Comments on: Were We Listening? Part One

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:13:32 +0000

It’s only $100 million on the Sandridge project.

By: Keith Anderson

Keith Anderson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:26:52 +0000

It is a big deal.

How long would this project take – 2-3 years? In the meantime, Sandridge could get bought out or they could find themselves bankrupt or unable to finance the development due to economic forces outside of their control. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the buildings get demolished and another 30 years goes by before anything gets built on the new parking lots.

Also, it’s $100 million from what I understand, not 300.

By: AJ

AJ — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:58:42 +0000

not really a big deal …. and when a company that has been a great citizen of OKC wants to enhance its offices to the tune of 300 mil .. we should let them

By: Max

Max — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:11:54 +0000

I don’t exactly matter on these issues, but I’d be willing to write a letter to whoever would listen (Urban Design, Sandridge, etc) just as a concerned citizen. I definitely think this side of the argument needs to be heard fully.

I hope the Urban Design committee isn’t meeting on the Sandridge plans this week, I’d like to think the public would have more time after announcement to get engaged. Of course, that might very well not be the case.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:08:11 +0000

OK.. this Urban Design committee is going to meet this week, but when? That will be my only opportunity to speak to them in person about the SandRidge stuff, because after New Years I go back up to finish my spring semester. Their website got rid of the 09 agenda and put up the 2010 calender already and their “current agenda” on the website is from 2007. Go figure.

http://www.okc.gov/planning/urban_des/index.html

Calenders from previous years suggest it will be towards the end of this week that they meet.

By: James

James — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:54:33 +0000

There isn’t much less inviting than a harsh streetwall when actually looking at walkability and light/air standards for higher density zoning. Especially when walking down narrow sidewalks and passing seemingly vacant buildings…that being said it doesn’t necessarily mean we should demo existing structures when we already have a downtown that looks like Swiss cheese.

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:22:48 +0000

Is Sandridge listening to these comments? It’s pretty clear that tearing down is not popular.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:05:03 +0000

There’s no reason for this to happen. We don’t need to be taking steps backward in density. The CBD is the CBD, and NW Expwy towers are NW Expwy towers. I am not a rabid preservationist, and I understand that for some exceptional cases (rail lines, expressways, massive rezoning/redevelopment projects of blighted areas), sometimes some history must be lost. I don’t however see this as one of these cases. I think we’ve been here once before, and I’d think most people who care about downtown are firm in the belief that we need to preserve and build more urban fabric, not take more of it away. We have precious little of it in comparison to most cities, and I cringe whenever I think of us working to further erase our own history and identity, especially in this case where we have so much open land, surface parking lots, etc for new development it’s crazy. We have MANY blank slates in this city.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:17:00 +0000

Steve, just tell us a meeting time and date and we’ll be there. I will at least. I just got back into OKC myself and I’ll be here till mid January.

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:45:26 +0000

We’ve seen from experience with the new chamber headquarters that the downtown urban design standards can be bypassed.