Comments on: A Bird’s Eye View

By: justin

justin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:29:30 +0000

To M. Herndon,

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

By: Michael Herndon

Michael Herndon — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:31:50 +0000

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.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 06:09:49 +0000

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?

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:00:36 +0000

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

By: kent

kent — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:21:39 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:14:10 +0000

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?

By: justin

justin — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:26:49 +0000

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.

By: Michael Herndon

Michael Herndon — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:09:22 +0000

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,

By: Michael Herndon

Michael Herndon — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:08:12 +0000

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.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:28:34 +0000

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.