But urban blight is a lot like cancer, unless its removed or treated it generally multiplies and grows out from the original site.

So I guess its just a matter of semantics isn’t it.

Personally, I feel suicide is a poor metaphor for discussing issues such as this.

The cancer you’re referring to is not the buildings themselves. The buildings are symbols of a bygone era in American architecture and craftsmanship. The issue is one of economics and how willing one is to reinvest for long-term, or take the easy way out to make a quick buck.

Hold on. Since when was one building “blight”?

We’re talking about a historic abandoned building with intricate detailing and a simple site plan (right up to curb)…not an abandoned power plant or a county jail.

Give me a break.

SandRidge certainly isn’t trying to make a quick buck here. Perhaps spending a smaller buck than a larger one. But, for those that do not want the buildings demolished, I’m curious as to how long they should be allowed to remain unused and deteriorating? My understanding is they have been essentially rotting for some time, so how much longer should it go on? 5 years? 10? 100? Until they just collapse on their own? There must be a limit somewhere, so where is it? I’m fine with fighting for them to remain, but there must be a limit somewhere.

To me, the issue is less about historic preservation and more about density. I have no problem demolishing the buildings, only with the contingent that something else replace them. Is that so hard? Can OKC not have at least a few blocks of real urban life?

Yes Kris, I agree. Frankly, I’m tired of repeating mine and others’ stances on that argument. I don’t think anyone is really campaigning for saving the buildings just because they’re ‘old’ and ‘special’, but because they’re demolishing them and replacing them with a park! If they’re going to demolish them old buildings then fine, but they should have to build replacements for them when demolished.

And besides, they could turn some of them into apartments or residential [as previously planned] and then they would have a positive income. The ‘sitting old unused’ argument is really trivial because if Sandridge wanted to they could invest in those buildings and they would be a big, and permanent buck. They’re just not taking the initiative: they’d rather take the easy way out, demolish them and replace the scars with a park, rather than infilling what they demolish with new, mixed-use buildings or renovating the current ones into something grander like residential and shops.

Is there such a thing as “bad density” vs. “good density”. Having a number of un-inhabitable rotting buildings seems very unproductive and culturally irrelevant.

How long have these buildings been vacant? How many groups have tried to make them work? What is the cost of retaining them? If it is a “good of the community” issue, should the city underwrite their recovery?

Seems to me the city and/or individuals have had plenty of time to try to get the buildings classified historic and for preservation, but haven’t wanted to be troubled with making the investment of time and/or money. Instead, they want to pressure SR into making the investment they wouldn’t or couldn’t make themselves.

This seems to be more about false density though. I again drove by these buildings a few days ago and this corner was dead. These buildings are unused and there are no people coming in and out of them. Even if there is a small park there and it is used by a few dozen people a day is more use than these buildings are currently getting. I think a compromise whereby SandRidge is allowed to proceed, but will hold open the possibility of a sale to a developer who agrees to build a building as large or larger than what is torn down seems appropriate. Just a made made structure for the sake of a structure’s sake without any use seems to be wasteful and really does not add to downtown’s density at all.

Kris, like Brent said, they’re not out to make a buck on this deal, however I think it is more about instant gratification and what is easier, not necessarily what is better for the city.

Rover, you continue to ignore the idea of replacing the buildings with new structures in your “bad density” argument. Did you not read the post above yours or do you just have no argument against it?

There IS demand for reasonably priced downtown living. If Sandridge doesn’t want to be in the development business (it sure hasn’t stopped Chesapeake), then they should sell the land or lease the land to developers who can replace the dilapidated buildings with new mixed use structures.