I read your blog with interest, and appreciate the questions you raise and the news you share. I also get it that you don’t attempt to advocate or dismiss, but I’d still like to know what you think about this project. I’m ambivalent–certainly excited to see all the activity taking place and planned downtown, but concerned that we might look back in the future and determine we allowed too much to be changed (as has obviously happened in the past). So, come on, how about a hint of what you think of this SandRidge plan? Keep up the good work.

I still don’t like it. I don’t think they should be tearing down the building on the SW corner of their campus. But they seem bound and determined to destroy the only streetwall left in Oklahoma City.

My second problem is that their parking garage on the east side of the campus will have so much frontage to streets and parks. Question: when was the last time you saw someone walk along the Santa Fe garage on EK Gaylord. Garages that front streets do not make for inviting sidewalks. They should follow Devon’s lead and at least put a buffer like a fitness facility or streetfront shopping/offices/apartments.

But it could be worse. Kerr Park the building overlooking it are improvements. I am reading “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” right now and this proposal seems to go against so much of what Jane Jacobs says.

I wonder if the sentimental value and usefulness of Kerr Park is a bit overblown.

DISAPPOINTING. Tom Ward should be ashamed of himself to consider tearing down the India Temple building. If they have $100 million for demo and an ugly park, then I’m sure that would be enough money to restore the Braniff and India Temple and give some upgrades to Kerr Park. Heck, I thought their original proposal 2 years ago with Rand Elliot, that never fully surfaced was good enough. For $100 million, I’m expecting more. We don’t want Urban Renewal Part 2. Do you hear me City Leaders? I’m a young professional, downtown worker, property owner and resident. We need DENSITY, not plazas and more park space.

Oklahoma City has been and can be a dense walkable environment, there are no doubts about that. This is not acceptable urban planning, or acceptable planning period. Placing parks and open plazas where we can’t be more ambitious and cohesive is just silly. Also, you’re argument is surely flawed for an oversaturation of parks and plazas would lead to over-bearing of maintainence and underwhelming visitation to each of said parks and plazas.

It’s not that this proposal is bad. It surely isn’t, but the fact buildings are being destroyed for the sake of an already prominent skyscraper being unobstructed is just silly. I have only two suggestions for this plan that would make it acceptable: either keep the Indian Temple building or replace it with another structure of equal presence; either reuse the KerMac building at the corner of Robinson like they have the Braniff Building, or replace it with equal presence.

I just cannot accept the fact that they are tearing down two significant structures and replacing them with trees. Especially when there is already a park across the street. There will be 3 structures left on that block when they are finished, one of them being a parking garage, and a vast amount of suburban-like parkspace. There is not a single building fronting the north side of that street when there should be.

I understand the woes of what they have been given in regards to the layout of that block and the placement of the tower, but destroying buildings without any significant replacement isn’t the key to those woes or the urban fabric of downtown

No one has still made a logical argument that empty, dilapidated buildings are better than usable green space. The density argument is a myth – density cannot be maintained by refusing to tear down stuctures that have no discernable purpose anymore. Bob Blackburn, THE history expert on the state of Oklahoma has already said these buildings have no historical value. Those of you who oppose this are aruguing to keep the WORST of the downtown buildings – do you realize that? That “streetwall” on Robinson has been there for decades, yet no one walks on the block fronted by the Braniff building. You know why? Because those buildings are deserted and have been for decades Folks, buildings are nothing, “It’s the occupancy, stupid.” If these buildings could be profitable being occupied they would have been long ago. They’ve past the tipping point and would now be prohibitivly expensive to bring back to class A space. We have all the downtown residential we need at this point, and with Devon preparing to leave space in 5 downtown buildings, we have all the office space we’ll need downtown as well.

Those of you worried about keeping buildings need to really worry about the First National Tower and City Place Tower. There’s not nearly enough money going into the upkeep of those buildings and the clock is ticking. Forget about Braniff, India temple – theyr’e dead already.

We have a history of tearing down buildings worth caring about and replacing them with structures and spaces that aren’t. Not only are the sad results are visible to all (think sprawling downtown parking lots, empty lots, and main streets that abruptly end in parking lots), but the lived experience in the city is diminished in ways that it wasn’t for our parents and grandparents.

The MAPS process has reversed much of damage – but it is incomplete, and the burgeoning urban fabric fragile enough, that we can ill afford a bad decision. If this turns out to be a bad decision – it will be a big one, and on par with the errors of urban renewal efforts in the 70s.

Think about how hard it is to find a midrise building in the US that is older than 50 years old. They propose tearing down four – and largely to expand the greenbelt around their headquarters. Urban plazas are dead spaces, and one restaurant that draws the public isn’t going to cut it.

I’m sure that the city leaders in the 70s that led urban renewal were well intentioned, just as I’m sure this proposal is. However, the potential for unintended consequences abound, and once those buildings go down – this decision will be impossible to reverse. Count me in the decidedly negative column at this point – though, I’m certainly look forward to learning more.

Is there a risk that developers will shun downtown due to the backlash from folks that start every criticism with “If I had a $100 million…”? I’d hate for Mr. Ward to one day wish he had spent his money on Memorial. This is a significant improvement for downtown that doesn’t rely on taxpayers.

I suspect it’s a fine line Heath. I don’t think any of the critics of this plan have anything but appreciation for what SandRidge has done by taking over the Kerr McGee campus and investing downtown. The quandry some are facing is this: they want to create a downtown that will attract the next Tom Ward and the next Larry Nichols, as well as their employees. And there is disagreement about whether SandRidge Commons will help or hurt in achieving that goal.

I’m still waiting for the response to how empty dilapidated buildings are somehow more desirable than improved green space. Due to the lack of response, I think I have my answer.

I see value in Jeffrey’s argument. On the other hand, why not tear down and replace the buildings with some sort of mixed-use structure? Not sure what that would be or who it would serve.

Jeffrey, I’m not going to advocate one way or another on this. But I can point you to NW 9 just east of Broadway, where buildings were left dillapidated for years before the street was redeveloped. I guess the question back at you is how does the new green space add to density downtown? Or density not needed? Will all this green space, along with what’s being added by Devon and the city, be used and is it all needed?

Looks a lot like Tom’s former digs (Chesapeake Campus).
Between both of them and Devon, isn’t it a little pretentious ? No wonder a lot of people don’t like oil & gas companies.

The thing about the area on 9th, which is a wonderful, quaint spot by the way, was that those buildings were smaller structures and at least a couple of those were houses which require much less capital and certainly much less city oversight. It would probably cost more for aesbestos remediation alone in the India Temple than all the projects on 9th combined. And that’s before addressing the roof, plumbing, electrical, structural, and with old structures, who knows what else you’ll find when you open stuff up. Wasn’t it like 150 million in a public/private partnership to refurb the Skirvin? That’s on a structure that had only been vacant since the 80′s. Who knows what the cost to update those buildings will be. More than 100 million I’ll tell you that much. Also, keep in mind that it’s probably not coincidence that 9th came back to life after the construction of the OKC foundation building, which actually added authentic density to midtown.

The problem with tearing down and rebuilding with a mix-used structure is that there is already so much empty mixed use structure downtown that there’s simply not enough of a market to make it profitable. There’s what looks like a brand new building I think on Hudson that’s been empty since it was built. You have all those old auto dealerships on broadway, the cline, the marion, the century center -I could go on. And there’s fixing to be a lot more space available downtown within a couple of years.

I guess my answer would be that refreshing good green space is probably never a bad thing. I would imagine there’s a film festival downtown that would love to show their movies in the new park rather than the side of the railroad wall. I’m not against density, but in my opinion, authentic density happens with new construction(Devon)or old construction that is refurbished and occupied (Skirvin/Colcord/Park Harvey). What density is not is keeping old empty buildings around just for the sake of “the look”. You might as well paint a streetscape on a board and put it up on Robinson like they do in Holywood.

Wasn’t the OKC chamber of commerce supposed to build a new place downtown? Perhaps some of you could talk Sandridge into giving the chamber the India temple. If Sandridge would actually do it would the chamber accept it?

That’s true, 4-5 years ago TAP was going to take a chance on Kerr/Mac. Now TAP is kaput and there are plenty of downtown housing options, while Kerr/Mac has sat empty for another half-decade. And all the folks that wanted it so bad are probably thanking their lucky stars they didn’t get off the ground with this project. I still think it would be very difficult for this building to ever be profitable due to the huge amount of up front cost to bring it up-to-date.

Jeffrey, I completely disagree with you about there being “plenty of downtown housing options.”. There is plenty of “high-end” housing options but a severe shortage of reasonable and median priced housing that is marketable. We could even handle more apartments.

TAP isn’t kaput. It’s a thriving ongoing architectural firm. An architect from the firm, Anthony McDermid, was part of a team trying to do the renovation, and they were on the verge of getting building permits when Kerr-McGee cancelled the deal due to their acquisition by Anadarko Petroleum.

Wasn’t “The Triangle” a TAP project? Perhaps I’m thinking about that. Didn’t something happen to that partnership? If I have misspoken I certainly need to be corrected.

Jeff, I guess my question would be if the market could handle more apartments, why is the Cline empty and the marion and the Osler projects at a standstill?

Steve may know this but what are the occupancy % at the Seber, Park Harvey, and the lofts at Maywood? Are these considered “High End?”

I wonder if Anthony McDermid would look back on events in 2008-09 and thank his lucky stars Anadarko cancelled the deal? Interesting thought.

I completely disagree with this line of reasoning about housing. Park Harvey, Deep Deuce, Legacy, and Sycamore are consistently full in the high 90′s. People want apartments in the $650 to $1,400 range and they would gladly transfer that to a house/condo payment if the product and financing were available.

“why is the Cline empty and the marion and the Osler projects at a standstill?”- Refer to the developer I would say. All three you reference are with the same people.

Finally, look to the national freeze on lending by banks for the majority of the answers about new projects.

The Cline is empty because they’re still renovating it into apartments. The Osler is empty because it was purchased at a price that doesn’t easily cash flow as a residential development and it’s requiring more number crunching. The Marion is empty and boarded up because the developers aren’t ready to do anything with it.
The irony here is these comments would infer Bob Howard and Mickey Clagg aren’t doing anything when in fact they’re the only ones moving forward with housing.

Further comment: Sieber and Park Harvey are doing great. All of the downtown apartment projects are running at or near capacity. It’s the for-sale housing that’s dragging, and that’s due to pricing, a restrictive mortgage environment and concepts that don’t totally match up with market demand.

Ok. I still don’t see the tea leaves your way but that’s not what this blog line was about anyway so lets just agree to disagree.

Bottom line…it’s improvement. Is it what you would do? Maybe not. But it sure looks like it’s going to be nice. Seems to me like SandRidge considered the community and not just themselves. I wonder if they have any job openings???

given some of the above comments, i’m beginning sense how new yorkers felt in the bob moses era, particularly the later part…