They seem so… so backwards. Almost like their plan is not to make downtown vibrant and efficient, but merely aesthetically pleasing as anything just to highlight their company.

It seems we can do nothing. Hopefully, as the years go by and the company grows, they might replace one or two of the old previous structures and the plazas that replaced them with a new aiding-tower to accomodate growth. I would also like to know what infill they have planned for Broadway in Automobile Alley. If you go to the Architect’s master plan, there are filler buildings shown along Broadway as a future build out.

As Ada Louise Huxtable once said: “…we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.” Momentum is clearly on the side of demolition but executive opinion needs to be questioned.

Michael, just found out your letter has been received by the committee members. And I can tell you those on the losing end were encouraged to hear that young people are interested in this matter.

“tear down SIX buildings”?

1) Elevator parking garage
2) India Temple
3) KerMac
4) YMCA
5) infill building between KerMac & YMCA (which really makes 3-5 one consolidated structure)
6) ? North portion of parking garage along Dean McGee? Current parking garage structure stretches from India Temple along Broadway (this portion remaining) and then along Dean McGee to Braniff (this portion going).

I just don’t know what to say anymore. I took a big deep breath after I read those letters.

I’m not about to bash Larry Nichols and Clay Bennett..I don’t even know how to disagree with those two.

Nick, the letters speak for themselves, for what they did not say.

Neither of these executives have owned a historic office building in a Central Business District, and Leadership Square won’t be historic until it is old.

Both letters encourage a new vision for the SandRidge building and the surrounding property. Is it the trend? I’m not qualified to know. But I can tell you that, if a large Corporate entity were to relocate to OKC, and want to put their corporate HQ in the CBD, then the CBD will either have to expand, or more older buildings will go down in order to build new Class-A space.

Meanwhile, the Grand Banking Hall is still unused, not even for formal receptions. And the Arcade has seen better days.

Capcha fascist similar

“…the vision and conviction to transform what has long been an underutilized, dysfunctional, and aesthetically unattractive sector of downtown into a brilliant and compelling project.”

Is that really what important people see in old buildings? Gosh, I would REALLY hate to have seen their opinions of the Skirvin 5 years ago.

The cumulative vote of the Downtown Design Review was reprehensible.
I can say this. I know the economic viability for preservation of these buildings.
I am a member of the economic/design team who saved the Sieber. We have walked the talk. The Sieber was in 10x worse condition and yet is full and enjoying a healthy waiting list.
The demand is great for vintage residential housing.
All those voting in favor of demolition should resign from the Downtown Design Review committee.
There have been to many errors in judgement.

I’m not familiar with the process. Is the vote of the DRC final or is further approval required by another group?

DRC is it unless there is an appeal. No other approvals needed. Appeal period is 10 days from the deceision.

Soooo its ok to voice your opinion if you’re against the proposal, but if you support the proposal then somehow that is wrong or underhanded eh Steve?

Seriously dude, its about time to step away from the ledge on this.

No, just providing copies of letters sent to the committee Jeffrey.

Let’s not compare these buildings to the Skirvin or the Sieber, they are not even close.

Before you discount what these guys with power and money say or do, let’s not forget they have earned money thru hard work, not by complaining on a blog. If you don’t think construction of the Devon Tower or Sandridge energy will spin off other projects, then you are crazy. These guys know it is going to happen and that is why they are fired up. The area around Sandridge has been degrading for the last 15 years and in ’95 it wasn’t much. Nobody worked in those buildings then and they don’t now. Robinson street between RS Kerr and McGee is deserted. Like it or not, that is about to change which is good.

Sure sounds like there are a lot of socialist views on this site. Everyone wants to tell Sandridge what they need to do with their property.

BTW those letters didn’t bother me at all. I think they were right on the money.

Commence with the bashing! Bring it!

Sandridge has motivation to make the area MORE valuable, not less.

SR needs to recruit top level people to their organization. They don’t want to have to walk past dilapidated empty buildings whom NO ONE is willing to invest in. Just once, I would love one of the critics to step up and offer to BUY at a fair price one of the buildings and then immediately INVEST in making it inhabitable and precious. No one has, and no one will. No one will offer an alternative except to try to dictate to SR. When someone with the money steps up, we should listen. Till then, talk is cheap.

I’ve withheld my own personal judgment on this until now. I’m curious how many people who are so dead set against this really walk by these buildings every day? I do. They are junk. Nichols nailed it–lifeless, nondescript buildings. Nothing can be done today to undo the mass demolitions of the past. This is obviously not the same thing. We have to improve what we have before we can move forward. Maybe someday we can get other corporate HQs and they will build tall buildings with street walls, but that’s not our reality. This is an improvement over what is there now. For those who say they “could have” saved these buildings, I say where are you with your money and investment capital? Progress. Even sometimes the brightest among us are against it. Some of the needless whining here is nothing more that that. Sometimes something old is just a piece of junk, not an antique.

The Plainsman, I don’t really have heartburn over any single building in the project other than the India Temple. It holds a unique position in downtown buildings in 2 ways: (1) it is the oldest remaining building downtown; and (2) it served as Oklahoma’s Legislature between 1913-1917. My earlier view was that IF the building was reasonably savable, those 2 factors would be persuasive to me not only that it should be saved but that it would behoove SandRidge to make that type of contribution to the community, as well as its plaza area to the west which is more self-serving (and there’s nothing wrong with that) which could be done as well.

Until learning (from Steve’s posts here) that, in fact, the India Temple apparently remains quite redeemable, I was on the fence … if the building was trash, I’d say, go ahead, trash it. But that is apparently not at all the case. So, about this building, my opinion has solidified … not that I have any notion that my opinion counts for anything other than myself.

But, regardless of my opinion’s uselessness, I’ve commenced writing about this building … it’s not done but a starter flash file is here. I expect to have the post completed tomorrow sometime. If I can get a copy of it (I’m trying), the City Planning Department’s earlier report, not favorable to the project, will be included, as well. I don’t intend the article to be polemic … there are legitimate positions to be made on both sides of the matter … but I remain hopeful, perhaps foolishly so, that a middle ground can be found.

The Plainsman, I should have added this when you said, “For those who say they “could have” saved these buildings, I say where are you with your money and investment capital? Progress. Even sometimes the brightest among us are against it. Some of the needless whining here is nothing more that that. Sometimes something old is just a piece of junk, not an antique.”

(1) It sounds as though you don’t see any value on the DRC other than giving blessing to what a property owner might propose. If that’s not so, do you think that historical preservation has any role in the DRC’s function?

(2) The “where are you with your money …” is besides the point unless SandRidge is willing to part with the property (or properties), isn’t it?

(3) You may discount others who see their opinions as “bright” as your own. That is fair enough, but I wouldn’t suppose you’d think that those who see the matter differently would be overwhelmed by the brilliance …

Legitimate differences exit on this topic and it serves no purpose, not even your own, to belittle those who see the matter differently than you do.

Bill 2 things

1.) Buildings aren’t for sale and Sandridge has no intent or desire to sell.

2.) People have stepped up and tried to purchase those buildings within recent years.

Steve, how does one file an appeal? How complicated is the process?

Doug, I don’t think that ThePlainsman belittled anyone. Emails and blogs are bad for communicating because you can never tell how someone really feels when they are putting words on paper (unless they are curse words).

I think that the next step for people who want to save the building is to get it on the historical register. It saved the gold dome and it’s tower. Get it on the register, get the tax credits, turn it in to something beautiful. Until then, quit telling SR what to do with their property, they aren’t the bad guys.

Doug, weird that you took offense on a personal level. To that I say whatever. And, I guess I’ll point this out as well. The testimony of a dying man regarding the reclamation of the India Temple building is at best, nothing more than a starting point for discussion. I doubt very seriously that this person actually had the engineering/architectural training to make that call. Just call me dubious of the claim. It has occurred to me that professionals in the art and science of restoration have probably looked at this previously and even probably associated with the SD proposal. So, if Steve has more legitimate, concrete evidence that this building can be restored given some reasonable investment, I think we all deserve to see that. In lieu of that, I’m going to have to assume that it cannot and we are better served by this plan rather than have another white elephant in our core. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ll stick by quote that everything old is not an antique–sometimes it’s just junk. For the record, I enjoy your blog and think you do a great, and I mean great, job of providing a historic viewpoint of OKC, but it doesn’t give you clairvoyance into what may become of downtown OKC.

Matt,

Historical Register doesn’t save a building from being demolished. Sandridge has no intentions of selling this to outside investors and that is what the problem is

Steven, I am told there is only one appeal route left: a person “of standing” can file a protest but must do so within 10 days of the vote. ThePlainsman, I can tell you I’ve heard from two architects who have inspected the building and they’ve reported to me the original facade is still there.

Appreciate that Steve. But is it subject to reclamation at some justifiable economic level? To me, that is the key, otherwise, it just continues to be what it is today. It’s one thing to say it’s still there, but another entirely to say “oh, yeh, we can restore it”. I’m not an anti-urbanist, I live close and work in downtown OKC and it’s a shame to know what we’ve torn down in the past. But this isn’t that–and I think we all know that.

Who would be a person “of standing”, Steve? For people who are really upset about losing the ITB, this should be researched.

An appeal would be a waste of effort unless you have a better lawyer, and more money than SandRidge…

It’s time to move on.

If I hear the argument that no critics are willing to buy the building and invest in it themselves, my head’s going to explode. Do you want to give me the money? Because if you do I will gladly buy any of those buildings and do it myself.

However, I feel as if Sandridge isn’t wanting to sell. There’s something fishy going on. Those buildings, even if they were in pristine shape, are going to be demolished. Money does not entitle a person to destroy or create whatever they want without opinion. Opinion will always be present. And Sandridge SUCKS right now.

Rant over.