share his opinion and speak their minds.

"The number of people that are for the Sandridge proposal far out number these folks"

This is the only thing I have a problem with. That's an opinion, not fact. I think you would have to argue that people who are passionately in favor of the Sandridge proposal are as likely to write as those passionately against. Most people are somewhere in between, or they're not informed at all. It's a little like voting: those who don't choose to have their voices heard really shouldn't complain at the outcome. You made your voice heard, which is certainly your right, and your opinion is as valuable as anyone's, but it's wrong to imply you speak for others. It's their right to speak for themselves and if they choose not to, they have to bear the consequences.

You are right betts. I left out the "in my opinion" part of that declaration. My opinion is based on conversations with a lot of people, but I certainly did not come close to surveying the majority of the populace so thanks for taking me to task.

Not to worry, Nick. Even being on the same general side, no need exists that everyone see everything eye to eye. You should be proud of your gumption and doing what you did.

Well I'm sorry you misinterpreted my throwing the India Temple under the bus..notice in my compromise I stated that 120 RSK should be moved in placement NEXT to the India Temple, which should remain. Just an example of how perhaps I was ineffective in supporting the preservation side of the argument..

I definitely think you should give facade restoration a shot if the cornice is still in tact, poking out over the recladding.

Yes Doug, I used my real name and I stand behind every word I wrote as this is how I feel about the situation. Ms. SuzHat seems to take some pleasure in telling me that I was outnumbered 9-1, however I see that as confirming exactly what I wrote. I actually thought 100-200 preservationists/urbanist would write to the Board of Adjustment cosidering the push in the forum to get members to email the BOA. Only nine taking the time to do it makes me think there are many on here that talk the talk but are not ready to walk the walk. You surely must realize the per centage of P/U's in OKC is insignificant to the total poplulation. So where did I lie, misrepresent or do anything to deserve your reference to a scumbag. You are probably still not over the whiner tag. So be it. As to my name, I'm sure Ms. SuzHat could give you my name, but to save time I will tell you it is J. D. Foster.

As to Ms. SuzHat, I would like to ask if it is City policy for their employees to publish letters to City representatives in Social Forums. Please advise me as to the name of your department manager and I will ask him if you do not want to share the information. The least you could have done was detail the other nine letters. There might have been some scumbags amongst them and Doug could have been all inclusive in rooting them out. On second thought, my quess is Dougie only uses that word on people that do not share his opinion and speak their minds.
Thanks, JD,

Dougie ... ah, those days are so long ago. I think my middle brother (at almost 67 I'm the youngest of 3) still calls me that childhood name sometimes as do a few of my friends and I still like hearing it, so, thanks.

My scumbag remark was based on this: In my opinion, you badly misrepresented facts in your letter or email which needlessly and erroneously linked this forum's name with a campaign, as you put it, which does not exist in this forum. If there has been a campaign here to "flood your [BOA's] office with emails protesting the SandRidge proposal," I'm certainly unaware of it.

I know that some people do send e-mails to members of council and this or that board to state their viewpoints and encourage others to do so, but I'm not often if ever one of them (and wasn't in this instance), mainly because I don't see much if any value in it. If the BOA would base its decision upon, or be influenced by, a bunch of e-mails on either side of the question, they'd not be doing their job well. That you found it necessary to link this forum's name as you did with such a non-existent campaign here was a low blow to this forum's name.

As to which "side" represents the consensus of opinion in our city, I very much doubt that either you or I (or Suzette, for that matter) have any basis in fact for knowing what, if any, consensus there may be in the city, but that's not part of the scumbag remark. That part was described above. And, no, I don't use terms like that when people here or elsewhere disagree with my own opinions. On the SandRidge matter, particularly, and as I have said before, legitimate reasons exist on/for both "sides" of this matter. I rarely use derogatory terms here, but, when I do, it has nothing to do with someone having a different opinion than I do.

As to Suzette's publication of your (or any other e-mail or letter sent to the BOA), every such communication becomes part of the public record, just as John Williams' letter did to the BOA on Skirvin Hilton letterhead which favored the SandRidge proposal (or, similarly, Clay Bennett's and Larry Nichols' letters when the matter was pending before the DDRC). Should any such communication wind up being republished elsewhere, such as here, there is nothing wrong with that and, in fact, it should probably be expected. That just goes with the turf of "going public."

Well I'm sorry you misinterpreted my throwing the India Temple under the bus..notice in my compromise I stated that 120 RSK should be moved in placement NEXT to the India Temple, which should remain. Just an example of how perhaps I was ineffective in supporting the preservation side of the argument..

I definitely think you should give facade restoration a shot if the cornice is still in tact, poking out over the recladding.
Sorry if I didn't have my ears completely open when you were speaking, Nick. As to the cornice, yep, its still there and you can see it from street level without any problem.

I don't know who Steve Carell is or what you meant to say, but I thought that Chair Rod Baker was very even handed in his handling of the meeting. He gets high marks from me, regardless of how this all concludes.

With regard to how he conducted the meeting, he gets high marks from me too. With regard to appearance and mannerisms, he looks like this guy:
http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr47/tickinlikeaclock/Steve_Carell.jpg

im sorry everyone but this is getting too ridiculous, and I believe the reason why is the demolition is a package deal - 6 buildings/structures.

but could we get to the real question(s) here? The questions I can think of is this:

1) Do you oppose ALL of the structures to go?

2) If yes, then do you agree with the plaza idea or would you like to see building(s) re-built?

3) If no, then which structures do you want to stay?

wouldn't the answers to these questions be a bit more prudent to the real quest?

I don't think people want all 6 structures saved (at least I don't). But there are some that I think should/could be saved/sold and rehabilitated, thus preserving OKC's remaining 'historic' urban core.

Could/should we do a poll? I would if I knew the name/location/picture of each structure. .... Maybe this poll could get to the real issue(s) and perhaps with this maybe SandRidge could compromise. .....

I would like both sides to come away winners, if possible.

As to Ms. SuzHat, I would like to ask if it is City policy for their employees to publish letters to City representatives in Social Forums. Please advise me as to the name of your department manager

I don't work for the City. I'm on the board of Preservation Oklahoma. All of the letters in support or in opposition to this case are public record. There are many more than 9 letters. That was just the latest batch released into the record by the City.

Thanks, JD,

Dougie ... ah, those days are so long ago. I think my middle brother (at almost 67 I'm the youngest of 3) still calls me that childhood name sometimes as do a few of my friends and I still like hearing it, so, thanks.

My scumbag remark was based on this: In my opinion, you badly misrepresented facts in your letter or email which needlessly and erroneously linked this forum's name with a campaign, as you put it, which does not exist in this forum. If there has been a campaign here to "flood your [BOA's] office with emails protesting the SandRidge proposal," I'm certainly unaware of it.

I know that some people do send e-mails to members of council and this or that board to state their viewpoints and encourage others to do so, but I'm not often if ever one of them (and wasn't in this instance), mainly because I don't see much if any value in it. If the BOA would base its decision upon, or be influenced by, a bunch of e-mails on either side of the question, they'd not be doing their job well. That you found it necessary to link this forum's name as you did with such a non-existent campaign here was a low blow to this forum's name.

As to which "side" represents the consensus of opinion in our city, I very much doubt that either you or I (or Suzette, for that matter) have any basis in fact for knowing what, if any, consensus there may be in the city, but that's not part of the scumbag remark. That part was described above. And, no, I don't use terms like that when people here or elsewhere disagree with my own opinions. On the SandRidge matter, particularly, and as I have said before, legitimate reasons exist on/for both "sides" of this matter. I rarely use derogatory terms here, but, when I do, it has nothing to do with someone having a different opinion than I do.

As to Suzette's publication of your (or any other e-mail or letter sent to the BOA), every such communication becomes part of the public record, just as John Williams' letter did to the BOA on Skirvin Hilton letterhead which favored the SandRidge proposal (or, similarly, Clay Bennett's and Larry Nichols' letters when the matter was pending before the DDRC). Should any such communication wind up being republished elsewhere, such as here, there is nothing wrong with that and, in fact, it should probably be expected. That just goes with the turf of "going public."

Dougie, (if you like it, I will use it) I cannot remember which thread the urging to email the BOA was in and do not have the inclination to attempt tracing it on this fine Sunday morning. I believe the urging was done by Spartan and/or Metro, but if my memory fails me here, I apologize to both. It bothers me that I had the impression I was emailing the BOA when in fact it turned out to be a member of the Board of Preservation Oklahoma. I will have to read more carefully in the future. Allow me to add that I was not attempting to distort any facts and even though distortion of facts run rampant in this forum I have no desire to be a party to the practice. I would also add that on a personal basis I have had a lot of respect for your posts and still do despite the scumbag reference. I also respect your desire to determine if the India Temple building is worth saving, however I still support the Sandridge plan as I feel the appearance of downtown would improve immensely with the eradication of old, empty buildings. Perhaps a compromise can be reached, but I have doubts and if Preservation Oklahoma does prevail the likelihood of those buildings remaining there, ugly and empty, for the next twenty years does not appeal to me.

Nick,
After watching the 5/20/2010 BOA video: I really like your suggestions of moving the proposed new building next to the India Temple or the end of Kerr Park. It is a beautiful building and should not be hidden.

It solves alot of the street wall issues on that area of Broadway, as well as keeping important structural fabric of Downtown Oklahoma City .

And if I'm not mistaken IMHO it appeared as Sandridge's other architect (the blond man) was intrigued as well.

Thanks for thinking outside the box, we need all we can get.:congrats:

Sorry if I didn't have my ears completely open when you were speaking, Nick. As to the cornice, yep, its still there and you can see it from street level without any problem.

I see where you assumed I was throwing it under the bus: I simply meant we should save everything that we can on that site, and in the unlikely event that structural stability reports would confirm that there isn't any possibility of restoring the building, then we should AT LEAST be saving the KerMac without any question--a building with no structural issues that sits next to a building in identical condition that is being restored.

I was pointing out the difference between demolishing a building because it is blight and demolishing a building in order to "improve sight lines."

Nick,
After watching the 5/20/2010 BOA video: I really like your suggestions of moving the proposed new building next to the India Temple or the end of Kerr Park. It is a beautiful buiding and should not be hidden.

It solves alot of the street wall issues on that area of Broadway, as well as keeping important structural fabric of Downtown Oklahoma City .

And if I'm not mistaken IMHO it appeared as Sandridge's other architect (the blond man) was intrigued as well.

Thanks for thinking outside the box, we need all we can get.:congrats:

I hope so. I really do want the SandRidge project to happen, and I'm really glad that they're willing to do what they can to improve downtown. The north side of the CBD core is looking pretty destitute. Krisb has a good word for describing it.

They could have their plaza and create a great urban open space at the same time. The key, and I couldn't have stressed the phrase enough, is creating a regularly-defined space, as opposed to the hodge podge irregular shape of the SandRidge Commons plaza.

Dougie, (if you like it, I will use it) I cannot remember which thread the urging to email the BOA was in and do not have the inclination to attempt tracing it on this fine Sunday morning. I believe the urging was done by Spartan and/or Metro, but if my memory fails me here, I apologize to both. It bothers me that I had the impression I was emailing the BOA when in fact it turned out to be a member of the Board of Preservation Oklahoma. I will have to read more carefully in the future. Allow me to add that I was not attempting to distort any facts and even though distortion of facts run rampant in this forum I have no desire to be a party to the practice. I would also add that on a personal basis I have had a lot of respect for your posts and still do despite the scumbag reference. I also respect your desire to determine if the India Temple building is worth saving, however I still support the Sandridge plan as I feel the appearance of downtown would improve immensely with the eradication of old, empty buildings. Perhaps a compromise can be reached, but I have doubts and if Preservation Oklahoma does prevail the likelihood of those buildings remaining there, ugly and empty, for the next twenty years does not appeal to me.
Thank you for a very reasonable reply, JD. I'm sorry that I called you a scumbag ... I overreacted and I take it back.

I am of the impression (and I think that there are some remarks in the record on Thursday from one or more PO speakers) that PO would like very much to reach a compromise with SandRidge ... as for me personally, I certainly would. I've already identified the buildings I'd like to see saved and in this order ... 1st, India Temple; 2nd, OkcS&L. I take it as a given that SandRidge will be replacing the Petroleum Building with another building, so I'm fine with that, based on the replacement assumption. As to the 1st 2, if it were demonstrated that either or both were structurally unsound and could not reasonably be restored, I could let go of both, if it came to that. In McDermid's remarks at the BOA meeting, despite his affirmative vote, he was quite specific in his opinion about the OkcS&L being being structurally sound and having historical value. But, the bottom line is that, so far, SandRidge doesn't appear to have shown any interest in compromise.

Have a nice day.

im sorry everyone but this is getting too ridiculous, and I believe the reason why is the demolition is a package deal - 6 buildings/structures.

but could we get to the real question(s) here? The questions I can think of is this:

1) Do you oppose ALL of the structures to go?

2) If yes, then do you agree with the plaza idea or would you like to see building(s) re-built?

3) If no, then which structures do you want to stay?

wouldn't the answers to these questions be a bit more prudent to the real quest?

I don't think people want all 6 structures saved (at least I don't). But there are some that I think should/could be saved/sold and rehabilitated, thus preserving OKC's remaining 'historic' urban core.

Could/should we do a poll? I would if I knew the name/location/picture of each structure. .... Maybe this poll could get to the real issue(s) and perhaps with this maybe SandRidge could compromise. .....

I would like both sides to come away winners, if possible.
See the above.

Thanks! I'm trying to do a download and if that is successful I'll try to snip out the non-SandRidge parts.
My download of the video failed, as to the video part, but the audio did download but it's not very good quality. I've broken it into 4 pieces ... 1: Appeal part of meeting begins and a replay of the earlier DDRC presentation is made; 2: Appellant's case; 3: Applicant's case; and 4: discussion occurring at the end. I'll try and have them up later today and will reply to this message when it's done.

I am just curious how many of the posters on this thread are professional architects, city/urban planners, developers, etc. with appropriate degrees, etc. Can we identify who you all are so we can consider your opinions as a professional point of view vs. the rest of us who just have an observation or opinion.

For what it's worth...
Every architect I've talked to that isn't attached to this project say they believe the buildings can be saved.
Developers are much more split - I'd say there's a 7:3 margin who say the buildings should go.

Developers are much more split - I'd say there's a 7:1 margin who say the buildings should go.

It is a good think you only need one willing developer.

FYI - there's a typo there - I meant 7:3

The other property owners may simply be relishing in the lessening of competition (300,000 sq feet I believe).

.I've already identified the buildings I'd like to see saved and in this order ... 1st, India Temple; 2nd, OkcS&L. I take it as a given that SandRidge will be replacing the Petroleum Building with another building, so I'm fine with that, based on the replacement assumption. As to the 1st 2, if it were demonstrated that either or both were structurally unsound and could not reasonably be restored, I could let go of both, if it came to that. In McDermid's remarks at the BOA meeting, despite his affirmative vote, he was quite specific in his opinion about the OkcS&L being being structurally sound and having historical value.

I agree with you completely. No, I am not an architect or a structural engineer, but I don't think we have to be to hold the above opinion.

[QUOTE=Rover;331134]I am just curious how many of the posters on this thread are professional architects, city/urban planners, developers, etc. with appropriate degrees, etc. Can we identify who you all are so we can consider your opinions as a professional point of view vs. the rest of us who just have an observation or opinion.[/QUOTE

I am an architect with over twenty years of experience in historic rehab. My name is Barrett Williamson. You can verify the number of section 106 / Tax credit projects with the SHPO. On the record...

Steve, have those architects actually reviewed the buildings or just say it because of philosophy? Are they interested in all the buildings or just one or two?

BTW. I didn't ask the question trying to discredit those that aren't professionals, but am just curious as to the perspectives.

Rover--the only thing that has me so interested personally in the SandRidge case is that I see it as an opportunity to apply things I've learned so far as a 4th year arch student..particularly in how the SandRidge Commons is so fundamentally flawed from a site layout perspective. It leads me to believe that there is no way Rob Rogers can truly believe this project is as urban, pedestrian-friendly, and sustainable as he touts it. When you compare the rhetoric of the modern day design establishment to this project, you see how this project is so out of touch with where we've come since the 1970s..

The sound files of the May 20 meeting are now up at Doug Dawgz Blog: SandRidge Commons — Round 2 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-commons-round-2.html). The quality of sound is not great, but the files load and play without delay.

And, Nick, I do stand corrected about what I thought that you said (actually, didn't say) about the India Temple Building. I'll be correcting what I said shortly, together with additional discussion.

It bothers me that I had the impression I was emailing the BOA when in fact it turned out to be a member of the Board of Preservation Oklahoma. I will have to read more carefully in the future.

Popsy, you did not e-mail to me. You correctly e-mailed your comments to Kathe Casula, clerk for the Board of Adjustment. All letters to the BOA are public record. They get sent to the board members, the appellee and the appellant.

Anyone who writes a letter to a public official or entity may as well put their comments on a billboard because it becomes public information, open to scrutiny.

Fantastic. It was forwarded to the board and that pleases me. I never had a problem with it being part of the public record. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. I do regret having mentioned OKCTALK in my communication as it could give the impression that the forum is dominated by a bunch of urbanists thus giving it a bad name in the community. Wait a minute, it is dominated by a bunch of urbanists. Oh well.

Popsy, if you are not an urbanist, how would you describe yourself? As a suburbanist or a ruralist?

Steve. I like to think of myself as a realist. There is no such thing as a perfect world or at least not a world that everyone thinks is perfect. There is however a real world and everyone needs to adapt in that real world. In my real world I value those that provide jobs, stimulate the economy, are honest and truthful and do not promote socialism in our US of A. I am not a Tea Party person, a democrat or republican. I am moderately on the conservative side however. I might be taking the easy path as being a realist causes me to experience fewer disappointments. It is the experience of what 64 years can do to you in the adapting process. :)

Speaking of emotions..

I just want to say I am sorry if I have embarrassed anyone on the preservation side. I understand my remarks to the BoA were too long. I just had a lot to say and knew I'd never again be heard by SandRidge and Rob Rogers..not to mention the BoA, although I consider being heard by SandRidge to be more important. I won't be speaking next time, just attending and showing support. I am also sorry if some of my over-stated opinions made the building huggers look bad..

I don't think you have anything to apologize for...I wouldn't say emotional, but passionate would be more accurate...I finally found your spot in the several hour tape and yours was one of the shortest (unfortunate that they kept hurrying you along and then cutting you off, when they obviously needed to do that with a couple of others)...when they cut you off, how much did you have left?

After seeing presentations go on and on and on, was really surprised they hadn't set a time limit beforehand (think at Council, it is recommended that remarks be kept to 3 min or less).

I think the preservationists side presentation was very persuasive. The SandRidge side, while they had some valid points, failed to convince overall.

Loved how during one point they actually said the SandRidge Park would be used for children's birthday parties! Please.

And somehow saying the park is needed (think there are 5 other public park spaces in the immediate area) as a place for families to be rambunctious since the Memorial is a conteplative (sp) public space.

In reviewing the audio transcripts of the meeting closely, the part of the lengthy session which is, to me, the most interesting is the part that began toward the end. My blog's observations (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2010/05/sandridge-commons-round-2.html) about that are as follows:


WHO'S ON FIRST, or WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED, or WHAT IN THE WORLD WILL HAPPEN NEXT? It's hard picking a subtitle for this section. I've listened to the complete hearing 4 times now, and, more particularly, that part of Part 4, above, the BOA's discussion following all speakers about 7-8 times. That said, I'm still not clear about what happened or what the rules of this proceeding were-or-are as they relate to the appeal. I will be completely amazed if many, if not all, don't suffer some degree of a Tom Hank's "brain cloud" condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Versus_the_Volcano) when trying to identify precisely what those rules were or are and/or their absence or lack of clarity thereof. Only when city planner Susan Miller spoke toward the end of the long afternoon was some degree of clarity and focus achieved, and, even then, reasonable minds can and probably will differ as to the amount thereof. Read on and see what I mean ...

Staff Report. The Board of Adjustment Staff Report (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/lirl1fsmyqkqjvnptxf3dumq/8937310524201005581599.PDF) for this meeting states that,

The Committee recommended approval of the application based on:

the intent of the Downtown Design District Ordinance;
the buildings are structurally unsafe;
the structures are functionally and aesthetically obsolete, and;
retention and restoration would not be a viable option.

Structural Engineering and/or Historical Assessment Studies. Possibly based on that statement of reasons, three or four of the four committee members expressed concern that the record did not include any structural engineering studies that the board could consider — and SandRidge acknowledged that it didn't have any such studies. The point was first raised by board member Jim Allen before the individual speakers made their remarks, but, after they were completed, member Jim Allen moved that the meeting be continued (initially he said "for at least 30 days"):

Jim Allen: I've heard both sides. I've gone over this thing with a fine tooth comb. Personally, there's some questions that I don't feel like we've got answered. Those questions, as far as I'm concerned, will have to be answered before I can vote yes or no. Because I'm a little confused on the structural integrity of these properties. I want to see, or I would like to see, engineering reports ... and that should not take very long to obtain those kind of reports ... and I would make a motion if it's acceptable to continue this at least 30 days so that can be accomplished. And I would make that a motion.
Either Michael Dunn or David Wanzer (the oral transcript is not clear as to which one but presumably the meeting's minutes will do that): I would second it.
Rod Baker: I have similar concerns also about the various things we're looking at here and whether there's continuity ... [audio not clear here]
David Wanzer: I have several pages of just general questions, thoughts and concerns ...
Following that, an interesting discussion about who would do the study and who would pay for it and which buildings occurred ... and in which discussion a historical assessment came up ... and things got fairly blurred, especially if SandRidge would not agree to a historical assessment study. Listen and judge for yourself.

While all of the above was being discussed, Jim Allen also thought to ask,

Jim Allen: One question that I didn't ask [a] while ago ... and I really don't want to get into discussion of all of this ... how long have these buildings been sitting vacant?
Katie Friddle: Uh ...
Frank Hill (overtalking): At least a quarter century ...
Jim Allen: O.K. Why hasn't something been done from your organization ...
Barrett Williamson (overtalking): The India Temple was occupied in 2007 ...
Jim Allen: I'm sorry?
Rod Baker: We're going to have one person speaking at a time here ...
Barrett Williamson: The India Temple was occupied as late as 2007 by some attorneys doing some work, uh, we've just recently found out ...
Note: about this point, see this OkcCentral item (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/05/23/is-all-of-the-information-presented-to-the-board-of-adjustment-accurate/) wherein one of those lawyers identifies himself and gives greater detail.

Hey, this thing just just gets funner and funner.

Eventually, assistant city planner Susan Miller joined the discussion on yet a different point:

I just kinda want to bring it back to the ordinance and, you know, we have all this discussion going on here between the structural assessment or the historical assessment. The ordinance does not speak at all as to structural integrity. I know that the committee did make the decision and that was a factor. I kinda wanted to clarify that. The ordinance does speak to retaining historic resources. Uh, you know, the committee really didn't get into that debate, about if it did retain its historic integrity or not. You know, these two things are really going back and forth and I just wanted to clarify ... the ordinance does not speak to structural integrity of properties as a factor for demolition at all.
Consequently, was all the preceding discussion about structural engineering studies irrelevant, and was all the discussion about historic value of much greater importance? Those are two very good questions.

In any event, Jim Allen wound up withdrawing his motion which required structural engineering studies, as did its second, and before it was all done the matter was continued by agreement of both parties to June 17 "without condition" ... which I take to mean that any and all issues remain on the table for further consideration at that time.

With this, I'll close and leave this thought wondered by Lou Costello so many decades ago ... WHO'S ON FIRST? On June 17, perhaps that will become known, but right now, I haven't got a clue.

As two possibilities,


Since structural integrity is NOT mentioned in the ordinance (Oklahoma City Code §59-7200) but the Downtown Design Review Committee's decision relied heavily on that factor, does that mean that the DDRC decision should be reversed since it obviously relied heavily upon that factor?

Since retaining historic resources IS mentioned in the ordinance but, as Susan Miller put it, "the committee really didn't get into that debate, about if it did retain its historic integrity or not," does that mean that the DDRC decision should be reversed since the committee failed to due weight to that factor, per the ordinance, in reaching its decision?

... not to mention the pages of questions that member David Wanzer has in his notes that he's not even identified on the record, as yet.

Have a nice day as we collectively try to figure this fine mess out.
Regardless of one's point of view, I'm thinking that most would agree that this is pretty fun stuff. The meeting on June 17 should be just as much fun as the last.

I would like to add my view of what happened, although I missed the first hour of the meeting on the web. First, none of the speakers made a compelling reason for the appeal to be approved or denied. The Sandridge side was totally unprepared to make their case and their attorney seemed weak in my opinion. The committee did not seem to grasp what the scope of their authority was and what guidelines were to be followed.

The "without condidtion" statement at the end was doing away with the request for the structural study and the historic study. At that point nothing was left for them to discuss and a vote should have been made right then. Meeting over. Yes over, regardless of how they voted, then the losing side could take it to district court as, barring some type of settlement, it will end up there any way.

I think it would have been a good thing had someone instructed the committee about their duties (powers and limitations) before the meeting started. I am sure the June 17th meeting will be interesting, and possibly fun also.

Even though there will be no structural engineering reports ordered, the BOA will be asking SandRidge for more information. Wanzer said he had several pages of questions. I assume most of those are for SandRidge, although some of them may be headed for the City attorneys.

I expect to see a "Q&A" document in the record shortly before June 17, similar to the one that appeared in the record for the DDRC hearing.

We are, clearly, looking forward to reading that Q&A.

Even though there will be no structural engineering reports ordered, the BOA will be asking SandRidge for more information. Wanzer said he had several pages of questions. I assume most of those are for SandRidge, although some of them may be headed for the City attorneys.

I expect to see a "Q&A" document in the record shortly before June 17, similar to the one that appeared in the record for the DDRC hearing.

We are, clearly, looking forward to reading that Q&A.

I would hope that you could share that document with the forum when you have access to it.

RogersMarvel seems to have a pretty impressive projects history and won their share of awards. Being from New York City you would think they understand urbanism. So why do you all think they know so much less than the people posting here? And why do you think SR is so willing to stand by their guns if there is so much value in keeping the buildings up? SR has otherwise been really supportive of downtown and of OKC in general. What is everyone's view of their motives - architect and client?

RogersMarvel seems to have a pretty impressive projects history and won their share of awards. Being from New York City you would think they understand urbanism. So why do you all think they know so much less than the people posting here? And why do you think SR is so willing to stand by their guns if there is so much value in keeping the buildings up? SR has otherwise been really supportive of downtown and of OKC in general. What is everyone's view of their motives - architect and client?

We've explained it numerous times, in NYC open and park space is lacking not to mention 20 million people fighting to use it. Here in OKC open and park space is in abundance, with 99% of the population with a yard and/or a park within walking distance. Downtown doesn't need more open space, it's the best shot we have at creating ONE dense area. Keep in mind who is paying the architect too, so they are trying to please the client and respect the clients wishes, not the general publics or NYC urbanism.