I see this issue as more a matter with urban design than historic preservation. I’m sure the SandRidge-led tour of the buildings will be persuasive in selling their lack of development potential to the design review committee. However, I hope the committee will consider the broader notion of density, as recommended by the City Planning Department.

Now I’m worried. The Downtown Design Review Commmittee seems to be considering the possibility of actually allowing the suburbanization of that land. If they do, I’ll be terribly torn up and angry.

I think the Staff recommendations were incredibly true to what should happen. I hope they don’t fail us. This is just gut wrenching for me.

I can see there is a strong voice for simply accepting SandRidge’s proposal because it’s “better” than the empty buildings that currently exist. There is a need for more public discussion regarding the viability of replacing the buildings with mixed-use housing/retail. The idea of being able to live, work, and play on SandRidge’s campus is not a bad prospect for employee recruitment.

Has anyone asked SandRidge if they plan to build something besides a plaza back on the KerMac or India Temple sites in the future? Responsible development sticks within its budget. Is the proposed plaza a placeholder? If $100 million is the budget SandRidge can live with in the near future due to the $100+ million that has already been spent in acquiring the properties and renovating the Tower, are there any long-term prospects of building a second Tower (as Belluschi’s original plans for the KM complex called for) or mixed-use development as suggested by Kris?

@Michael Herndon – hopefully the decision to tour the buildings is for due diligence purposes and doesn’t indicate how they will end up voting either way. I think it would cool if they allowed a representative from the downtown design review committee along, or at a minimum a reporter (ahem) who follows these issues to be there on the 8th.

I would hate to see Urban Renewal part II only because a gigantic oil company wanted to stay within budget.

Whoa, I think a little perspective is missing from your last post, Kris. Tearing down buildings on three sites that comprise less than one city block in total and replacing those three sites with one new building and a landscaped plaza (which, for the record, is too big for my tastes – hence the questions about possible future development) is a far cry from laying waste to hundreds of buildings over dozens of city blocks and replacing half of them with dirt lots. $100 million is 1/16 of this “gigantic oil company’s” current market cap. Prior to Devon’s new tower, has downtown OKC ever had any single development funded solely by private money reach nine figures?

You’re right Joe. We can afford to lose a tower here and there, eh old chap? We must be dazzled by dollar signs.

____

On a less sarcastic note, are you actually asking if there have been large private proposals in Downtown OKC?

Whoa Joe , I’m with Kris. You know Kerr park has never been utilized. Now Sandridge makes more empty space with an employee base who would really rather have been in a suburban area as previously reported. So I see more empty space, no people. If they would consider residential rental with KerMac they could use historical tax credits. That could be used as a good recruitment tool for Sandridge and build people density in the downtown core 24/7. The Sandridge architects are very competent in this kind of historical reuse development. Sandridge could do this themselves.

I disagree about Kerr Park’s useage (I certainly enjoy my lunchs there during the spring/summer/fall and the weekly concerts), but I’m not sure we need more of it. It seems like Kerr/Couch Park is about the right amount of green space in that part of downtown. I’d like to see more mixed use evelopment in downtown too. Will historical tax credits pay for the whole thing or even a majority of it?

If replacement of the India Temple and the KerMac/YMCA sites with buildings are out of the current budget, would we rather have a landscaped plaza or boarded-up buildings that have been vacant for decades? It seems to me that both provide an opportunity for future development. The plaza would be more asthetically pleasing in the short run, but the mothballed buildings would provide a better impetus for mixed use development in the future.

I admit I was exaggerating a bit by calling this proposal Urban Renewal part II. However, Steve noted that this is “the largest demolition spree in 30 years.”