SandRidge Center & Commons

[Popsy]

Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

[OKC@heart]

Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

You two get a room!

[Kerry]

Kerry: no, you're not the only one here who has had the title of City Planner on their biz cards. I know of several posters here who do so, including me.

While I agree that Spartan doesn't understand the reality of the Planner's role, or know the limits to what they can and can't do, or at least he doesn't seem to, they are much more than glorified paper pushers. Planners compose, draft and administer zoning regs and design codes to which the developers must then adhere. They also meet on a consistent basis with these developers, at least in this city, in order to find the best possible solution in getting a project completed. That takes lots of knowledge of the legal ramifications of their application of the municipal code.

Much more thought goes into that job than merely reviewing a set of plans.

I guess it depends on your position in the City Planning department as to what your responsibilites are. I didn't do what my manager did, and she didn't do what our planning director did. Mostly I reviewed applications for signs, reviewed development plans, helped developers and residents with zoning questions, wrote the 20-year comprehensive plan, and set up the towns initial GIS system. It was a fun job while I was there.

[Spartan]

Spartan. In this case the development is a plaza and not a building and I feel certain Sandridge will bring that plaza right up to the edge of the sidewalk. So if you could puzzle me this, where exactly will the variance be needed? I also wonder which side will have the most political clout. Sandrige or old building huggers? Gosh, I don't know. It could be a real battle, huh?

What gives you the impression that a plaza is "development" in the first place? It's not. It's the anti-development. It's taking something that once was development and turning it into an urban black hole. The code doesn't allow for buildings to be setback and surrounded by these huge plazas that just serve as moats to fend off the downtown elements, which is why the Chamber building actually got a reject recommendation.

When you bring up political clout you might have a point because again with that example, Planning recommended reject, but a variance was given anyway despite a totally unfriendly design towards pedestrians.

[bombermwc]

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly". Things like the chamber are amazing projects that SHOULD be built. And just because they don't butt up to the road, doesn't make it a bad project. Downtown would be much more interesting if there were gathering places here and there rather than a solid wind tunnel of walls everywhere.

[Kerry]

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly". Things like the chamber are amazing projects that SHOULD be built. And just because they don't butt up to the road, doesn't make it a bad project. Downtown would be much more interesting if there were gathering places here and there rather than a solid wind tunnel of walls everywhere.

Downtown does have parks and open space. You can't look at downtown OKC the same way you look at other parts of town due to the shear concentration of people. If you place 50,000 people in 100 sq blocks and don't make it 'pedestrian friendly' how do you propose people get around downtown?

Not butting up to the road might not make something a bad project, but it is a violation of city code in downtown.

[Popsy]

Spartan. Your definition of what development is baffles me. In my world development encompasses a lot more. Was Myriad Gardens not a development. Was the new federal campus not a development. They are downtown and none of the buildings come out to the sidewalk. Neither do the Cox Convention Center, the Ford Center or the Fidelity Bank, if that is what it is still named. I have never seen any pedestrian having a problem navigating past them. Seems to me that once those old worthless buildings are torn down, whatever is built in their place would be a development as in Sandridge developed an aesthetically pleasing plaza to compliment their campus.

Why do so many in this forum want to see OKC look and be like New York City or Chicago? I personally would like OKC be it's own unique city as much as it can be.

[Architect2010]

Because New York City and Chicago are amazing world known urban cities and they are models to follow. Every city wants to be them, however, we will never be like them and that's not a surprising thought or depressing thought. We're OKC. But do we want to be a sprawling, anti-urban, and pedestrian unfriendly city? Is that what you mean by a unique city? Because that is not attractive to anyone at all except suburbanites. That's where the problem lies, this city is a mix of urbanites, suburbanites, and the inbetween, let's make OKC a desireable place for every group of people, not just one. I may be interpreting your side all wrong because I'm late to this thread, but this downtown is a historically urban streetscape. I don't know why anyone may think it's okay to put anti-urban developments in an urban setting. It's a paradox. One plaza might be okay, add another, add the Stage Center, the proposed Chamber Building, Lower Bricktown, knock down our remaing streetwall, add some more superblocks like the Cox that you mentioned, and you are negatively affecting the urban fabric of this city more and more. It is not okay, whether or not we're NYC, Chicago, Dallas, or Denver. It is not okay.

[Popsy]

A-10. When you ask "do we want to be a sprawling, anti-urban, and pedestrian unfriendly city" I am wondering who falls into the "we" part of your question. I would imagine that a huge majority of the residents in OKC could care less what happens in downtown OKC as it relates to plazas or old unuseable buildings that no longer have a useful life other than to provide a street wall for the purist of urbanists. I am not an urban purist, but I am not anti-urban either. I am for companies that want to add to downtown OKC in a way that would be pleasing to the majority of the residents. I greatly respect Devon and Sandridge for what they are doing downtown and I expect city management to be helpful to both as long as they come up with quality projects. Also, I do not agree with you that every city wants to be like New York or Chicago, but feel free to make up your facts as you go. I would probably agree with you that it is not "okay" for your vision and that of a few others in this forum, for the urban fabric to be affected by Sandridge's demolition of four old empty buildings, whose sole purpose at present is to provide streetwall, and the building of a plaza to replace them. Fortunately, it is not your, mine or this forum's decision to decide if it is "okay" or not. It will be interesting however to watch the process.

[lasomeday]

Popsy,

You are in the minority. The destruction of buildings downtown has been the downfall for the urban environment of downtown OKC. Historically OKC had a thriving downtown, until Urban Renewal went threw and destroyed many buildings and rerouted streets. The result is a lifeless downtown.

So, more destruction of buildings downtown should have knee jerk reaction for everyone in OKC that wants to re-establish the vibrant downtown that used to be here.

That is all we want. If we can save those buildings and have them reused for residential. Then we can bring more people to downtown, which will bring more retail etc.

My problem is that people think Sandridge is a massive company that can afford to all of this. They are not! Chesapeake and Devon are massive companies. Sandridge is a fraction the size and is not in a financial situation to do this. If nat gas prices were higher I wouldn't be saying this, but prices in the long run are not looking good.

Also a strong urban core makes for a strong city. NYC isn't just Manhattan, it is Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, etc. If Manhattan does well so do the other burroughs. Same with Chicago and other great cities. So, the more urban and prosperous the downtown of OKC becomes the better the suburban areas of the city become.

[Popsy]

Lasome. If you read into my posts that I am against downtown growing into a vibrant urban district let me assure you that is not the case. I am not for demolishing downtown buildings as urban renewal did, but if a plan is in place to replace those unuseable buildings I am for it. I know that Sandridge is not Devon or Chesapeake, but the Sandridge CEO knows how to build as evidenced by his participation in Chesapeake's growth.

As to those buildings being used for residential, I do not see the probability of it happening. One is a parking garage and the YMCA building has structural damage that cannot be overcome. The other two buildings, I have no idea as to their convertability, but I would guess that the cost would be prohibitive. At least no one has stepped up to try to buy them from Sandridge to date, nor did they try to buy them from KM.

With credit being tight and the economy sour I still see the possibility of growth downtown, but it will probably come from locals if it does. Midfirst is growing and I am hoping they will build their new home downtown and there was the rumor going around some time back that American Fidelity might be looking to take over the current Devon property. If those were to happen it would definately help with the vibrancy aspect. Also, I believe Larry Nichols stated that he planned to encourage others in the energy sector to locate downtown. Regardless, I hope that this is about all I have to say on the subject as I do not expect to change anyones way of thinking, nor will mine be changed either. I respect the opinions of those that disagree with me and I would hope my opinions are treated in a similar manner.

[jbrown84]

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly".

It's down-FREAKING-town for goodness sake!

Would you rather walk past shops and restaurants with people in them or an empty, windy plaza with a mirrored glass fortress behind it? That's why plazas are bad.

[lasomeday]

Popsy,

I am not saying save all of them, just two. I don't care about the parking garage or the YMCA. One of the other two buildings before Kerr-McGee was bought out had plans to be converted into an apartment/condo with retail on the ground floor. Financing right now would not allow for someone to swoop in and buy those buildings. And the only residential high rises now are ones that are being converted from office to residential. There aren't any in the plans because of financing for any to be built. A lot of people want to live in a high rise downtown. Those buildings are in a great location and many of Sandridge's employees or interns could live there.

And you might want to read some more posts on here. Midfirst bank is building an 18 story building by their current location.

[Popsy]

Lasome. I searched and for some reason could not find the thread about Midfirst building near their current location. I do remember a thread that linked to an architects site that labeled a building rendition as being in that area. Was there an actual announcement by Midfirst or did everyone just assume that the building in the rendition would be Midfirst's? If it was the latter I can think of several scenarios that could be in play here. Perhaps they requested design renditions from several architects and that architect decided to show off theirs on their site and assumed Midfirst would locate in that area. Perhaps Midfirst does want to build downtown, but does not want anyone to know it until they purchase the property they want. Just wishful thinking on my part, but if they did announce then I wish to retract everthing I have said about Midfirst in this thread.

[Steve]

LAsomeday, there is nothing backing up the MidFirst rumor. I did some digging and was told there's nothing to it. Remember sometimes architects do renderings and work hoping to land a client, attract some interest, etc. Sometimes the rendering is commissioned by a developer doing the same thing.

[Spartan]

Personally, i get tired of every project having to be "pedestrian friendly".

Yeah no joke. I also get tiresome of the suggestion that "every" project in OKC be quality urbanism..and I am so tired of looking at all of this quality urbanism in OKC. Enough! Let developers be free to build whatever they want already! And pedestrians.. Those goddamn pedestrians are so pesky..walking everywhere, thinking they own this city, always in the way of my car's grill. I bet you I've ran over as many of 'em as you have.

[bombermwc]

Don't go blowing it out of proportion Spartan. You know very well that we've lost some good projects becauase they didn't meet the requests of the "all-knowing" pedestrian gods. Downtown is walkable now, and no one here can say that it isn't....i've trotted myself around downtown plenty-a-time all over the damn place from one side to the other, above and below ground.

The "walls" are what keep downtown from being as good of a place as it CAN be. Walking down Robinson, yeah there are shops, and walls, and a concrete jungle that isn't broken up so you are shoved down a tube of unbroken concrete to your destination. Conversely, head up to the Kerr Plaza, and while it's not anything spectacular, it does help break things up and you don't feel as confined...even if it's just a small plaza like that, it does wonders for someone to not feel confined.

Downtown OKC is not in any way, shape, or form an urban environment either. Why is that? How many people actually LIVE in the CBD...and NOT in those suburban up-scale apartments across the street? It's 99% commercial and clears out after 5. Meeting the needs of the people walking to their car or at lunch isn't the definition of urban either.

Now don't take this the wrong way, as I'm sure you already have. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see this not be the case. If Dowell actually works out as an acceptable place to live, hey, maybe things can change. But I still absolutely think that every freaking project doesn't have to follow some idiotic no-tolerence policy of pedestrianism. Being set back from the road does NOT make a project un-friendly. Just because someone has to walk a few extra feet and isn't met with a square wall at street level, doesn't make a project bad. Hell, we could even have a little grass downtown...or a few plants...what a concept.

All I'm saying is that we've gotten so focussed on this that we're turning into a no-tolerence type school instead of an intelligent city that can be flexible and work to make each project the best it can.

[krisb]

Yeah no joke. I also get tiresome of the suggestion that "every" project in OKC be quality urbanism..and I am so tired of looking at all of this quality urbanism in OKC. Enough! Let developers be free to build whatever they want already! And pedestrians.. Those goddamn pedestrians are so pesky..walking everywhere, thinking they own this city, always in the way of my car's grill. I bet you I've ran over as many of 'em as you have.

On that note, let's make all downtown stores drive-thru and eliminate sidewalks altogether. Why should we have to interact with real people outside of our vehicular cages?

[bombermwc]

Ugh....sarcasm...so helpful.

[Popsy]

I don't know if that was sarcasm or not bomber. I think Spartan is finally catching on and Krisb has a good idea, not eliminating the sidewalk because someone might want to walk them some day, but the drive-thru is brilliant. If we put a drive thru in every business downtown it can take up some of the vacancy that exists. Maybe take out the sidewalk on the sides where the plazas are built as they only need one side of the street wall to feel safe. Myself, if I see an out of control vehicle coming at me at 25 MPH, I would rather have a tree to get behind than being pinned against that street wall.
As for interaction with people, there is always twitter, facebook and the new park to be built in core to shore.

Sorry urban purists, but sarcasm can come from both sides, I hope. I apologize for not adding profanity by the way.

[soonerguru]

Spartan. Your definition of what development is baffles me. In my world development encompasses a lot more. Was Myriad Gardens not a development. Was the new federal campus not a development. They are downtown and none of the buildings come out to the sidewalk. Neither do the Cox Convention Center, the Ford Center or the Fidelity Bank, if that is what it is still named. I have never seen any pedestrian having a problem navigating past them. Seems to me that once those old worthless buildings are torn down, whatever is built in their place would be a development as in Sandridge developed an aesthetically pleasing plaza to compliment their campus.

Why do so many in this forum want to see OKC look and be like New York City or Chicago? I personally would like OKC be it's own unique city as much as it can be.

We're in no danger of looking like either of those cities any time soon.

But I think the real question that needs to be asked here is why are you so opposed to Oklahoma City becoming a more attractive, urban, walkable, interesting city?

[Spartan]

Guru, he's just doin his duty that every red blooded God fearin American has to keep this nation safe from the urbanist wackos. The question is what in the name of NASCAR are you doin to keep our city safe?

[Popsy]

Guru. I am 100 per cent for OKC to become a more attractive urban area. I even did volunteer work for Maps 3, but I do not see where it is necessary that downtown has to have as much street wall as some in this forum advocate and feel that Sandridge should have their plaza if that is what they want. Also, there is so much criticism of, and complaining about what is done in OKC from numermous members of this forum that I felt I wanted to take a stand for some moderation. Perhaps I should not have, but I did because I thought this forum could handle minority dissenting opinions.

[Spartan]

You want us pro-urbanists to be moderated?

[Popsy]

I would like to see you practice some moderation of your staunch attitude and perception of what the urban fabric should be for OKC. But mainly from you Spar, I would like to see you lighten up on criticizing everything that happens in OKC that is not one hundred per cent to your liking. I do not want to ignore your posts because you do have some good ideas at times and make a valued contribution to the forum.