Butchering of the Steer
Funny thing about longevity – the more you’ve experienced in life, the more you begin to understand Yogi Bera’s comment “it’s deja vu all over again.”
Reaction to today’s Project 180 story has been quite interesting with a lot of inflamed commentary on timing of projects, priorities and planning.
Yep, it’s butchering of the steer all over again.
I predict MAPS 3 will be cursed and hated while it’s built, and then everyone will deny having hated it once it’s done.
Of course I could be wrong.
“The only thing new in this world is the history that you don’t know” – Harry S. Truman
“I Have a Bone to Pick With You …”
Yeah, as you can imagine, I hear that sometimes. And I start off by listening.
This time, the complaint was voiced by a member of the Downtown Design Review Committee. He noted that with the Palo Duro project they were only holding to what the ordinance allows them to dictate.
Exactly.
I’m not arguing that point at all. But other design review committees have found a way to use, how shall we refer to it?… Peer Pressure.
Think about it. When McDonalds wanted to build a restaurant in Bricktown, they only had a compliance problem with the the footprint of the building, not the exterior design itself. The design committee knew they couldn’t really dictate the exterior design in that part of the district, and yet they demanded and urged McDonalds to do better. They used their bully pulpit to tell the community that McDonalds was trying to settle for a franchise design for this historic district. McDonalds got the message and changed their designs. They worked with city staff and architects on the committee to come up with a design that most felt was much more appropriate for the old warehouse district.
We’ve seen this done on other projects as well, and with other urban design districts.
So what do you think? Should a design committee only concern itself with what does or does not comply with the letter of the law? Or should they try to influence property owners to come up with better designs when the designs they submit are judged to be detrimental to the community?
Oklahoma City: Real Chill
A couple weeks ago an ominously-headlined story on ESPN ended up bringing a smile to folks here in Oklahoma City. New York City-based travel writer Robert Reid took notice:
In the most underrated travel story of our young decade, veteran NBA guard Kevin Ollie spoke to ESPN about his new home, Oklahoma City — a place that has the reputation as something of an “NBA purgatory.” Ie The last place you’d want to be traded to.
But Ollie joined fellow Thunder players to defend it, and talk up post-game ballyhoo around Bricktown’s Flaming Lips Alley, food at Mickey Mantle’s Steakhouse, before returning home to “play the crib” early.
Ollie said, “It’s not LA or Miami, but it’s cool here. REAL CHILL.”
The Oklahoma City CVB should take note. Currently Oklahoma’s capital — and one of a handful of cities I’ve voted as the best made-over ugly-duckings around the USA — has no tourism pitch phrase, slogan, moniker.
How about ‘Oklahoma City: Real Chill’?
Well folks, what do you think?
Design Review?
Palo Duro is an architectural jewel in MidTown, and by all accounts it is a well run special needs home that is an asset to the community. So one can imagine that area residents were quite happy when they were told the Neighborhood Services Organization was going to build a complimentary special needs home on an ugly, empty lot next door – a building that would like this:
The rendering initially shown to residents before going to Downtown Design Review.
Imagine how residents feel today now construction has started and they’ve learned the design has been changed to look like this:
What's actually being built - a modified design APPROVED by the Downtown Design Review Committee.
Yeah, neighbors are not happy. But the same Downtown Design Review Committee that approved the chamber headquarters design and demolition of buildings along NW 10 to make way for surface parking, also gave its blessing to this design that neighbors say looks like a cheap motel.
Yep. It’s a done deal.
Members of the Downtown Design Review Committee are: Chair Betsy Brunsteter, Anthony McDermid, Chuck Ainsworth, Jim Loftis, Dick Tanenbaum, GiGi Faulkner and Mark Grubbs. They are appointed by Mayor Mick Cornett.
In my next post I’ll delve into how this committee interprets its responsibility compared to the older, more established Bricktown Urban Design Committee.
Keeping Our Young People
I guess, I think, that if I want anyone to read this post, it’s the folks at the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.
Something new is happening. Something I’ve not experienced before. In the past few weeks I’ve gotten not one, not two, not three but four emails out of the blue from people I don’t know, but who left Oklahoma to attend college in various fields related to development and planning. And they want to come back home.
Sure, the economy is bad out there. But when I look at their resumes, I see young men and women in their mid-20s whose accomplishments leave me humbled. I’m humbled because they say I’m the guy who has kept them hooked into what’s going on downtown – and, in some cases – I’ve inspired them.
I’m just the guy taking notes and reporting back. But thanks anyway. But as someone who remembers giants like Ray Ackerman and Lee Allen Smith dreaming of this sort of scenario, I’ve got to wonder. If our younger generation has truly fallen in love with their hometown – something that rarely happened when I was in college, what do we do to make sure there are opportunities for these folks?
For what it’s worth, my latest correspondent says he’s willing to intern for next to nothing – or even nothing – just to get a shot at becoming a part of the Oklahoma City dream.
Looking Back: Downtown in White
Photos courtesy of the kind folks at the Medeke Building
Guest Blog: David Pollard on SandRidge Commons
In the interest of provoking a thorough and balanced discussion on the pros and cons of the SandRidge Commons proposal, I’ve invited two guest bloggers. Our first guest blogger is David Pollard, who is watching this debate from far away and has some concerns about his hometown. Pollard was born and raised in Oklahoma City and is an OU graduate with a degree in Political Science and Business. David completed his Masters Degree in European Studies from the Catholique University of Louvain in Belgium and worked in the financial services industry in Germany and the Netherlands for 20 years. Currently a resident of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, David has started his own business consultancy called Community to Community (www.c-2-c.eu) which specializes in creating practical solutions on diversity topics for governments, international corporations and diverse communities. He is an avid fan of developments in downtown Oklahoma City and, thanks to the internet, remains close to his hometown.
The newly released proposal for the redevelopment of the Sandridge campus in downtown Oklahoma City brings a number of emotions to the surface. First of all, it is commendable, encouraging and even heartwarming to see major corporations like Sandridge and Devon take interest and be willing to invest in downtown thereby creating jobs, increased peripheral development and, perhaps even act as a magnet for new large projects. The citizens are largely grateful and politicians satiatied. This all goes without saying.
What doesn’t go without saying though is that Sandridge is making a huge design mistake that most people will not be aware of until it is far too late. Namely, the plan as presented totally disrespects the cultural integrity of Oklahoma City and even worse, totally ignores the most important lesson of the past that this city should have learned. Only now, after 30 years are the ugly, and economically devastating scars of wanton destruction due to the ill-conceived Pei Plan, being filled in by the Devon project.
The lesson of-course is that the urban fabric of the city is its lifeblood and the destruction of historical buildings should not be taken lightly: particularly not when there are so many excellent alternatives that could actually put Sandridge in a much better light with the media and the citizens of Oklahoma City.
Impossible? Not at all. To be concrete, the Sandridge proposal suggests the destruction of an historical building ‘Capitol Federal Saving and Loan Building’ on 302 N. Robinson.
The building is a prime example of the beauty that was lost as a result of Urban Renewal. Although it’s destruction, and that of the one next to it on N.W. 2nd would provide Sandridge open access to Robinson and, presumably enhance the sight lines to the Sandridge skyscraper (formerly Kerr McGee Head Office), the disservice to the streetscape of the city would be irreparable. However, instead of dwelling on what Sandridge should not do, I would like to offer some suggestions of what it SHOULD do.
For one: Restore the former glory of 302 N. Robinson (see photo below). Make at least one floor if not two a new ‘City of Oklahoma City Museum’, fully sponsored by Sandridge. Talk about corporate responsibility and service to the community! Although it may not be suitable for class A office space, there are other, economically sound reasons to restore this building in such a prime location. Yes, retail, yes housing, yes to a creative solution. The building next to it, although an interesting example of 60’s architecture, would be a candidate for a very modern update, keeping with Sandridge’s plans for the back facade of the Braniff building, and the new building planned for across 2nd Steet from the corporate headquarters.
All of this could enhance the Sandridge headquarters, reinforce the urban fabric of the city, and secure a ‘constructive’ top-of-mind presence for the company in the minds of OKC’s citizens. Really quite simple when you think about it, and likely just as cheap when potential return on investment and goodwill value is factored into the equation.
The Kermac Building, 302 N Robinson, originally home to Capitol Savings. Targeted for demolition by SandRidge Energy.
Finally, there is one aspect of the Sandridge plan that could actually go a step further. The new plan for Kerr Park has a great deal of merit. The new building facing it breathes life into the space and creates more of a corridor to the rest of the downtown, but frankly, it is too short. The intention is good, but that extra airspace only highlights the large blank wall above it, not to mention its rather bizarre configuration directly across from Sandridge’s corporate headquarters.
My suggestion? If zoning regulations would allow it, and if Sandridge has the nerve, this would be an excellent location for a tall, striking hotel addition to downtown, while still incorporating Sandridge’s original requirements for the property. Shall we add 15 to 20 stories on top? The company should go back to their architect with this challenge! Apart from the advantage of convenient and striking accommodation for Sandridge’s clients (a la Devon & the Colcord) this would be a credit to and an example of their genuine long-term interest of downtown Oklahoma City.
In summary, the current plan for Sandridges new ‘campus’ need to be slightly modified to take into account the setting, the history and the possibilities of this unique area. The company is, hopefully, a long-term ‘guest’ of the city and, in Oklahoma, we appreciate it when our guests respect our history and sense of place; just like we do theirs.
A Bird’s Eye View
Click on photo to enlarge
Transformation
So now we have what is the full vision of SandRidge Energy. Well, sort of … architects may flesh out the design of the 120 Robert S. Kerr Building a bit more (shown above overlooking a revamped Kerr Park). With this blog, with my column, and with my stories I try to do nothing more than to ask questions, provoke discussion, and introduce ideas that may not be in the mix but may be worth consideration.
Contrary to belief, I’ve not advocated “streetwalls” or staged any arguments against what should or should not be done. I do my best to leave that to you the readers, and you do quite a good job doing just that. It’s not my job to simply reprint press releases or stick to story lines desired by those I cover. Yes, I go off the reservation and ask the questions some might not want asked. I bring up ideas some might not want considered.
So as we move along with discussion of SandRidge Commons, let’s be clear – I’m not here to advocate or dismiss. But yeah, I suspect there will be some in-depth discussions. I’ll start this discussion by simply printing these images of past, present and potential future. And hopefully tomorrow I’ll post pro- and con- guest posts from a couple of readers.
Fast Company
So before all excitement this afternoon and the excitement over SandRidge’s plans for it’s campus makeover, a story about the project popped up online at Fast Company. A reader emailed me and made note of this quote from the story:
“We really messed up in the 1970s with urban renewal,” says Craig Tucker, a senior vice president at the commercial real estate firm Price Edwards. “We tore down buildings we should have kept, going with I.M. Pei plans that left us with generic ones.”
Later tonight I’ll post all the renderings and guest posts from those arguing for and against SandRidge Commons.
