SandRidge Center & Commons

[lasomeday]

Popsy, you are old enough to remember all of the old buildings downtown.

I wouldn't mind if they tore these buildings down to replace them with bigger buildings, but they are not. Downtown could use more apartments, and these buildings have had proposals to become apartments before the Kerr-McGee sale. So obviously these buildings should not be torn down.

[Popsy]

Lasom. I would agree with you that were someone to come forth willing to put the money up to buy and rehab those buildings I would be all for it. I believe however, that when the proposal to do so came about before the KM sale it was from an architect and devloper that did not want to put any money into buying or devloping the property. KM was required to provide the buildings and provide funding for the rehab. Sandridge is apparently in better financial shape than KM was and does not have that same vision. So the bottom line is: do we try to make Sandridge wait until someone with that vision comes along to do it or demolish them to build new? My feeling is that anyone with the money could find less expensive property, considering the cost of purchase and the dollars to demolish. My position is let Sandridge build their plaza and developers can find other property downtown that would expand downtown's foot print. Why alienate the Sandridge CEO when they have the possibility of becoming a major downtown employer?

[lasomeday]

Actually, Kerr McGee was in better financial state than Sandridge. I did audits on them. That is why they were acquired. Sandridge has a lot of debt, that is why I am worried about them destroying buildings because if the price of gas stays low they won't be able to afford to do the plaza or whatever else they plan to do.

[jbrown84]

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.

Exactly why these prime locations for residential need to be preserved at all costs rather than adding more windy open space downtown. If some of the buildings in question are not salvagable, they should be replaced with midrise structures, not concrete pavers and a couple trees.

[Spartan]

Downtown living is a formula that works. If we establish residential in our downtown and remove barriers in city code, I guarantee you, OKC will become an urban city. After the initial period downtown housing will begin to roll on its own..it's just all about reaching a level of critical mass to put the economics behind it in motion. So it is so shortsighted to shoot down urbanism and destroy vital streetwalls off of the rational that we are not a downtown city in the first place.

[proud2Bsooner]

All of you downtown utopia dreamers need to get over yourselves and realize that this thread is a lot about nothing. We're talking about a relatively small area of downtown that is pretty much isolated in what is going on downtown. This hasn't been a trend and doesn't appear to be starting a new trend. Sandridge is helping immensely with what is going on downtown, and the urban fascists around here just want to complain about them despite the facts that relate to this issue.

[ronronnie1]

Prediction:

Sandridge tears down those old buildings leaving a gaping hole in that streetwall.

Six months later Sandridge is bought out and operations move to Houston.

OKC, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[BoulderSooner]

Downtown living is a formula that works. If we establish residential in our downtown and remove barriers in city code, I guarantee you, OKC will become an urban city. After the initial period downtown housing will begin to roll on its own..it's just all about reaching a level of critical mass to put the economics behind it in motion. So it is so shortsighted to shoot down urbanism and destroy vital streetwalls off of the rational that we are not a downtown city in the first place.

"vital streetwall" a litte much don't you think ...

[Popsy]

I read an article in the Oklahoman this weekend that stated Devon will vacate 900,000 square feet of office space downtown when they move into their new tower. I would predict that so much additional vacancy will drive down the value of those vacant buildings to a point that maybe the urbanist can realize their dreams of seeing them converted into living units. The old buildings will not be as important as newer buildings can be had for a song. I am really worried though about crowd control when developers from across the country rush to OKC to create the urban utopia our urbanists dream about. So Spartan, the guarantee you gave may finally come to pass. Right?

[Kerry]

Well, 900,000 sq ft of office space on the market will change things. Hopefully it will force the old class C properties go residential. According to the article about Devon, over 200,000 sq. ft. of FNC is leased to Devon. I'll bet that is 75% of the leased space in that building. I can imagine anyone else left in FNC will find competitive rates at other downtown class A space after the move is made. That could leave FNC 100% empty with very little prospect of finding new tenants. If they converted that build to residential they would sell-out fast.

[rcjunkie]

I hear/read some on this thread talk about how important it is to save these 4 or 5 buildings, that they could possibly be converted and used for residential. If these buildings were that valuable as residential, someone would have already bought and converted them, if you know something present investors don't, get on the phone or computer, go talk to your banker, recruit family, friends and investors, buy the buildings, take on this project yourself, get rich and live happily ever after.

[Urbanized]

If the Skirvin had value as a hotel, it would have been refurbished during the 1990s.

[Kerry]

If the Skirvin had value as a hotel, it would have been refurbished during the 1990s.

From a private sector stand point the Skirvin didn't have value as a hotel. Are you suggesting the city pump millions into residential housing like it did the Skirvin?

[Steve]

I hear/read some on this thread talk about how important it is to save these 4 or 5 buildings, that they could possibly be converted and used for residential. If these buildings were that valuable as residential, someone would have already bought and converted them, if you know something present investors don't, get on the phone or computer, go talk to your banker, recruit family, friends and investors, buy the buildings, take on this project yourself, get rich and live happily ever after.

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

[Kerry]

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

Assuming Sandridge won't sell, do you think they might be interested in doing other downtown building Steve? After all, these can't be the two most prime building to convert to residential.

[Steve]

Yes, Kerry, in my last story Tom Ward indicated he sees the potential for a new tower being built someday where the old India Temple building is located. He wants the old KerMac building corner, however, for a plaza entry. It reminds me somewhat of Vincent Carrozza's plan back in the early 1980s to tear down Robinson Renassaince (across from First National) to create a plaza his never realized Galleria project.

[Kerry]

Yes, Kerry, in my last story Tom Ward indicated he sees the potential for a new tower being built someday where the old India Temple building is located. He wants the old KerMac building corner, however, for a plaza entry. It reminds me somewhat of Vincent Carrozza's plan back in the early 1980s to tear down Robinson Renassaince (across from First National) to create a plaza his never realized Galleria project.

Anything that reminds anyone about the Galleria project should be the first clue to stop and desist. Next thing you know someone will say they drew inspiration from the String of Pearls plan.

BTW - can you elaborate on 'someday'? Are we talking months, years, decades, or generically 'someday'.

From Captain Ron...

That glass out front? A window
popped out of the 12th floor.



We could have been under it.
Not the idiot that installed it...



You're walking down the street.
Bam! You're shredded beef.



Makes you think, doesn't it?
We all have things we want to do.



But a window falls on you, some truck
flattens you, you catch a disease...



Not contagious.



Carla, you know Martin Harvey,
new products?



Marty wants to write a novel. About
adventures in product development?



- I said some day...
- Exactly! "Some day."



Martin Harvey? Sign on the line.



Some day I'll retire, some day
we'll have more time for our kids.



Some day Marty will write.
What if some day never comes?

[Steve]

"Someday," Kerry, is just that - "someday."
Someday I hope to take my kids to Disney World.

[rcjunkie]

RCJunkie, there are developers with track records who have offered and still want to buy and turn these buildings into residential. But SandRidge isn't interested in doing the deal.

Didn't SandRidge just complete the purchase these buildings within the past few months ?, if so, why did these developers wait when they could have bought them before (Tom Ward) SandRidge ?

[Steve]

It's been two years since SandRidge bought the buildings. They were previously owned by Kerr-McGee, which has an agreement with the Anthony McDermid group to turn them into housing. That project was well underway when Kerr-McGee was acquired by Anadarko Petroleum. The residential development project then ended up in a court battle while the entire property was for sale, tying up the buildings from any redevelopment. This wasn't cleared up until the entire campus was bought by SandRidge.
There has not been a time, to my knowledge, in the past five years when there hasn't been a serious, accomplished developer (more than one) wanting to adapt these buildings into housing.
The question here is one I've asked before: what is the balance between what an owner wants to do with their downtown property and the community's interest in maintaining what's best for long-term urban density and design?

[Urbanized]

From a private sector stand point the Skirvin didn't have value as a hotel. Are you suggesting the city pump millions into residential housing like it did the Skirvin?

I'm suggesting maybe the whole issue should be studied a bit further. Lots of people -- important people -- thought it was a foregone conclusion and even important for the Skirvin to be torn down at one point. It was a very recent point in time, in the grand scheme of things. The same is true for the Seiber Hotel, the Gold Dome, Steve Mason's buildings on 9th (housing Iguana, Sara Sara, etc.), the St. Nicholas Hotel (home to Schlegel Bicycles), the Plaza Court (home to James E. McNellie's, Irma's, and others), the Walnut Street Bridge, the Heirding Bulding (home to Elliott + Associates), and others. Most of those buildings these days would be considered assets and give Oklahoma City something it desperately lacks: character.

By the way, from what I understand the City probably won't end up being out a dime on the Skirvin when everything is said and done. That's not to say taxpayer dollars are necessarily the answer in this case.

I'm also not saying there is no way those buildings should be demolished. I'm an HP enthusiast, but a pragmatic one. There are some buildings that should be sacred cows, but others could be replaced with a higher-and better-use structure without bothering me a bit.

The thing I'm most concerned with in this particular case is the loss forever of one of the few truly pedestrian-oriented environments left downtown. I know the anti-urbanists are ridiculing "walkabilty" in this thread, but it's really the only thing that sets downtown apart from the rest of the city. If you tear down too much of the remaining urban fabric, you end up with the suburbs with worse parking.

It's not someone's imagination that a "street wall" with windows encourages pedestrians while large gaps between buildings discourage them. There are a number of studies that have measured the difference in distance people are willing to walk past a hole in the street wall vs. a good one with windows. There is a precipitous dropoff in people's willingness to walk from place to place when faced when facing a walk past gaps in the fabric. Darwinists would tell you that is instinct; people feel more safe from predators (automobiles) when sheltered (against a building) with a perceived escape route (doors and windows you can see into) than they do in a wide-open area.

Finally, the idea that somehow OKC is brimming with urban design nazis keeping downtown from realizing its full potential as a suburban-style development is pretty laughable. Downtown OKC's urban fabric was decimated for more than half a century. What is left is only marginally urban. BY FAR most development decisions in this town are still made with a decidedly suburban/vehicular bias. I don't think it's too much to ask for basic urban planning standards and the favoring of people over cars to be applied to a mere few dozen square blocks in the center of 600 square miles of a suburban "utopia" where "walkability" gets ZERO consideration.

[Steve]

See photo here if it doesn't appear: http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/fi...01/big-box.jpg
Pop quiz time! (and yes, this really is related to the thread) Where are stores in the above photo located? And does it matter as to whether a community has any unique character, or to steal a phrase from Spartan's recent thread, "a sense of place"?

[Urbanized]

I'm not familiar with the Red X store.

[Steve]

Weird. Pops up first time for me, then bad image on the next. Moderators, what am I doing wrong?

[Urbanized]

Careful, Steve. Some people could spend a full day answering that question.