I’d love it if at the very least, they’d keep also the India Temple Building and the KerMac Building along with the Braniff Building. And if they don’t keep them, they need to be replaced with a building of equal presence. Not trees. That’s my biggest gripe.

The density argument is not a myth. While these buildings are empty and have been for awhile, it is because they have not been taken care of or ambitiously planned for. I’m not advocating the saving of these two structures per se. But I am advocating that they are not torn down and replaced by nothing. At best, they would be torn down and replaced by mixed-use buildings with retail on bottom, and residential in the upper floors.

Honestly. Trees aren’t going to make me want to shop, eat, or work. They aren’t going to make people want to walk on that street, they are merely placeholders for what should be an active, diverse, and alive streetfront. Whether it be with the renovations of the KerMac and Indian Temple, or new buildings in their place.

Agreed. That “park” they are proposing is never going to be a meeting place for people where large crowds gather and blah blah blah. There are and will be other places for that. This will effectively leave a hole in downtown. I just dont understand the idea of tearing down more buildings after we’ve learned what we learned in the 70′s. No one thought those buildings were worth saving then…now look….the emptiness and blandness in their places leave us worse off.

Not every building torn down in urban renewal should have been saved. You have to agree with that. Lots of buildings were torn down. Unfortunately some were special buildings that we should have kept, lots were ratty messes that needed to go. But we can’t respond to those mistakes by saying, “Ok We’ll never tear down another downtown building again.” That is an overreach in the opposite direction.

These buildings are not the jewels of downtown OKC architecture – never have been. What they do in reality is confuse people and hide the entrance to the Sandridge building – which IS an important piece of downtown as is Kerr park. Actually Justin it was a meeting place where large crowds gathered. Back in Kerr/Macs heyday the park was filled everyday at lunch by employees eating and spending some time in the park before going back to work. It’s a different purpose park that, like lots of things in the 80′s fell into disrepair during the oil bust. If the India Temple and other buildings deserve to be refurbed, Kerr Park does also. And with more people downtown, it has a better chance of being what it was than the buildings we’re discussing.

Jeffrey, it might shock some readers to hear me say that after having done a lot of research, interviews and history on Urban Renewal, I’d argue that it was for the best that the Biltmore Hotel was torn down. I can even make a case that if the Biltmore had been left standing, the Skirvin might not have been saved.
The question is should there be a thoughtful discussion on the merrits of retaining some of these buildings vs the benefits of what SandRidge proposes to put in their place.

I remember watching the Biltmore come down on TV. I was 7 or 8. I hated seeing it come down then but learned some things about it after reading “Second Time Around.” It sounds like everyone tried hard to find a way to make it work but the bones of the building just wouldn’t allow it to be modernized. I imagine the same type of situation might be going on with these buildings. I can’t imagine Sandridge arbitrarily tearing them down without doing due diligence to see if they are salvageable. I can’t help but believe that they love OKC and wouldn’t want to do anything that would hurt downtown.

Now Jeffrey, here’s the flip side: if you could go back in time, would you have fought to save the Criterion Theater, or are you happy with the Century Center Plaza and garage that replaced it? Would you have favored tearing down the Warner Theater to make way for the fountains and greenspace that replaced it (that were torn up in October to make way for construction of Devon Tower)

Jeffrey, I would argue that the vast majority of older buildings in the downtown/central city area should be saved and hopefully restored if at all possible. Our central city is not a very large area. Expansion of the CBD in every direction is, in my opinion, a much better option than bulldozing more of OKC’s history. I’ve read various city history websites, including Doug Loudenback’s and Steve’s, and realized how many beautiful buildings have already been destroyed. I don’t argue that everything should be saved…that’s just not possible, hence the razing of the Biltmore. But I can’t bring myself to believe these 3 buildings, especially the India Temple building, are unsalvageable.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2681/ymcaz.jpg
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4554/kermac.jpg
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9022/indiatemple01.jpg

Steve, if I’m correct, these are all slated for demolition. I wonder if SandRidge has looked into saving them like they’re doing with the Braniff building…or are they saving the Braniff building because it’s convenient for them and makes the public assume they’ve looked into the others and found them hopeless.

I’m not trying to come across as an extremist…I just wonder what Oklahoma City could have been if we hadn’t fled and destroyed the central city while covering our architecture with concrete facades.

When is the design review meeting to approve the plan?

Clearly the Century Center Plaza is not a very attractive or functional place with the exception of the parking garage, which is never attractive in any form. I also think however that the Criterion Theater would have had a hard time thriving there as well, and almost certainly would have not been a theater. Perhaps it could have found new life like the Center theater did with the art museum but who knows.

Now if I’m not mistaken the Warren theater was part of that original block that was going to be the Galleria area. The Galleria project was a disaster from the start, everything that came after that was just a cheap attempt to fix an aggressive Urban Renewal plan that really had little chance of succeeding. So of course the Warren theater would have been better than the fountains. You really can’t call that green space because there wasn’t much “green” on that side was there?

Let’s flip the flip side again Steve. Say the Warren theater was still there and was in a similar state to the Center theater in the 80′s or the Tower theater until recently. Devon wants to buy that property and tear down the theater to build their tower. Instead of finally erasing a bad idea (Galleria), Devon is tearing down buildings. Would that be ok?

Briefly Rob, I would love for all the downtown buildings to be saved and restored, its just so crazy expensive. That’s why I think so many corporations bypass Downton for NW Exp, or Memorial- it’s cheaper to build new. It would take a huge amount of public/private capital to pull it off and I don’t think its there.

Jeffrey, that’s a good question on Warner Theater and Devon. I’d like to think that by now the Warner would have been renovated with advent of appreciation of historic structures and historic tax credits. But if it were still standing, dillapidated? That, my friend, is a painful difficult question to answer. I see your point, and quite honestly, I’d hate to be the one to decide that sort of thing. I can see it both ways. Jeffrey, your point of view may not be popular with everybody, but I really appreciate the balance you’re bringing to this discussion.
So, everybody, how would you address this puzzle? If the Warner were still standing, boarded up and falling apart, would you seek to block Devon from tearing it down to make way for the Devon tower.

No. Because Devon would be replacing it with a 50 story, 850 foot tall tower that would add much more density and urbanity to our downtown. If they could somehow incorporate it though, it would be great.

The difference is. Sandridge is not replacing any of this buildings with a grandoise tower, or even a midrise mixed-use. They’re demolishing the KerMac, the YMCA, and the Indian Temple without any sort of replacements except for little saplings that won’t mature for 20 years. It will be empty land. I’m not really that big of advocate for historical preservation for these 3. They seem all but lost either to those facades or lack of effort from the architects, but regardless, they still need to be replaced.

I wish they would either reuse them like they have planned for the Braniff building, or in their place erect structures like the one planned overlooking KerrPark,

Maybe we want too much. Maybe we are asking for the wrong things. Maybe we shouldnt be chasing the “big city” dream and we should learn to embrace the “quaint large town” thing. Then we wouldnt have to explain (to ourselves or others) the lack of urbanity in our downtown. The trees will look nice in that kind of downtown.

Michael, are you sure it’s that simple? We emerged with NO surviving grand old movie palaces standing (Centre theater was not a movie palace like the Criterion or Warner). The Warner was a theater that traced its origins back to the Overholser Opera House and was designed for the best and biggest Vaudeville acts. You sure it would be that easy for you?

There has been quite of bit of discussion and reporting of all the different parties looking at the Kerr-McGee complex. In my opinion the has already been alot of due diligence done by both parties involved with Kerr-McGee and
Sandridge. I don’t think any of the parties have taken the task of looking at the campus lightly. Bob Blackburn of the Historical Society, has looked at all the buildings and has stated that none of them would merit Historical Preservation status. Too much as been removed or changed to meet the criteria of historical preservation status. I agree with the comment made earlier here that you will only get more density with the areas surrounding downtown end up with higher densities. Thus the market then will demand higher densities to occur. But be careful for what you wish for… Higher density – means destruction of some of the existing.

Destruction of the existing…but why not replacement as well?

Because it isn’t in the current budget? Because the 30 story K-M tower is still being converted from class C to class A space nearly three years after the purchase? Because it forecloses the possibility of building a second tower on the site in the future in keeping with the original plans of the K-M tower’s architect? Because SandRidge isn’t in the commercial real estate development business?

Steve. I don’t think it’d be simple at all. But, it’s apple and oranges I’m afraid. Devon is replacing a parking lot with grand plans. There is no theatre anymore. If there was, depending on the situation I might have fought for it’s saving. But not every building should be saved because it’s old. If it’s replacement contributes more to the urban fabric than a shabby, never going to be fixed, theatre can. Then I say go for it.

Sandridge is tearing out what contributes greatly to our urban downtown and replacing it with grass. Grass does nothing to promote urban health.

And Justin, your comment sincerely worries and scares me. Are you from Edmond? Kidding. ;] I want an urban downtown for me. For my way of life. Not to show it off to others. That’s not the point. Who is chasing a big city dream when in reality all that me and these other people are trying to do is promote what OKC can be, a quality urban hotspot for young, creative individuals. A diverse place that is not all trees and sprawling cookie cutter houses and nonwalkable communities. There are people that desire to live in an urban dense enviroment. A city of windswept plazas and excessive grassland isn’t going to promote that. What you’re saying makes me think you want the entirety of the city to be like its suburban offspring. And that’s just not progressive thinking. At all.

Not that there’s anything wrong with suburbia. But it belongs where it’s name implies. SUB-urban. And that is not what downtown Oklahoma City has ever been or should be.

To M. Herndon,

Yes….I was laying on the sarcasm pretty thick.
Sorry for the confusion.