Switching the direction of this thread ... or trying to ....
If SandRidge were to agree to remove the fake facade first from the India Temple and it showed all windows removed and extensive damage to the entire facade, would that cause those of you favoring preservation to change your opinion on whether it should be saved?

How many anonymous "experts" have we had come on here and rattle their saber and tell us "you don't know who I am." Probably the same guy over and over who is a clerk for one of these lawyers who benefits from their clients out there pushing their bad projects.

I should probably come up with a facetious form letter for the "you don't know who I am" crowd as well..

I never once called myself an expert, nor did I ever say you do not know who I am. All I did was give perspective from a person that has worked with these boards and planning staff from both the governmental side and the private side. I do not know why you are seemingly angry about someone giving their opinion and perspective on a topic. Like I said, I was simply trying to add to the conversation not promote myself or hold myself out as an expert.

Switching the direction of this thread ... or trying to ....
If SandRidge were to agree to remove the fake facade first from the India Temple and it showed all windows removed and extensive damage to the entire facade, would that cause those of you favoring preservation to change your opinion on whether it should be saved?

It wouldn't change my view. My desire is 100% to stop a useless corporate plaza from gracing the north edge of downtown. If Sandridge put up another building in place of the India Temple I would help with the demo work for free. My desire is see downtown OKC filled with structures, not open space.

Which is more pointless, a plaza or a building no one needs? When Devon is done with this building, do you really think there will be a demand for office space? I can see the value of preserving and the value of open spaces - but its not like Oklahoma City will ever be this dense concrete-jungle,mini-manhatten that some apparently dream of. I see a lot bigger problems with the countless parking lots taking up space, maybe we should concentrate on how do we get people downtown without driving before we worry there's not enough buildings?

Which is more pointless, a plaza or a building no one needs? When Devon is done with this building, do you really think there will be a demand for office space? I can see the value of preserving and the value of open spaces - but its not like Oklahoma City will ever be this dense concrete-jungle,mini-manhatten that some apparently dream of. I see a lot bigger problems with the countless parking lots taking up space, maybe we should concentrate on how do we get people downtown without driving before we worry there's not enough buildings?

It is people like you that are driving me crazy. Your post is so full of holes, half-truths, and out right mis-information it is hard to know where to start in correcting it, but I will try.

1. No one is suggesting these building be used for office space. Downtown residential rental rates are running at 96% occupied. It is the highest occupancy rate in Oklahoma City.

2. But lets say they did get converted to office space. Devon has 5 companies indicating that they would like to purchase their current building and relocate into it. That means at the end of the day 4 companies that couldn't buy it will be looking for other space.

3. Will OKC ever be a dense mini-Mahattan? Have you ever seen a picture of downtown OKC pre-1960? We were well on our way.

4. All those countless parking lots used to be buildings but ideas like Sandridge's destroyed them. The only difference is they want to build useless corporate plaza. At least the parking lots get used.

5. Getting people downtown without driving? That is what downtown housing does. See item 1.

6. It isn't so much about not having enough buildings, it is about having to much open space. The slogan of downtown OKC is "Going Up Downtown". How is that possible if we keep tearing down the "Up"? If we keep this up they can just change the slogan to "Going Down".

Kerry,
Very well said :congrats:

Kerry -- love your point that atleast parking lots get used.

Glad to give you a reason to pontificate, Kerry. ;).

Glad to give you a reason to pontificate, Kerry. ;).

The question is did it do any good. Now that you know the truth and facts, do you still believe they way you did when you made the post? You have to have the courage to believe the truth.

Many people on here support the Sandridge plan but when asked why, they offer opinions based on false assumptions or misinformation. Sometimes they are repeating what others have said and sometimes they themselves are the source of the misinformation. What is hard to figure out is why someone continues to believe something they now know to be not true.

The Sandridge plan is a bad plan for downtown OKC, not just because they are tearing down buildings that could help revive the city, but because they are replacing them with a corporate plaza that has been demonstrated time and time again to discourage an active street life.

The building already has a plaza in front of it; do you ever see anyone in it hanging out (other than bums)? Nope. It is just walk over space; an obstacle that has be passed to get to where you want to go. Sandridge just wants to make the existing obstacle bigger. It would be different if the current plaza was so full of people that they had to expand to accommodate all the toga-draped deep thinkers but it isn't. It sits empty 100% of the time (ok maybe the occasional person spends 10 minutes eating lunch it but that is it).

The question is did it do any good. Now that you know the truth and facts, do you still believe they way you did when you made the post? You have to have the courage to believe the truth.

Many people on here support the Sandridge plan but when asked why, they offer opinions based on false assumptions or misinformation. Sometimes they are repeating what others have said and sometimes they themselves are the source of the misinformation. What is hard to figure out is why someone continues to believe something they now know to be not true.

The Sandridge plan is a bad plan for downtown OKC, not just because they are tearing down buildings that could help revive the city, but because they are replacing them with a corporate plaza that has been demonstrated time and time again to discourage an active street life.

The building already has a plaza in front of it; do you ever see anyone in it hanging out (other than bums)? Nope. It is just walk over space; an obstacle that has be passed to get to where you want to go. Sandridge just wants to make the existing obstacle bigger. It would be different if the current plaza was so full of people that they had to expand to accommodate all the toga-draped deep thinkers but it isn't. It sits empty 100% of the time (ok maybe the occasional person spends 10 minutes eating lunch it but that is it).


I think some people just like the idea and the plans that they have seen for the plaza. I understand the point of wanting to keep buildings and having an urban feel, but also understand the desire for SandRidge to use their property as they see fit. Personally I like the plaza and think it would be a nice addition to downtown, although I understand the point of other and why they do not like it.

I think some people just like the idea and the plans that they have seen for the plaza. I understand the point of wanting to keep buildings and having an urban feel, but also understand the desire for SandRidge to use their property as they see fit. Personally I like the plaza and think it would be a nice addition to downtown, although I understand the point of other and why they do not like it.

This is a good, rational response. I hate the plaza, but I can understand liking the plaza for no other reason other than it will be a nice plaza.

OMG, be still my beating heart - did I just read two well-written and respectful posts from people with differing opinions?? WONDERFUL!!!

I think some people just like the idea and the plans that they have seen for the plaza.

What part of the plan do you like? Please don't respond with "all of it".

I'd like to see a better outside evaluation of the buildings to see if they really are so bad that they can't be helped. As long as the structure is sound, I just don't see how it can't be cheaper to re-vamp than demolish. Even if they buildings totally lost their exterior charm with the crap people have done to them, that doesnt mean that they aren't still sound structures. You can always re-clad like mentioned in previous posts.

Tearing down for the sake of tearing down just seems wrong. As said, there's already a plaza that isn't used, so why add more? What do you get from it? I wouldn't want to step on a company's toes on their property either, BUUUUUT you have to be ready to protect things that need protecting. Just beacuse a building isn't on the historic register now, doesn't mean it's not worth it. Just cause the puppy isn't cute enough to have a disney movie about it, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be treated right.

That is a very rational post, bomber. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you somewhat come around on this? If not, then I'm sorry, I should pay closer attention, but otherwise very cool if you have.

You also bring up a point that I don't think anyone else has. As far as the India Temple goes, there's nothing stopping anyone from...gasp...recladding the building again. I guess it would be better than tearing it down or keeping the current hideous facade as it is.

Also it is very telling how SandRidge is refusing to do any kind of evaluation of the buildings and refusing to let anyone else do it as well. My own personal feeling about structural analysis and historical analysis of buildings is that old buildings are all alike in one way, that being that if you're looking for a reason to tear it down, you can probably find it; whereas if you're looking for a reason to keep it, you'll undoubtedly find that as well. The document where SandRidge supports their claims that they really have no other option but to demolish says in countless places that these buildings are not conducive towards "reception areas" and "open work spaces," which just flies in the face of downtown redevelopment completely. Why is SandRidge so opposed to their being ANY other land use on their block when not even Devon, Sonic, and other downtown HQs want that? And with everything we know today about the benefits of mixed-use, then the question becomes, why are they opposed to downtown vitality?

But SandRidge HAS to lose this, not just to protect the buildings, not just to benefit downtown, but to protect our ordinances and our planning initiatives as well. Their entire argument has been predicated on, "you can't tell me what to do with these buildings, and no, you can't force me to do any kind of analysis on these buildings either, and no, you can't force me to sell these buildings." IF we validate that argument, we are in for a world of hurt in trying to enforce building code, city ordinances, zoning ordinances, etc etc. Oh, and who can forget.."We may have to consider if downtown is appropriate for our headquarters."

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that Sandridge put another plaza in, just that it seems to me that this India temple has been there for ages without some entity actually 'doing something' to fix it up. Whether this was Kerr McGee's fault, or whoever, don't know. As for the current plaza, I agree there are problems. OKC refuses to do anything about the vagrants that sleep in the park, not to mention use it for all their other necessities. I worked in the City Place building for years, and in the evening or early morning, that is an uneasy place to walk through. That's not the plaza's fault, I see it as lack of anyone wanting to get serious about the actual problem. (Panhandling everyone that walks through!) Beyond that, the Plaza tends to ignore the realities of Oklahoma weather. Most of the time it is scorching hot with not enough shade where the sitting areas are, or too cold, too windy and not much to do about that. It's a little unfair to say its not used at all, though, at least for a time there was a moderately interesting farmers market, don't know if they still do that, one day a week. Sometimes there were concerts, and when the right people were playing (those whose music actually reflected the majority of the folks working in nearby buildings!) there was quite a few that would attend those. I think the difference in the way Plazas are use, say in Mexico, is that even in the smallest towns, there is enough retail, or doctor's offices, dentists, places surrounding the plaza and immediate side streets, that the people have come downtown to deal with 'anyway' and the plaza is there --- 'course on weekends the retail is more of a draw. In those plazas, there are constant activity of street vendors, groups playing music, etc... (Yes, I fully realize Mexico has a lot of problems right now, I'm not talking about Juarez or Laredo here). The point is, that for a Plaza to work, it has to be more than a place for office workers to hang out in for lunch. (especially if the office is air conditioned ;).

I think the difference in the way Plazas are use, say in Mexico, is that even in the smallest towns, there is enough retail, or doctor's offices, dentists, places surrounding the plaza and immediate side streets,

Well here we just tear all of those down in order to enlarge the plaza. Thank goodness too, we don't need any of vitality or anything else they have in Mexico, either.

=mburlison;344068... India temple has been there for ages without some entity actually 'doing something' to fix it up. Whether this was Kerr McGee's fault, or whoever, don't know.

Kerr McGee sat on these propoerties for a long time and in fact used the India Temple for office space as little as 6 years ago. The year before Kerr McGee was sold they came up with a plan to turn all of the building (minus the main tower of course) into apartments. They had a developer and everything was set to go until Anadarko bought Kerr McGee and sold the property to Sandridge. Now all of a sudden the buildings are beyond repair. I don't buy it. What happened in the last 18 months that made them "beyond repair"? On top of that, Steve says he has talk to no less than 6 developers that have expressed interest in buying them to turn them into apartments or condos (correct me if I am wrong Steve).

However, it is like you said, plazas in Oklahoma City don't work well which is why the Conn Course was first devised. It is either too hot, too cold, too windy, too stormy, or too whatever. Downtown OKC already has several corporate plazas - Bank of Oklahoma, Cotter Tower, Leadership Square, Kerr McGee, County Court House, and City Hall. No one uses them. They are just wasted open space that has to be traversed to get to where you are going. This is why city ordinaces require new development to be pushed out to the sidewalk. The city doesn't want any more corporate plazas.

I don't think I advocated adopting any of the negative in Mexico at all, just making an observation. No need to jump all over every word someone types. The same could be said of plazas in other countries including our own in certain areas... was just trying to point out some of the reasons they work at all elsewhere but those ingredients were not present in downtown OKC, that kind of centralized plaza that the town developed around just doesn't work everywhere. If you want a closer example, now this is not a 'big downtown' by any stretch, lest you hammer me for that too, but downtown Mckinney, TX has done a lot with their old plaza area. It is indeed a bustling atmosphere for all the restaurants, clubs, antique shops around it, and yes, they did keep the old courthouse standing. (though I'm sure not all the old buildings are there, necessarily). I'm trying to agree that a corporate plaza, except for their own use, would not probably end up being any kind of a magnet.

I get all the points about wanting to save history where we need to, I'm not opposed to that, I'm as big a nostalgia fiend as you will find... heck, I've spent hours going through Doug's excellent historical website.

What is a reasonable compromise here with the plans that Sandridge has? We don't want to throw out any babies w/ the bath water.

Out... flame away.. .

Mburlison, I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll just reply to a few points you make in your post (which I'm not longer sure if you're for or against SandRidge). And sorry if this post isn't the flame bait you were expecting, lol..trying to be civil..and my last post wasn't implying as much as you might think, just Mexican urbanism and vitality, stuff like that which we lack ;).

Open spaces are fine, and defined urban open spaces are even better. A corporate plaza is not the same as a town square with shops around it. I agree with you that OKC is in need of some kind of vibrant, iconic open space. However, this is not it because such a space must be surrounded by mixed-uses that will keep it vibrant throughout the day. This proposal is about keeping mixed-use out of downtown and hollowing away density, which are both key components to bringing back vibrancy.

We are forgetting that there is already a plaza space there, that does not need to be enlarged by demolishing buildings. Instead why don't we redesign and fill in the periphery of the existing plaza and make something urban out of that space? I think that is the question here.

As for a compromise, I think the compromise is obvious..don't demolish the buildings, enhance your existing plaza space just like SandRidge has already (nearly) finished renovating the tower, and let other developers rehabilitate the Braniff, KerMac, and India Temple for mixed-use purposes. We need housing, retail, and boutique hotel rooms in the core of downtown more than we need another corporate plaza, and I think you'll agree with that.

On the whole I think your post is very agreeable and I don't see where you insist on disagreeing, and where you find support for SandRidge plaza when you agree it wouldn't be as vibrant or anything like downtown McKinney. Would you mind restating your disagreement, why you think SandRidge is good, and why you think we're going to "flame" you? I just don't see what we're disagreeing over because you said...

"I'm trying to agree that a corporate plaza, except for their own use, would not probably end up being any kind of a magnet."

I don't know if SR's plan will ultimately work, but to demean any view contrary to the rigid "build everything to the sidewalk" concept isn't necessary. I have seen plazas work in cities all over the world, many in at least as extreme climates as here...being used and being enjoyed. I am sure by saying that I will now be criticized.

I think the real issue is the density of PEOPLE downtown, not necessarily the density of buildings. Density of people will drive density of buildings, not the other way around. Density of people drives up the value of the land, which in turn drives the vertical development vs. spread. We have to get jobs downtown. To plaza or not to plaza is short term. Driving population density is long term,

Again, that doesn't mean I believe it is okay to demolish historically significant buildings for no reason. Or, it doesn't mean I believe zoning has no purpose. So now don't demean me for not agreeing with a single point of view.

I don't know if SR's plan will ultimately work, but to demean any view contrary to the rigid "build everything to the sidewalk" concept isn't necessary. I have seen plazas work in cities all over the world, many in at least as extreme climates as here...being used and being enjoyed. I am sure by saying that I will now be criticized.

What you and mburlison are thinking of are Public Squares. Public Squares are great. A corporate plaza is not a public square. They aren't designed for the same purpose and don't have the same attraction.

I understand the difference and STILL have seen them being used in various places successfully. Again, doesn't mean I want it for SR. Just saying that it is not universally a truism that corporate plazas in city center's don't work.

"Downtown McKinney" is more akin to Downtown Edmond, Guthrie or Norman than it is Downtown OKC, they are completely different environments. There aren't any "corporate plazas" in Downtown McKinney, they are public plazas and when done well, they are very nice. Most corporate plazas become paved over underutilized areas.

I also don't think anyone is proposing that they keep buildings that are beyond repair or would otherwise be prohibitive to renovate, there could always be compromise but (for now) it seems the Sandridge (public) attitude is only demolition. There has to be give to have compromise, maybe they are open to it but so far they have really failed at the PR aspect of this.

Well the demolition of 3-4 buildings is already going forward as we speak. The tower is mostly finished. Seems like this is just the final component that we've managed to get this far delaying.

Keep in mind that I think the real issue here, and I'll say it again, is a referendum on mixed-use. If we tell SandRidge they can't turn an entire city block into a corporate plaza, then we have gone a long ways toward bringing an urban downtown back. There is still hope that SR may sell the buildings to a developer and accept the mixed-use concept. If we grant SandRidge their entire block, then we may as well abandon downtown fully and never expect any vitality to ever come in the area.

This is not sensational thinking because we would literally be making a 180, from having a block with enormous mixed-use potential in buildings coveted by developers, to demolishing them and paving them over with a corporate plaza.

What happens the next time someone proposes mixed-use concepts for the downtown core? What if one of the FNB owners decide to gut it and convert it to residential, will some corporation buy them out and propose demolition of that too, to keep out the "mixed-uses?" Is the Carnegie project too close and moving too fast for SandRidge's comfort? Maybe they need to buy that bldg out and demolish it too before they ever get close to bringing mixed-uses dangerously close to SandRidge.

Why are you implying that SR is purposely trying to kill downtown or mixed use development downtown. This seems like a mischaracterization and an attempt to demonize? Just because there is a difference of opinion doesn't mean they are evil. And the implied tone that corporations are just bullies and evil seems a bit over the top.

Density is driven by JOBS. That is the engine that drives it all. So we need to find common ground and go on. The idea that some have that if you disagree you are just stupid or evil is just wrong.

--

Why are you implying that SR is purposely trying to kill downtown or mixed use development downtown? This seems like a mischaracterization and an attempt to demonize. Just because there is a difference of opinion doesn't mean they are evil. And the implied tone that corporations are just bullies and evil seems a bit over the top.

Density is driven by JOBS. That is the engine that drives it all. So we need to find common ground and go on. The idea that some have that if you disagree you are just stupid or evil is just wrong.

Three quick and easy points.

1. I am sorry if my feelings toward "evil corporations" have come off wrong toward you, but I actually hold no malice towards corporations that don't do something to annoy me, and right now that list just includes SR and one other oil company. I guess you can add NBC to the list of ones that annoy me, but the reality is that I am very pro-corporation, and when corporations have done all that Devon and Chesapeake have done for OKC, I am more than happy to become one of their cheerleaders. You want me to lay out the differences between these good companies and how SR has behaved?

2. Density is not driven by jobs, it is driven by residents. Even if it is driven by jobs, well..imagine the jobs that would be lost in mixed-use concepts that could have otherwise gone in the India Temple, Braniff, and KerMac. The reason that downtown is dead after 5 is not for lack of jobs downtown, it is for lack of residences downtown. Clearly the lack of residences downtown is the most pressing problem, and the reason we can't develop any downtown retail. Retailers are not looking for "job density." That's not even an important concept, honestly, unless you're planning on expanding a freeway between downtown and Edmond or Moore.

3. I think the central issue here is whether SandRidge applies to good urbanism, or bad urbanism. Good urbanism is everything outlined in the intended goals of the city ordinances and spelled out in the 2005 Downtown Action Plan that was adopted by the city council. Good urbanism hinges on mixed-use, walkability, density, and preservation of historic assets. Well, considering that SR is clearly opposed to all four of these facets of urbanism, SR must then be bad urbanism, by definition. I also think their project is somewhat motivated by specifically not wanting mixed-uses on their city block, and I can back that up not just with the possible reuse of the bldgs they are in a rush to get rid of, but also by their internal memos talking about how the India Temple is not conducive for work spaces and reception areas and other things their office buildings would need. Obviously they are not willing to consider mixed-use.

In general, Rover has stated what I haven't been able to, for the most part. I do understand the difference between corporate plazas, public squares etc... My statement about SR's corporate plaza 'not being the magnet' is just thinking out loud, I am not sure their purpose is for it to be a magnet for the whole of downtown or just pretty much for their own purposes. It does seem, as Rover has stated, that there is either taking SR's side 100 percent or the other side 100 percent and I just don't know if those are the only choices. I tend to side on a property owner's right to do with his property what they will, unless, and this is a big if, they knew going into this that there were restrictions they must deal with. i.e., as we would know going to a certain neighborhood that, like it or not, we're bound by the contract we create with the homeowner's association or the like. If there was no such understanding, if it was clear, legally, that they could do what they wish w/ the property, then I'm not sure why all the hubbub, not withstanding that we may or may not be in favor of the idea. Are these buildings really worth drawing the line in the sand for? (rhetorical question, not flamebait ;)). Departing from this issue, for a second, we should be about drawing more and more Sandridges to downtown, create the jobs that are important to Oklahoma City (there has been progress, but not nearly enough to make up for some of the losses recently) and likewise create a 'citywide' environment that is a draw to those trying to decide where to raise their family. Focus on downtown is good, but there are other, equally as important considerations. I think we all want the same thing here, no matter where we all live now, and that is to see Oklahoma City take its place in a thriving Southwest part of the nation. Perhaps there is a way to satisfy both Sandridge and those that oppose their plan.

Here is the thing mburlison. The position I, and several others, have taken IS the compromise position. Sandridge wants to level an entire city block and they are very clear why they want to do it. They want to improve the sight lines of their main building. They want people to be able to see the first 7 floors of the main tower. In order to do that, they have to remove the obstructions. All we are asking is that Sandridge preserve two of the 4 buildings they plan to demolish in order to provide much needed downtown housing. Currently downtown housing is sitting at 96% occupied. Nothing in downtown is in higher demand, nor has been in the last 30+ years; not office space, not park space, not plaza space, not retail space, not restaurant space, not even hotel space.

Clearly Sandridge knows what the requirements are for owning land in downtown OKC. They knew it before they bought the Kerr McGee building and they know it now. They just want to go in a different direction. Their attorney is right; maybe downtown isn't the best location for Sandridge. Sure it is nice to attract new business to downtown, but if you have to destroy what makes downtown unique from other parts of the city in order to do it then what is the point? We should focus on attracting companies to downtown OKC that want to be part of a live, work, play environment. Entities that want to destroy the 'live' and 'play' components should be discouraged.

> Entities that want to destroy the 'live' and 'play' components should be discouraged.

I'm not a demo fan in this instance, but wouldn't it be more accurate to leave play out of the destroy allegation? Nothing about their design seems to eliminate one's ability to play. Indeed, the open spaces would seem to provide some opportunities for play than aren't present on the largely artificial surface of the current plaza. I concur the plans of SR would eliminate some opportunities for live, or even, or stay. Just not sure they really harm the play component that much,, if at all.

Not everyone in northern DT will want to journey to Core to Shore or even Crystal Bridge area for some grass time.

Personally, I think Sandridge should be permitted to do with said properties as they please. With that said, it be an awesome world if the people on both sides of this issue would be as vocal and get involved with things of importance: Education, Out of Control Government (spending and big brother), the homeless, the elderly, racism, etc;.

Here is the thing mburlison. The position I, and several others, have taken IS the compromise position. Sandridge wants to level an entire city block and they are very clear why they want to do it. They want to improve the sight lines of their main building. They want people to be able to see the first 7 floors of the main tower. In order to do that, they have to remove the obstructions. All we are asking is that Sandridge preserve two of the 4 buildings they plan to demolish in order to provide much needed downtown housing. Currently downtown housing is sitting at 96% occupied. Nothing in downtown is in higher demand, nor has been in the last 30+ years; not office space, not park space, not plaza space, not retail space, not restaurant space, not even hotel space.

Clearly Sandridge knows what the requirements are for owning land in downtown OKC. They knew it before they bought the Kerr McGee building and they know it now. They just want to go in a different direction. Their attorney is right; maybe downtown isn't the best location for Sandridge. Sure it is nice to attract new business to downtown, but if you have to destroy what makes downtown unique from other parts of the city in order to do it then what is the point? We should focus on attracting companies to downtown OKC that want to be part of a live, work, play environment. Entities that want to destroy the 'live' and 'play' components should be discouraged.


Not doubting you, but where are you getting this 996% occupied number? The Hill is almost empty minus one or two units, The Brownstones are basically empty, Block 42 is not full I do not think, there are new condos almost completed right by the brownstones that are not full and I doubt that the Regency Tower is full. I know the deep deuce is full but that appears to be the only residential that is consistently full.

So, if we are to believe that downtown living is 96% occupied (a number I doubt), then why aren't other residential towers being built as we speak? That number would be incredibly high and be sufficient to get lending on new projects, even in this economic environment. Even it its heyday, south Florida, Las Vegas, etc., were never at 96%. There are many open spaces and surface lots that could be built into mid and high rises. What's stopping anyone from doing that now? This argument just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

The argument that seems to have merit is saving significant architecture and buildings of historical importance. And I think we have provisions to do that already.

And employment IS the driver of downtown residential. It sounds like some people want downtowns just to be entertainment centers and apartment complexes. Downtowns have historically grown as financial and corporate commerce centers. Then, people who work there want the convenience of being close and convenient. You don't build apartments and then expect that to be the economic generator. Doesn't work that way.

According to the last report that I saw more people that live in Downtown Austin work outside the CBD since many of them are in tech related industries and most of those companies (sans Silicon Labs) are located in the outlying areas like Dell in Round Rock or AMD in Southwest Austin. I know several who have moved into The Monarch (apartments) to "try out" downtown living before buying, a few of them have bought after living there a year and they work outside of downtown.

OKC is still a "unproven market" in the minds of financiers for high rise residential, Austin didn't start going full force until some mid-rise condo and downtown rental properties were built and sold/rented quickly. No large project financier would fund downtown high-rise residential in OKC at this time with all sorts of finance rules in flux and no proven track record and the markets still hesitant, much of that due to markets outside of this part of the country. We are working on some mid-rise mixed use here, their main concern is getting packages ready to attract financing. OKC isn't going to develop the downtown residential market through new high-rises, it is going to take renovations to get the ball rolling.

So, if we are to believe that downtown living is 96% occupied (a number I doubt), then why aren't other residential towers being built as we speak? That number would be incredibly high and be sufficient to get lending on new projects, even in this economic environment. Even it its heyday, south Florida, Las Vegas, etc., were never at 96%. There are many open spaces and surface lots that could be built into mid and high rises. What's stopping anyone from doing that now? This argument just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

The argument that seems to have merit is saving significant architecture and buildings of historical importance. And I think we have provisions to do that already.

And employment IS the driver of downtown residential. It sounds like some people want downtowns just to be entertainment centers and apartment complexes. Downtowns have historically grown as financial and corporate commerce centers. Then, people who work there want the convenience of being close and convenient. You don't build apartments and then expect that to be the economic generator. Doesn't work that way.

These are my thoughts as well, I just do not know where the 96% figure is coming from. I know that the Deep Deuce is around that number or maybe even full, but the rest of downtown residential is not full and that is a fact!

Downtown residential in total is not 96% occupied, that number is for downtown rental units (ie. the Legacy, Montgomery, Park Harvey, the Harvey, Seiber, etc). The number was in a recent Oklahoman article. It is a generally unchallenged fact that downtown rental units are, by far, the tightest real estate market of any kind anywhere in the metro.

The reason there are not multiple apartment towers underway right now is because we lack the ability to attract decent developers (with capital) interested in an anti-urban downtown, and we keep tearing down the buildings that developers are interested in doing stuff with.

So, if we are to believe that downtown living is 96% occupied (a number I doubt), then why aren't other residential towers being built as we speak? That number would be incredibly high and be sufficient to get lending on new projects, even in this economic environment. Even it its heyday, south Florida, Las Vegas, etc., were never at 96%. There are many open spaces and surface lots that could be built into mid and high rises. What's stopping anyone from doing that now? This argument just doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

The argument that seems to have merit is saving significant architecture and buildings of historical importance. And I think we have provisions to do that already.

And employment IS the driver of downtown residential. It sounds like some people want downtowns just to be entertainment centers and apartment complexes. Downtowns have historically grown as financial and corporate commerce centers. Then, people who work there want the convenience of being close and convenient. You don't build apartments and then expect that to be the economic generator. Doesn't work that way.

Lots of inaccuracies here in this post. First of all, you're comment that employer is the driver of downtown residential. That is very false. The studies we have done on downtown residential, interestingly enough (and much to my own surprise as well), actually indicate the majority of people moving downtown commute OUT from downtown, many work in Edmond, Memorial Road, etc. One thing we have failed to do is capitalize on turning downtown workers into downtown residences. It could be that they don't find the place they work to be particularly vibrant do to its notable lack of mixed-use vitality.

Also it's much more difficult to build a mid or high rise on a surface lot than it is to rehab an existing building. We will not see a high rise residential project for decades. That is not economically feasible here because the land values don't support building 40 floors up into the air, so we're all going to have to get over that.

And you agree saving significant buildings, and that we already have provisions in place to do that..so what about the provisions we have in place to prevent anti-urban projects and demolitions in general? And would you NOT agree that the India Temple is historically important...having serves as the state capital for 7 years?

I would also encourage you to absorb some of the history of downtowns, including OKC's. Urban renewal has been fueled by corporate commerce centers, not downtown. Downtowns have typically withered away as they became taken over and converted to special corporate commerce centers. Back during OKC's heyday, downtown was established for the general purpose of every day people. It was far from being just a millionaire's playground, like it is today (ie "MAPS for Millionaires").

Don't know where to start to answer.

I am involved in development and construction around the world and have been for 20 years. I work with some of the largest developers and contractors in the world. They would be surprised to learn they have it all wrong and that the real secret to city building is to build buildings to the sidewalks and have cheap rent for 20 year olds. It is really quite simple if you truly believe that all buildings are worth saving and city centers don't need jobs in them. LOL.

If you've been in development for 20 years, then no offense sir, but you need new intel. The situation of downtown development and the understanding of that has gone through a revolution in the last 15 years, just as trends always change. Are you aware of that?

We're all aware that in the 60s and definitely the 70s we wouldn't be having this debate. We've seen the folly of these types of developments, and I thought we were going to do something about it. hmmm...

Maybe it is the people who I work with who are actually making the investments and doing the work that need new intel. Stupid them, they haven't read the books I guess. They have been busy making money actually putting their theories to work. I know that isn't as good as intel as a board like this, but it is the best I've got.

I've also read a fair amount on the THEORY of urban development and the trends on thoughts of how it works and there are a lot of diverse opinions on core urban development than the legalistic and single-minded viewpoint often vigorously expressed here.

Maybe it is the people who I work with who are actually making the investments and doing the work that need new intel. Stupid them, they haven't read the books I guess. They have been busy making money actually putting their theories to work. I know that isn't as good as intel as a board like this, but it is the best I've got.

Exactly. People have these studies and things that they think are the gospel, but yet for the most part these people are not out there investing their money in real estate in the area where they want to tell others how and what to do. Sometimes, what studies say are not what actually works.

Then can someone please point to a study that says downtown needs more corporate plazas?

I get the impression Rover and Dirtlaw thinks the following:

Retail follows roof tops and roof tops follow cubicles.

It doesn't work that way. If it did, please explain suburbia.

Residential comes first - it always has. Then comes retail and them comes non-retail employers. Just look at the history of OKC if you doubt it. Did the land runners settle in OKC because it had employers? The city didn’t even exist when the first house was built.

BTW - thanks for correction Spartan. The 96% was for downtown rental units and it was in the Oklahoman last week as part of the Regency Tower Purchase article. You can believe the 96% figure and any opinion or belief you derived from not believing it can be discarded. Don't continue to believe something you now know to be not true.

Dense downtown living developed in earlier times when transportation didn't allow for long distance travel to and from work. As public transportation became available, the spread widened. Finally, when cars allowed for longer commutes, both companies and their employees moved out to where land and construction costs were cheaper. Center cities have traditionally been a hub for commerce and trading, especially finance. People follow jobs, not the other way around, except for retail. Most companies follow cost of doing business and opportunity. RETAIL businesses follow the people.

OKC has been developed at a time where transportation has been cheap and quick and thus the sprawl. Downtown did not develop with "neighborhoods" of cultures that add to the fabric of many larger cities developed mostly in the 1800s and very early 1900s. It is hard to re-create that and so OKC has to artificially develop a living lifestyle downtown. It seems to me the easiest way to promote that is to provide jobs downtown and keep the people working there in the area. Pockets of homogenous culture will be developed over time, but cannot be imposed. That is why Deep Deuce and Midtown have very different personalities emerging.

BTW, if you care, there are many articles regarding the benefits/problems associated with private plazas in urban environments. There are opposing viewpoints, but most agree that the main problems are associated with poor design and lack of oversight/control after they are created. The lines between private and public use become blurred and can create real problems leading to disuse. The issue in my mind is not plaza vs. no plaza, but rather good design vs. bad and good control vs. no control of the spaces.

Then can someone please point to a study that says downtown needs more corporate plazas?

Sure, if you can point to a study that says downtown doesn't need more corporate plazas!

Sure, if you can point to a study that says downtown doesn't need more corporate plazas!

OK, lol. Here's one...
http://www.okc.gov/planning/downtown/downtown2010.pdf

You won't find a single page that doesn't mention, "With a goal of creating a central city core defined as a vibrant ‘live, work and play’ environment," (Pg 16, for example).

"Develop a list of endangered historic properties and define steps to promote their restoration." (Pg 42)

"Direct new construction towards underutilized and vacant sites, while endeavoring to preserve historically
and architecturally significant landmarks that contribute to downtown’s unique character." (Pg 40)

"Create a design review process that applies these criteria equally to public and private developments." (Pg 40)

"Develop urban design criteria to support objectives for quality development and to enhance the marketability and sustainability of revitalization efforts." (Pg 40)

There is also a graphic on Page 40 that illustrates the proper use of building setbacks, which are only to be used ABOVE the streetwall if a proposed project is significantly taller than its environs (similar to how NY Art Deco skyscrapers evolved with staggered setbacks every 50 ft or so).

People follow jobs, not the other way around, except for retail. Most companies follow cost of doing business and opportunity. RETAIL businesses follow the people.

I think we are getting a little confused between micro and macro issues.

And of course, I am opposed to corporate plazas in every scenario, but even the pro-plaza argument could not back up SandRidge Commons. Here is a VT student's thesis on corporate plazas (which seems to be pro-plaza).
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01182005-004519/unrestricted/volume01.pdf

"To achieve this sense of continuity, the design of the plaza needs to reflect/incorporate the elements that contribute to the strong physical image of the skyscraper as a means of reinforcing the image of the skyscraper that is stored in the memory." I personally dislike this quote, but it seems to be the major caveat of his/her entire argument considering it is bolded and referred to several times throughout the work, so we'll go with it.

One would argue that a skyscraper that is intended to be beautiful is something that you do want to project on the human scale that exists back on the ground level. Devon Tower is a skyscraper designed specifically to be beautiful, and I'll quote Jon Pickard: "Height is fleeting, but beauty endures." Kerr McGee Tower was however, not designed to be beautiful. That is not the purpose of brutalism. And that is definitely not something that you ever want to project on the human scale. Brutalism only works from afar, not when you are mired within it!

One word argue that a skyscraper that is intended to be beautiful is something that you do want to project on the human scale that exists back on the ground level. Devon Tower is a skyscraper designed specifically to be beautiful, and I'll quote Jon Pickard: "Height is fleeting, but beauty endures." Kerr McGee Tower was however, not designed to be beautiful. That is not the purpose of brutalism. And that is definitely not something that you ever want to project on the human scale. Brutalism only works from afar, not when you are mired within in!

Excellent point Spartan. This might explain why the original architect hid the ground level from view by putting it in the middle of the block instead of at the street in the first place. You have the exact opposite with the Art-deco buildings, which have ornate touches and are pushed out to the sidewalk so they could be seen.

Interesting thought. What is the "original intent" of Pietro Belluschi with Kerr McGee tower? We know that there was another tower planned, and we know about the symbolism in the inverted size-order windows... I think that we can also safely infer that Belluschi did not intend for KMG tower to have street visibility. It is not that kind of skyscraper.

Interesting thought. What is the "original intent" of Pietro Belluschi with Kerr McGee tower? We know that there was another tower planned, and we know about the symbolism in the inverted size-order windows... I think that we can also safely infer that Belluschi did not intend for KMG tower to have street visibility. It is not that kind of skyscraper.

What do you mean by this, Spartan? It wasn't going to be invisible or behind a wall so there must be terminology I don't know. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your input on this issue ....and Kerry's too.

I've always loathed brutalism. Nothing redeeming about it.

Question: Isn't Sandridge trying to spend $100million on that silly plaza space? Instead, they should spend the money RECLADDING their ugly, brutalist tower - and maybe adding some floors.

Such a myopic corporation it seems. Hmmm.

I've always loathed brutalism. Nothing redeeming about it.

Question: Isn't Sandridge trying to spend $100million on that silly plaza space? Instead, they should spend the money RECLADDING their ugly, brutalist tower - and maybe adding some floors.

Such a myopic corporation it seems. Hmmm.

Nothing brings people together like the dislike for brutalism. I agree Ronronnie, they should have spent the $100 million doing something with the exterior of main tower - like painting it sky blue.

Nothing brings people together like the dislike for brutalism.

Haha this is very true. Prince Charles once excoriated it saying, "You have to at least hand it to the Luftwaffe, that when they destroyed our buildings, they replaced them with nothing more offensive than rubble."

Nothing brings people together like the dislike for brutalism. I agree Ronronnie, they should have spent the $100 million doing something with the exterior of main tower - like painting it sky blue.

Not trying to be nit picky here but isn't this $100 million Sandridge's money? If I had a million dollars to spend, I would never ask the public what they think I should spend it on. This city should be greatful they have a business within city limits that is willing to invest in itself. If I'm not mistaken hasn't Sandridge contributed money to this community? This is the return the city gives back?

okrednk:

Are you saying that a business or individual should be able to do what ever they want because they have made a hefty contribution along the way? That they don't have to follow the ordinances/statutes/laws because it is inconvenient for them to do so? To turn your last question, this is the way SandRidge "gives back" by tearing down buildings and replacing them with a plaza? (Some they are replacing with other buildings, and I haven't sen any opposition to those part of the plans)

Not trying to be nit picky here but isn't this $100 million Sandridge's money? If I had a million dollars to spend, I would never ask the public what they think I should spend it on. This city should be greatful they have a business within city limits that is willing to invest in itself. If I'm not mistaken hasn't Sandridge contributed money to this community? This is the return the city gives back?

I think Larry pretty much summed it up. Being a good neighbor doesn't mean you are free to paint your house pink. I volunteered to help plant some bushes on property owned by the subdivision I live in. They in-turn didn't give a free pass on a deed restriction of my choice. I still have to live and play by all the rules. If the Sandridge plan was playing by the rules why are they before the Board of Adjustments in the first place? It is because they are trying to do something that isn't allowed. All we are asking is for the Board of Adjustment to follow City Ordinances in this case. Is that too much to ask?

Personally, I think Sandridge should be permitted to do with said properties as they please.

Really? This is a pretty common point of view in defense of the Sandridge plan, but it doesn't pass the smell test - and I can prove it.

Do you think it would be OK if Sandridge wanted to take out the buildings and convert the area to open-pit raw sewage lagoon? You have to be honest here and admit that you would be opposed to that type of plan. So clearly you don't think they should be able to do whatever they want.

Really? This is a pretty common point of view in defense of the Sandridge plan, but it doesn't pass the smell test - and I can prove it.

Do you think it would be OK if Sandridge wanted to take out the buildings and convert the area to open-pit raw sewage lagoon? You have to be honest here and admit that you would be opposed to that type of plan. So clearly you don't think they should be able to do whatever they want. Good point Kerry!