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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

123 Robert S. Kerr (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010012752) - Building built in 1902

324 N Robinson Ave (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010012896) - Building built in 1923

135 Robert S. Kerr (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010012908) - Buildings built in 1918, 1921 and 1959

Sandridge Tower (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010012788) - Built in 1973

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flinty. When you stated in your third paragraph that you are sympathetic to the "new" urban concepts it made me wonder if these concepts are new or old. I had always thought they were old concepts as they seem to be based on the development of NYC and Chicago. Perhaps someone could clarify.I am not so much concerned about the labels as I am the development of community. And for me community is about people and how they live and interact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sparky, you are a long way from being a leader, so you will have to find someone a lot less intelligent to follow you right now. You are extremely wordy though, as your post output is impressive, though rarely factual. Hang in there, you might end up being a politician.

Sparky, you are a long way from being a leader, so you will have to find someone a lot less intelligent to follow you right now. You are extremely wordy though, as your post output is impressive, though rarely factual. Hang in there, you might end up being a politician.

Or one hell of a used car salesman!!

Popsy, I sure hope you are not a professor or a parent. I can just imagine what you tell your kids or students if you have any.

Sparky, you are a long way from being a leader, so you will have to find someone a lot less intelligent to follow you right now. You are extremely wordy though, as your post output is impressive, though rarely factual. Hang in there, you might end up being a politician.

God forbid..the last thing I would want is responsibility for anything in OKC. I don't mind being unpopular with the anonymous postulating crowd.

A time capsule in India Temple building could hold mementos from early days of Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/6532/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

A time capsule in India Temple building could hold mementos from early days of Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/6532/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)


“SandRidge is unaware of the existence of a time capsule buried in the former India Temple building,” said Marsha N. Wooden, SandRidge vice president of administration. “If it is determined that such a time capsule exists, we would be pleased to carefully excavate the time capsule and provide the capsule to the rightful owners.”

What is she talking about - Sandridge IS the rightful owner. They bought the time capsule when they bought the building. I'll bet Sandridge changes their mind if it contains a map to the Knight's Templer treasure.:LolLolLol

SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans:
SandRidge Energy threatens to leave downtown Oklahoma City over resistance to headquarters plans | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/sandridge-issues-warning/article/3469383?custom_click=lead_story_title)

Anyone see any truth to this or are they bluffing?

They really do have a fight on their hands, but I don't understand because they are not tearing down any buildings that are on the national historic registry! Have you seen the parking garage lift they want to tear down? EYE SORE! I think this project is good for downtown..

If the choice is between turning downtown into a suburban office park or losing Sandridge to the suburbs - then I vote for losing Sandridge to the suburbs. Let them move to Memorial Road and create all the unused plazas they want. Sight lines out there are incredible. You can see for miles from the second floor.

Tulsa would seem a more reasonable location to me.

I guess I just don't understand the other side on this.. These are visible upgrades to the property, enhancing downtown!

What is the benefit of keeping things how they are? A few years ago when Kerr McGee left, downtown was majorly devestated. Sandridge stepped in and purchased a vacant building, and now eventhough they are not occupying the whole building, the vacant space is not on downtown's occupancy report because its not for lease. Why is there so much passion to save some of the surrounding (not so nice) buildings? Remember how we all felt when we thought that building would sit vacant for years..

Tulsa would seem a more reasonable location to me.

You can't be an official partner of the Oklahoma City Thunder from Tulsa!

Kerry and flinty- I hate you both so hard right now.

You can't be an official partner of the Oklahoma City Thunder from Tulsa!Don't see why that's true. But the Arena acquisition just happened and Arena surely has a place in Tulsa. The other most reasonable place is probably Fort Worth maybe.

There are certainly a lot of cities I think that would be interested in trying to get a Sandridge headquarters. And, as others have suggested, this might be a good time to consider being acquired although patience is probably more likely to result in better dividends.

Doesn't seem to me that being in Oklahoma City has a big business reason other than Ward's desire to make it so. And surely he has to wonder about that given the hostility that's been directed his way.

Kerry and flinty- I hate you both so hard right now.

Why, because we agree with the Sandridge attorney that they might not be a good fit for downtown OKC?

Devon has 5 companies interested in buying their building for a new corporate headquarter - 2 of which are out of state companies that would relocate their headquarters to OKC. Maybe Sandridge should look at selling to someone who wants to maintain the urban quality of downtown OKC.

BTW – show me one corporate plaza that contributes to the enhancement of the surrounding area. Also, define enhancement.

Devon has 5 companies interested in buying their building for a new corporate headquarter - 2 of which are out of state companies that would relocate their headquarters to OKC.

I was told that same thing yesterday.... any idea what companies

My thoughts are in line with Kerry's: When Larry Nichols recently expressed a preference for an out-of-state buyer for their soon-to-be-former HQ, I wonder if Sand Ridge felt like it was going to be the #3 energy company in the CBD.

Tulsa would seem a more reasonable location to me. Hardly, (LOL).

Enhancement = tearing down that god-aweful parking garage lift..
Also renovating Couch Park.

FYI, free ice-cream and live music over there TODAY for all you wonderful SandRidge fans! (FYI, I do not work for SandRidge..)

Well the thing is that if you are developing a place then you have to believe in that place and whatever vision you have for it.

I mean you have to believe in the value of the place itself as a place and not based on the potential tenant or tenants. And you have to believe in the value of your vision.

So in this case there are two competing visions for the same place. And it seems to me that the more public vision has to prevail. That happens all the time in development and very often it is as painful to hold out on the one hand as it is to give in on the other.

My opinion, and it is only mine alone and worth rather little, is that this is one of those times that saying "No" is a good thing.

I'm not quite sure that I understand the desire to save these buildings. I know the restoration issue is debatable (depending on who you talk to), but I've never seen such a outspoken attemps to save a couple of buildings. I'm not really cheering for either side, but I just dont see how the psychological theory (emphasis) of how urban canyons, side walls, and skylines provide a different humanistic experience trumps what I would call progress in the downtown area. Again, I'm not throwing stones, just more of an inquiry.

I agree thats its unfortunate that buildings will be demolished, however, they are dated, and they are pieces of sh*t, so I think making a nice "green" area or whatever its called will compliment Sandridge's headquarters and give downtown a cleaner look.
Now before everyone flips out on my comment, who's to say that in the future the new green space will not be used to build back brand new buildings that actually look good in downtown? Once the demand is there, Im sure Sandridge would find it beneficial to expand their HQ's, sell the land to a developer, or develop the land themselves for some more class A space downtown. Maybe Im just crazy..
Its kinda like the apartments on 63rd and Grand that CHK purchased. They demolished apartments, created less density, and built a park. Im pretty sure that park is not a long term goal and will be incorporated into a new master plan sometime in the future.

Enhancement = tearing down that god-aweful parking garage lift..
Also renovating Couch Park.

FYI, free ice-cream and live music over there TODAY for all you wonderful SandRidge fans! (FYI, I do not work for SandRidge..)

No one is asking to keep the parking garage building. They are going to put another building back in it's place. That is all we are asking for them to do with the other two building. They could either allow a developer to adapt them for re-use, or tear them down and put something else back up. It is the corporate plaza most of us object to. We are concerned about what is coming - not what is going away.

SandRidge's threat shows that they're clearly not committed to downtown OKC, as they previously suggested. I guess they might just take their ball and go home if they don't get every single thing they want.

Please keep in mind that the process of acceptance of SandRidge's proposal would not be unique to OKC. They would have to go through this in any major city if demolition was involved.

Perhaps they would have a different experience in a lesser community that's simply desperate for any business location.

Why, because we agree with the Sandridge attorney that they might not be a good fit for downtown OKC?

Devon has 5 companies interested in buying their building for a new corporate headquarter - 2 of which are out of state companies that would relocate their headquarters to OKC. Maybe Sandridge should look at selling to someone who wants to maintain the urban quality of downtown OKC.

BTW – show me one corporate plaza that contributes to the enhancement of the surrounding area. Also, define enhancement.

Everyone cries and whines and moans that we don't have enough density downtown, and major corporate presence is obviously the primary driving force in having people want to live, work, play downtown.

Now, one of our biggest corporations, presumably at major, major, unnecessary expense, moves from NWEXP to downtown. Just to be downtown, to put its footprint there and build its own space in the place we need it the most.

They'r enot being allowed to do what they want with the empty, financial drain buildings that they own. They're being told they can't do what they want with their own stuff, which is a pain in the ass to the extreme.

So, very fairly, they say- if we can't do what we want to do with our stuff and our money, maybe we need to go where we can, because it's important to us.


And then you two messageboard posters start shooting off at the mouth, so to speak, that they can just move to the suburbs, eff them out of downtown, who needs them, etc.

It's pathetic, to be honest. SR leaving downtown would be a devastating blow. All because you two jokesters think a little green space is pointless and you want to save buildings that no one in the last however-long have wanted to touch.

You want to keep those ghost-buildings, you're going to end up with a ghosttown.

Everyone cries and whines and moans that we don't have enough density downtown, and major corporate presence is obviously the primary driving force in having people want to live, work, play downtown.

Now, one of our biggest corporations, presumably at major, major, unnecessary expense, moves from NWEXP to downtown. Just to be downtown, to put its footprint there and build its own space in the place we need it the most.

They'r enot being allowed to do what they want with the empty, financial drain buildings that they own. They're being told they can't do what they want with their own stuff, which is a pain in the ass to the extreme.

So, very fairly, they say- if we can't do what we want to do with our stuff and our money, maybe we need to go where we can, because it's important to us.


And then you two messageboard posters start shooting off at the mouth, so to speak, that they can just move to the suburbs, eff them out of downtown, who needs them, etc.

It's pathetic, to be honest. SR leaving downtown would be a devastating blow. All because you two jokesters think a little green space is pointless and you want to save buildings that no one in the last however-long have wanted to touch.

You want to keep those ghost-buildings, you're going to end up with a ghosttown.

Well put. Theres too many morons who think they know everything about everything. Of course the people who complain the most never have and most likely never will develop anything and contribute to the "density" of the city.

Everyone cries and whines and moans that we don't have enough density downtown, and major corporate presence is obviously the primary driving force in having people want to live, work, play downtown.

If you were at the meeting you would have seen the Sandridge Lawyer whining and almost throwing a hissy fit saying that maybe downtown isn't for Sandridge.

It was like a little kid trying to get candy at the store crying to his parents.

They are not going anywhere. They are pulling all the bully tactics they can. They threatened in the first meeting that this project has to be done now and it can't wait 30 days.

The architect was actually sounding like he was willing to adapt the project. The lawyer has really made Sandridge appear to be a big bully. He lied many times in his schpeal that was hard to understand because of some kind of his spitting into the microphone causing it to fuzz out.

The facts are the project does not comply with city ordinances. These projects done in every city change. The first plan is never the one that is built or in this case destroyed. These buildings are assets to the city. Many cities would love to have historic buildings like these in their downtown that have many potential uses from residential to boutique hotels. Sandridge is not going anywhere. The attorney overstepped his bounds and really made Sandridge look horrible again! IF I was Tom Ward I would have fired this lawyer for his many lies and bullying tactics. The architect seems willing to change the plans.

I hope the next meeting the architect speaks up and says the plans can change because they can! It is not that hard. They are not building buildings people! They are tearing down builings! VERY HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE STATE AND CITY! I think they can deal with less sod and paving!!!!

They can sell these buildings and pay for some of the remaining projects. Site lines to the Kerr McGee tower are not that important. That is the only reason they want these two buildings to come down, not because they are unusable! They in the meeting said a few years ago they had people in the India Temple building!

A corporate campus is many buildings not two or three with a giant plaza that is never used. They could convert the two buildings to residential or hotels and then use them for their interns or employees or investors travelling to the city.

OKCMallen & banman: Well stated
:congrats:

OKCMallen & banman: Well stated
:congrats:

What was well stated, giving credit to two message board posters for bringing a large corporation down to it's knees and forcing them to move out of state? If I had that kind of power I would just prefer they replace the buildings they are tearing down with new buildings.

OKCMallen - how can people 'live, work, and play' downtown when the 'work' component is tearing down all the potential places to 'live' and without living there is no one to 'play'.

It was like a little kid trying to get candy at the store crying to his parents.


Thats quite dramatic..



They are not going anywhere.


But what if they did? What if the "citizens" win and and NOTHING is done to the property? These buildings will stay the same for the next 20 years, and Sandridge will have nothing but an unfavorable opinion of the city that they invest a LOT in.. That is NOT a victory for the salvage of a few old buildings.

SandRidge's threat shows that they're clearly not committed to downtown OKC,

Honestly, I think Frank Hill was just running his mouth. I bet he got a tongue lashing from Tom Ward today. It does not look good for their PR to have the front page headline "Sandridge Threatens to Leave Downtown".


Thats quite dramatic..

Yes, it was quite dramatic. Did you see it?

The Oklahoman's headline editor didn't help the issue at all. That's all the Oklahoman (and most of the media) does anymore, try to inflame instead of merely report the facts.

Ok...
The Oklahoman is own by CB, and he is a partner with Tom Ward in the Thunder franchise.
This is just an alarmist press release hoping to get support for something that may or may not have merit.
Judge it on merits not FEARS...

SR is going to move out of downtown if they can't add an even bigger plaza to the one in front of their building and directly across the street?

They have plenty of properties to create what they say they need. Are we to believe what they proposed is the only viable solution?


I've never been as strongly opposed to pulling down these builds as many; I've said all along if they would just replace the one along Robinson (or renovate it) that that would be a great compromise. I'm not so worried about India Temple or the others, just the one urban canyon we have in OKC.

But now it's allow us to destroy 6 or 7 buildings in the heart of the CBD or we will just move out? Did they not think this through before buying these properties?


I really am on the side of SandRidge for the most part but this is all starting to sound like they just want what they want and aren't really concerned about downtown.

Long before Devon started their project, they sat down the the city, the Colcord owners and lots of other people and got buy-in for their plans. Also arranged the TIF funding they fronted the money to the city to guarantee a complete overhaul of the Myriad Gardens and ALL downtown streets and streetscape. They even bought the Colcord for crying out loud... Then, it was smooth sailing.

Where is Tom Ward in all this? Larry Nichols was always up front promoting his ideas and looking for was to improve downtown in general -- well outside his own property.

SandRidge is hiding behind it's attorneys and making threats and ultimatums. Not at all the way to get things done when you have an entire community to consider. Even if you are substantially 'right'.

They'r enot being allowed to do what they want with the empty, financial drain buildings that they own. They're being told they can't do what they want with their own stuff, which is a pain in the ass to the extreme.

You want to keep those ghost-buildings, you're going to end up with a ghosttown.
If they would entertain offers on the buildings, which have been numerous over the years then they wouldn't be a financial drain nor would they be ghost buildings...but that is something neither Sandridge nor their predecessors (Kerr-McGee) have done over the years. Most of the ideas that I have heard for those buildings are mixed use retail/residential which would not put them back on the commercial property rolls to compete against others in that market. As previously stated, this entire process is something that any company has to go through with any city before tearing down buildings typically older than 50 years old, the older the buildings the more scrutiny there is. People who think this is a monumental hassle don't want to have to go through this anywhere east of the Mississippi River and you can face it west of the river as well but not with the same vigor. It can take many, many years to get something developed in the major metros, it has just been the case for years OKC has been willing to bend over and take from anyone willing to spend a dollar. Now that there is a little opposition (this is a fragment of what you would find in other cities) there are people in a huff about it.


It just seems odd they are so adamant about tearing them down for nothing. If Sandridge could present a compelling case for demolition other than putting a plaza in its place, then I could maybe understand their reasoning. Granted, I haven't been to the meetings but everything that I have read about it seems to be nothing more than a "we want to" attitude about the whole demolition. I also think too many of us who lived through urban renewal destroying large chunks of downtown without anything replacing what was torn down are just wary of tearing down properties that have potential for desolate plazas that seem to do nothing for the community.
If they want a suburban style campus, then maybe that is where they need to be located. Sell off the existing block to someone who wants to be downtown.

Great question! Where is Mr. Ward?!?

Maybe Steve knows where he is?

Do we think he is at his office watching this on Channel 20? Does anyond find it odd that we haven't heard anything from him lately?

Another thing about news headlines, the JR reads ......
Fate of temple still unknown
By Brianna Bailey
The Journal Record
Posted: 09:51 PM Thursday, June 17, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Board of Adjustment on Thursday upheld SandRidge Energy’s plans to demolish three of five buildings that stand in the way of the energy company’s plans for a new corporate campus downtown. However, the fate of the more than 108-year-old India Temple and an 82-year-old building that was once home to Kerr-McGee Corp. ...

Great question! Where is Mr. Ward?!?

Maybe Steve knows where he is?

He is having an 'oh crap' meeting with major shareholders explaing why they are moving the corporate headquarters and defending why Wall Street found out about the plan during a Board of Adjustment meeting over building some grassland and park benches.

The Oklahoman's headline editor didn't help the issue at all. That's all the Oklahoman (and most of the media) does anymore, try to inflame instead of merely report the facts.

Yeah because newspapers have never tried to get people with catchy headlines...

All that "extra, extra!" stuff is just in the movies.

If they would entertain offers on the buildings, which have been numerous over the years then they wouldn't be a financial drain nor would they be ghost buildings...but that is something neither Sandridge nor their predecessors (Kerr-McGee) have done over the years. Most of the ideas that I have heard for those buildings are mixed use retail/residential which would not put them back on the commercial property rolls to compete against others in that market. As previously stated, this entire process is something that any company has to go through with any city before tearing down buildings typically older than 50 years old, the older the buildings the more scrutiny there is. People who think this is a monumental hassle don't want to have to go through this anywhere east of the Mississippi River and you can face it west of the river as well but not with the same vigor. It can take many, many years to get something developed in the major metros, it has just been the case for years OKC has been willing to bend over and take from anyone willing to spend a dollar. Now that there is a little opposition (this is a fragment of what you would find in other cities) there are people in a huff about it.


It just seems odd they are so adamant about tearing them down for nothing. If Sandridge could present a compelling case for demolition other than putting a plaza in its place, then I could maybe understand their reasoning. Granted, I haven't been to the meetings but everything that I have read about it seems to be nothing more than a "we want to" attitude about the whole demolition. I also think too many of us who lived through urban renewal destroying large chunks of downtown without anything replacing what was torn down are just wary of tearing down properties that have potential for desolate plazas that seem to do nothing for the community.
If they want a suburban style campus, then maybe that is where they need to be located. Sell off the existing block to someone who wants to be downtown.

I'm not saying that this issue shouldn't be fully discussed and re-discussed.

However, saying that SandRidge (and KM, before) should sell the buildings at whatever cost is about as dumb as it comes. Sorry to put such a fine point on it. These guys are highly sophisticated corporations: do you really think they're turning down lucrative offers for these buildings for the fun of it? Think it through. THINK.

You guys are being AWFULLY cavalier and play AWFULLY fast and loose with someone else's money. Don't you get it? THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THAT WILL MOVE DOWNTOWN. We're lucky SR decided to in the first place! We need to promote these things, not be all smartassed about it and just tell them to take a hike to the suburbs or outer reaches of OKC. You guys are usually the same ones screaming for density.

I would like everyone to read this:

SANDRIDGE IS ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE CORPORATE CITIZENS IN OKLAHOMA CITY. SANDRIDGE CHOSE TO, AT ITS OWN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE, MOVE DOWNTOWN, WHICH WAS A HUGE BLESSING. CORPORATIONS DRIVE THE BIGGEST COMPONENTS OF AN ACTIVE BUSINESS CORE IN DOWNTOWN.

I just hope SR doesn't up and move to Norman so they can do what they want since some of you are so damned apathetic about them leaving. Will they REALLY leave? Probably not. But if they- did would it be a minor commercial catastrophe for downtown? Yes. THERE IS NO ONE WAITING IN THE WINGS TO BUY THAT BUILDING. NO ONE. Paycom would be the next likely candidate with growth and timing, and they wanted nothing to do with downtown.

How many of you work downtown? Even with SR, Devon, the other businesses downtown it's completely DEAD after 6pm. And that' WITH SandRidge! We have a loooooong way to go, and some people are saying "Aw, to hell with them then, let them go to Yukon or someplace on the outskirts of OKC!" Nevermind the smaller, but important, fact that it's a good thing these employees spend money in OKC for sale tax purposes and as part of our economy.

Again, discussions should be had. But those of you saying "let'em leave then!" need a CAT scan. Be careful what you wish for....

But now it's allow us to destroy 6 or 7 buildings in the heart of the CBD or we will just move out?

SandRidge is hiding behind it's attorneys and making threats and ultimatums. Not at all the way to get things done when you have an entire community to consider. Even if you are substantially 'right'.

I'm not sure that Tom Ward and Sandridge in general really are behind this "ultimatum". I think Frank Hill just got flustered and put his foot in his mouth. But I agree that it doesn't look good that Tom Ward has let Hill and Marsha [Woodard?] do all the talking.


How many of you work downtown? Even with SR, Devon, the other businesses downtown it's completely DEAD after 6pm.

I work downtown. You're smart enough to know that the reason it's somewhat dead after 6pm has nothing to do with lack of workers. It's lack of residential and retail. So if that's your concern, you should be in FAVOR of keeping buildings that can be used for retail and residential, or in the very least replacing the old buildings with mixed use.

Not sure that what Frank Hill said is necessarily representative of what SandRidge would say, sans attorney, per jbrown84, above. I said in Steve's OkcCentral blog (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/06/18/the-latest-story-on-sandridge-energy/),

The 1st thing to know (and learn) is how to characterize Frank Hill’s remark, that is, when making it, was he merely personally knee-jerking at being frustrated for everything not going his way, or did his very untoward and juvenile-sounding remark have the prior blessing of Tom Ward and actually represent the position of SandRidge?

Of course, I don’t know the answer, but if I had to guess my guess would be that Frank made a remark that, this morning, he wishes he could take back.

However, if the remark does represent the true character of the company and Tom Ward, it certainly does not speak well for the company being “community minded,” one facet of which would presumably be that downtown property owners have to play by the rules established in pre-existing ordinances. If Frank Hill was correctly expressing SandRidge’s point of view on the matter, SandRidge comes across as being a bully.
It would be so very good if Steve could get an interview with Tom Ward so that it could be determined whether Frank's comment was representative of his perspective, as well.

Lots of bullets flying around here with no certain targets. Maybe a cease fire is a good idea, until the above is determined?

I'm not sure that Tom Ward and Sandridge in general really are behind this "ultimatum". I think Frank Hill just got flustered and put his foot in his mouth. But I agree that it doesn't look good that Tom Ward has let Hill and Marsha [Woodard?] do all the talking.



I work downtown. You're smart enough to know that the reason it's somewhat dead after 6pm has nothing to do with lack of workers. It's lack of residential and retail. So if that's your concern, you should be in FAVOR of keeping buildings that can be used for retail and residential, or in the very least replacing the old buildings with mixed use.

OMFG, if you take away one of the biggest employers downtown, people won't be downtown at all anyway and they sure as hell won't live downtown! That's pretty simple. Keeping buildings (that are in no way shape or form ready for anything and will take millions upon millions to rehabilitate) and thereby LOSING SandRidge would take downtown backward many, many years.

Are you serious in saying that an oil and gas corporation should be forced to build MIXED USE developments!? What the hell are they going to do with mixed use buildings? Start a property ownership subsidiary? A rental company? Pul-leeze.

Welcome to Myopia.

Welcome to Myopia.

No joke.
http://nightshade01.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

What perplexes me is that Tom Ward seems like he is not open to "flexibility" or to "compromise" in any way. I am calling his bluff on his threat to rethink his stance on reconsidering DT for his HQ building. He bought the KM building and has already spent $$$$ on doing interior renovations to the building and has already uprooted employees to the DT building. He does have to answer to his shareholders and every financial move is being scrutinized by the shareholders. Mr. Ward seems like he is levelheaded so why would he compromise his integrity or his employees? It seems his philosophy on this matter is "my way or the highway". Tom Ward should at least "explore" the possibility that some of these buildings are not only salvageable but can be successfully rehabilited. I think he owes the citizens of OKC to at least open his mind to the alternatives from a PR perspective and as being a "good corporate citizen" for OKC!

Ok...
The Oklahoman is own by CB, and he is a partner with Tom Ward in the Thunder franchise.
This is just an alarmist press release hoping to get support for something that may or may not have merit.
Judge it on merits not FEARS...

Really? Really? You're going to accuse me of running a press release on this one? GM, you may or may not be right in terms of what the motive is for the Hill comment. But you are DEAD WRONG about my reporting on this meeting and on the SandRidge story all together.