Widgets Magazine
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 556

Thread: Parkside Building

  1. #151

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    SandRidge was due to start moving employees into the Braniff Building this spring/summer.

    It will be interesting to see if they do that or instead move them into the tower, as they are in the process of remodeling the last few floors.

  2. #152

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Wonder when we will see revised building plans for this 11 story building...

  3. Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by CuatrodeMayo View Post
    The amenities building will still be completed, however the interior will be reconfigured as 100% leasable space. Apparently the new board nixed the amenities/perks.
    SandRidge changes plans for new buildings | News OK

  4. #154

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Interesting that the inside will be completely reconfigured but the outside will stay pretty much the same.

    And that's good news that SandRidge and Chesapeake are planning to stand by their pledges to rebuild Kerr/Couch Park.

  5. #155

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    And that's good news that SandRidge and Chesapeake are planning to stand by their pledges to rebuild Kerr/Couch Park.
    Its only fitting that they rebuild it. The park can serve as a memorial to the great Sandridge and Cheaspeake boom and bust of the early 2000's. lol

  6. #156

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Wouldn't the building have to be taller if they went to 11 stories? Believe the proposal was for 5 or 6 originally.

    Maybe the nix of auditorium and gym will give them vertical room inside for additional floors?

  7. #157

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    If you look at space not finished on the east side of the Dowell Center, it matches up with the first 11 floors of that building.

    Typically, modern buildings have higher floors but doesn't look like that will be the case here.

  8. #158

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Originally Posted by CuatrodeMayo
    The amenities building will still be completed, however the interior will be reconfigured as 100% leasable space. Apparently the new board nixed the amenities/perks.
    As Steve pointed out and from his article...
    The 120 Robert S. Kerr building, previously referred to as the “amenities building,” was scheduled to be a five-story structure home to a restaurant, auditorium, fitness center, day care center, rock climbing wall and other accommodations for SandRidge employees. ... the 120 Robert S. Kerr building construction is limited to the foundation and an elevator tower currently rising from the ground.
    While they may be planning on building class A office space, doesn't sound like it is going to be immediate or building the shell and reconfiguring the space???

  9. Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    They could theoretically go taller on the east end to make it 11 stories, while keeping the original height where it abuts the Dowell Center.

    I hope the exterior doesn't change much. I really liked the design.
    Don't Edmond My Downtown

  10. #160

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    Its only fitting that they rebuild it. The park can serve as a memorial to the great Sandridge and Cheaspeake boom and bust of the early 2000's. lol
    The public taking a lesson would be an even better way to memorialize the bust, but that won't happen bc this is hardly the first bust. Something in the water is making us Okies, even and esp the ones in OKC, predisposed to worship big corporations. It's not even the biggest example of a corporate bust in the 2000s or even in the 2000s on this site.

    The thing is that anyone in government who tries to force that change, unless elected running on the issue, is going to be in wanton neglect of the will of the people. Planners have to be public servants and the citizens, as much as they might worship big corporations, set the agenda - not planning textbooks.

    But we did raze a LOT of Downtown's old ugly buildings so that SandRidge would be happy and reward the good little people of OKC with more jobs. Or something like that.

  11. Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Parts of the lessons to be learned from the SandRidge Pied Piper Experiment (as I'm calling it) are that:

    The SandRidge proposal was adopted because of a tip-o-the-hat to a major downtown corporate interest ... sister corporate interests rallied in their support and city offices were predisposed and inclined to give optimistic expectation that the proposal would actually be accomplished regardless of the contrasting certainty that architecturally and historically significant structures would be demolished (the balance being tipped in favor of the expectation). At one point in the process, SandRidge's attorney even suggested, perhaps threatened, that SandRidge might leave downtown were its proposal not accepted ... ha ha, but who is the joke on now?

    One of the things that we've hopefully learned is that a project proponent's that talk is cheap and means very little, if anything at all.

    If the city is to embrace a chamber corporate pied piper approach and its proposal for a major transformation project downtown (and perhaps elsewhere), the city must do a better job of evaluating and testing the credentials of the pied piper, e.g.: How economically viable is the particular pied piper ... will it be in the city for a long while? What might the city do to insure that the piper's promises will be kept?

    I have some doubt that many in the city planning, design approval process, and city council had on any polarized sunglasses as the SandRidge proposal went through its processes. Their glasses were more likely rose colored, except that I seem to recall that the chair of the downtown design review committee would have required a performance bond as a condition of approval, even though her idea was rejected by the committee.

    Not all downtown corporate citizens would fail to meet muster in the "corporate viability" test. The Devon Energy proposal put forward by Larry Nichols is an obvious case in point.

    I guess that my point is that every flash-in-the-pan or other downtown corporate presence should not be given a green-light presumption, hoping as we will for the success of that company generally.

    Now, we know that the rose colored glasses approach was a mistake. We, and, to be sure, the chamber of commerce, can learn from that, and do better next time around.

  12. #162

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    The one problem with your post Doug is that Sandridge will have built everything in their plan. The only thing that changes is that the buildings will be leased to other companies. In fact, converting the amenities building to office will make room for even more people downtown.

    The bottom line is - Sandridge did everything they said they were going to do. Because of the conversion they might have to even do a little more - like build/expand a parking garage. Maybe they should have converted the amenities building to residential instead of office.

  13. #163

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    I agree to a point with what you all have said but as I've said a few times, while it would've been better if they had incorporated more of the buildings into their site plan or sold them as opposed to knocking them down, you can't discount the good that they've contributed. They did a first class job renovating the tower and Braniff building and it looks like the amenities/office building and Kerr park will be very nice as well. Also, the landscaping looks good even if it was completely annoying that they knocked down 2+ buildings to put it in. Though the plan could've been better, they still completely revitalized a massive hole in the CBD, so regardless of what happens this has been far from a disaster. If you're going harp on the bad, you can't throw out the good.

  14. #164

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    LOL - this is probably something all of us will never agree on. Personally, I think the original plan WAS the disaster and they executed it almost flawlessly.

  15. #165

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Having taken a in-depth tour of the tower (and an under construction Braniff Building) I can tell you I was incredibly impressed. You'd have to see the interiors to fully appreciate what they've done.

    I absolutely hate they tore down those buildings, especially the one on the corner of RSK and Robinson. But getting past that issue, everything else has been first class.


    One silver lining to all this is that if SandRidge is looking to downsize and generate income from it's property holdings, perhaps at some point a building can be placed back at that corner. It could be done while keeping the upper plaza because there is a massive open space there now, and that's among the most prime real estate in the entire CBD.

  16. #166

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Here is the area I mentioned above...

    There is plenty of space on that corner and it could be developed without completely throwing away the large canopy and plaza between the tower and the Braniff Building:


  17. #167

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    The one problem with your post Doug is that Sandridge will have built everything in their plan. The only thing that changes is that the buildings will be leased to other companies. In fact, converting the amenities building to office will make room for even more people downtown.

    The bottom line is - Sandridge did everything they said they were going to do. Because of the conversion they might have to even do a little more - like build/expand a parking garage. Maybe they should have converted the amenities building to residential instead of office.
    Well stated. Also, nobody could have predicted that SandRidge would be in this situation. In my opinion they have just slowed down growth to appease their investors then they will eventually grow into that space making it exactly what they intended it for. Just sometime down the road..

  18. #168

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Having taken a in-depth tour of the tower (and an under construction Braniff Building) I can tell you I was incredibly impressed. You'd have to see the interiors to fully appreciate what they've done.

    I absolutely hate they tore down those buildings, especially the one on the corner of RSK and Robinson. But getting past that issue, everything else has been first class.


    One silver lining to all this is that if SandRidge is looking to downsize and generate income from it's property holdings, perhaps at some point a building can be placed back at that corner. It could be done while keep the upper plaza because there is a massive open space there now, and that's among the most prime real estate in the entire CBD.
    I've been inside both as well and was thoroughly impressed. I hope someone redevelops that corner, that was also my biggest problem with the plan. A new building there wouldn't hurt there plaza concept much at all. Hopefully, it will work out that way.

  19. #169
    HangryHippo Guest

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by PhiAlpha View Post
    I've been inside both as well and was thoroughly impressed. I hope someone redevelops that corner, that was also my biggest problem with the plan. A new building there wouldn't hurt there plaza concept much at all. Hopefully, it will work out that way.
    Is there a picture of the building that stood at that corner of RSK and Robinson? I don't remember it...

  20. #170

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Not the best shot but past the 3 level, half way through the 4th. How many are there?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_2013-05-01-14-12-29.jpg 
Views:	313 
Size:	21.8 KB 
ID:	3693

  21. #171

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Quote Originally Posted by OnlyOne View Post
    Is there a picture of the building that stood at that corner of RSK and Robinson? I don't remember it...
    Here is what the corner used to look like. This was before Kerr McGee messed it up.

    http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/fi...01/pollard.JPG

  22. #172
    HangryHippo Guest

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    Okay, so it was the Kermac building. I can't tell from Steve's blog, but was there a building east of the Kermac, situated just to the south of what is now SandRidge's headquarters?

    It's a shame that Kerr McGee screwed that corner up so badly in the first place. Just sickening.

  23. #173

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    another link? "Forbidden"

  24. #174
    HangryHippo Guest

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building


  25. #175

    Default Re: SandRidge Amenities Building

    What a lost opportunity with the destruction of the KerMac building. I can only imagine what a flat on the upper floors of that building would sell/rent for at that location. Ah well, maybe some day that corner will be redeveloped.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. SandRidge Center & Commons
    By metro in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 4147
    Last Post: 06-11-2021, 11:21 AM
  2. Downtown OKC needs to focus more on civic amenities!
    By G.Walker in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 08:23 PM
  3. Rappel down Sandridge Tower
    By metro in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 09:50 PM
  4. SandRidge to move downtown.
    By Theo Walcott in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 07:30 AM
  5. Sandridge possible purchaser of KerrMcGee Tower
    By Patrick in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2006, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO