Comments on: Guest Blog: David Pollard on SandRidge Commons

By: jbrown84

jbrown84 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:51:48 +0000

@Jeffrey: David suggested adding floors to the new building overlooking Kerr Park, NOT the Branniff Building.

By: david ball

david ball — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:31:29 +0000

downtown does not need more open space. i don’t care if they tear these particular buildings down, so long as they put something decent back. a city should look like a city. if you want suburbs, there are already plenty. we don’t need to create new ones in the middle of downtown.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:42:44 +0000

Casey, I agree. Sometimes it takes reading it more than once. I don’t like the idea of creating another park or plaza downtown either. Fill it in, it seems to work in places like San Fran and NYC.

By: Casey Cornett

Casey Cornett — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:35:17 +0000

Matt – In my statement I had nothing promoting the idea of leaving up the old buildings…I was just stating that if your company decides to take over historic buildings in a community that if they “remove” them then they should be replaced with something the community can still appreciate, not a park for your employees (ESPECIALLY when a new and much larger park is being built 4 blocks away).
I probably will enjoy SandRidge’s new designs more than I enjoy looking at the old buildings (only because they are condemned) but I think they could do much better with the space in order to attract people to the area that aren’t an employee of SandRidge.

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:48:35 +0000

So what I have gathered based on these comments, it appears that the buildings being scheduled to be torn down can not be economically salvaged. Does anyone know if that is really true or is there is any true estimate to repair the buildings to any useful function? If it is not economical why would we try to force SandRidge to rehabilitate buildings that are cost prohibitive and they don’t need? Just to maintain a man-made building wall with buildings that are unusable? Seems a bit odd.

If the demolition proceeds (I’m not sure how I really feel about it yet), it would appear that we should take from it that nothing is truely permanent and that includes the park area SandRidge proposes. If another corporate headquarters decides to move to OKC I have a strong feeling that SandRidge would have no qualms about giving up its “park” to make way for a new building(s) and another lavish headquarters. If these buildings are truely unsalvagable in the economic sense, I’m not sure why we would force a company to maintain them. Let alone force a private company to build a 20 story hotel. That is extremely odd, they are not in the hotel business (even Devon has said it is likely to sell the Colcord once construction is complete), why we would force any company to open another business just to satisfy a whim is a bit bizarre. To turn down another $100 million spent on downtown to maintain some decrepit unused buildings needs a better argument than what I have heard so far…but I’m still listening.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:00:23 +0000

I am really glad that all of the hotels are doing well, and I really hope they all make it.

Responding to Casey, I don’t think the Kermac Building or the ITB is on the historical list. I think it would be great to save them both too. From what I have heard though, it isn’t possible. Unless you shored up all of the walls (something similar was done to the building directly north of the Sieber Hotel) and completely demolished all of the structure, plumbing, electrical, etc. That is very expensive and not feasible with those buildings.

Would the city fit part of the bill to save those buildings like it did with the Skirvin? I think it is the only way.

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:32:56 +0000

Those weren’t facts – those were predictions based on observations, and never were they presented as facts. So what happened? One restaurant was bought by new owners who re-invested in the operation, streamlined it, and brought it back from the brink. A second restaurant is still on life support and I’m amazed it’s still open.
Now, with the hotels, the occupancy reports are available through CVB and Smith Travel if you don’t believe me.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:11:05 +0000

Steve, believe me when I say that nothing would thrill me more than for your ‘facts’ to be correct.

If you remember a couple of years ago, you made a bold new-years prediction that one of the major restaurants in Brictown would be closed by the end of that year. Were facts involved in that prediction?

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:27:01 +0000

Plus Devon bought the Colcord to act as a buffer for any losses incurred because of the construction. I believe their plan is to sell it back once the tower is finished. You better believe the Colcord will be doing well post-construction of the Devon tower.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:10 +0000

OK, I’m going to react very forcefully on the discussion of the downtown hotels and the Colcord.
FACT: I’ve been keeping tabs on the downtown hotels. ALL of them are holding well considering the economy, and better than some of the city’s suburban hotels and much better than the rest of the state.
FACT: I’ve talked to the folks at the Colcord and it is peforming far better than expected for this phase of construction.
FACT: The original restaurant at the Colcord was a bust from the moment it opened. It was an ambitious concept introduced with the best of intentions by the Buthions, but it was doomed to fail because it didn’t fit what’s going on downtown. This is not a reflection on the health of downtown’s hotel or restaurant business.
FACT: XO was closed because it was more trouble than it was worth for management of the hotel. It did not fit in at all with a botique hotel.
All of this information is based on my day-to-day discussions with those in the know.