Parlor Game: Making the Case for SandRidge Commons
What if the former Kerr-McGee Tower stayed dark?
What if, I was asked today, SandRidge Energy had chosen to build a new corporate campus as so many others have done, and left the Kerr-McGee campus a dark shadow over downtown?
Good question. Here’s another question I got hit with this past week: why are you demonizing anyone who disagrees with your outlook on downtown development?
Ouch. That second one hurt. But I won’t say it’s a bad question. It is one that gives me pause.
That’s not my intention here folks. In the battle over the SandRidge Commons project, I don’t see it as good guys and bad guys. I see it as “are all the right questions being asked? Is there a thoughtful deliberation going on before decisions are made?”
I have asked questions and posed challenges that I know have irritated people I like, admire and respect at SandRidge. This is unfortunate, but it also goes to show I’ll do this sort of thing regardless of the subject. Some of my closest friends will point out that I give them the hardest time and subject them to the worst scrutiny.
That’s my job. I’ve also caused some grief to the “underdogs” in this fight – the preservationists fighting the SandRidge demolition plans.
But I’m not trying to “demonize” any of these folks. Truth be told, we could have ended up with a situation where an entire block became blighted, where the north half of the central business district could have entered a slow death.
So let’s answer that first question.
First off, the block would be miserable. Efforts by Rick Dowell to revive the old Midland Mortgage Building would have been more likely to fail being next to an abandoned Kerr-McGee block. Dowell reports that interest is picking up in his long empty building – itself one of Kerr-McGee’s better contributions to the skyline in the 1960s – thanks to the SandRidge Commons plans.
I believe Rick. And for those of you who don’t know Rick, trust me when I say he has never shown an interest in insincerity. He says what he thinks, and doesn’t really care at all (sometimes to his detriment) about how the rich and powerful might be annoyed by his remarks.
If SandRidge had never come downtown, Rick Dowell’s building would likely remain empty for years to come. If it comes to life over the next couple of years, as he anticipates it will, then it’s not a big jump in logic to credit part of that revival to SandRidge.
One can not fully appreciate SandRidge’s renovation of the main tower itself. It was badly outdated. The decor was straight out of the 1970s with horrible retractable wall systems. It was an ominous place even when Kerr-McGee was still around.
Renovations aren’t complete, but what’s been done seems to impress all who see the tower. And the workforce is happy, vibrant and part of the downtown community. That can’t be said about Kerr-McGee for it’s final dozen years. It was a tomb, a depressing and oppressive environment for those who visited.
We also know that the SandRidge Commons plan isn’t all demolition. By all accounts the planned renovation of the Braniff Building is a stellar example of proper preservation (of course we won’t know everything until it’s done). And the company is planning no ordinary piece of architecture to replace the 120 N Robinson building (the combined parking and office structure that was once home to the Petroleum Club).
So what we may have here is a bit of inadequate public relations. Or maybe it’s to SandRidge Energy’s credit that nobody with the company has pulled the line of “just be grateful we came downtown.”
They could have.
Here’s another odd bit: when members of the Triangle Development group had the deal to renovate the older Kerr-McGee properties into housing, they had gotten so far as to get tax increment financing to tear down the former YMCA building and its connector structure to the old Kermac Building. The partners also were hinting, but not saying, that they had no intention to rush into renovating or preserving the old India Temple Building (privately they were saying the same things being said now by SandRidge).
So why was there no protest then? Essentially the Triangle Group was only proposing to save one more building (Kermac) than what’s being saved and renovated by SandRidge. But under that scenario we’d still have a dying Kerr-McGee tower that had fewer and fewer people inside and was adding less and less to the neighborhood.
Maybe I should have written this post sooner. But I was counting on SandRidge Energy making its own case and pointing out the obvious. It didn’t happen. So here it is – feel free to now debate and throw more tomatoes at the author.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I understand an appeal to the DDRC decision was filed this afternoon. Can you confirm this? Can you confirm the appeal was by Preservation Oklahoma?
Yes. Wasn’t able to get reaction from SandRidge until tonight, so the story will be running online tomorrow.
Frankly Steve, this is the article you should have written two months ago. You finally evened your voice on the issue and discussed the tension that must be wrestled with in all of these projects- the tension between economic development and historical preservation.
A similar tension exists in the National Park System – how open do you make the parks to human visitors, while trying to preserve the natural flavor of the parks? If you allow people everywhere, then the natural beauty is destroyed and people won’t want to come. If you allow people nowhere, then no one comes to the parks, no money is generated and the parks eventually deteriorate and shut down, leaving their natural beauty unprotected.
If the KM tower had remained empty then there would be no economic engine driving anything north of Robert S. Kerr Ave downtown. All the buildings in question would be just as empty as they are today, with one additional building, the KM Tower, joining them. That would be a devasting black hole in downtown. Sandridge being downtown is most definitely a good thing. Sandridge wanting to pour 100 million dollars in development downtown is a good thing. Sandridge is not evil and Sandridge doesn’t suck. More cranes in the downtown skyline is a good thing. There may come a time like the 80′s when no one has any money to put into downtown and we may rue the day we looked 100 million in the face and said “no thanks,”
Companies shouldn’t have the power to clear cut the city either, razing beautiful buildings that could (stress COULD) possibly have been reborn as something different. It’s a fine line trying to decide what should stay and what should go? If the Criterion had been saved, why would we need the Civic Center? If the Biltmore had been saved, would the Skirvin had been? Which would you rather have?
Some people say that the Sandridge plan is short-sighted. My grandpa used to say though that “A bird in the hand . . .” Perhaps a compromise could be to keep the I.T. building and design it like they’re going to do the Braniff building. That should be Sandridge’s decision though.
Even with this post. It’s just not something you can justify. That whole block is basically a park with a tower in the middle. Yes, I applaud Sandridge for saving downtown from short-term dilapidation, but is this really the solution to that? A park? Sandridge might have saved that portion of downtown but what is this park going to do for it? The buildings should have been replaced with GASP…buildings!
Good points by all. Good question Michael, is this really the best solution for the block? Did Sandridge really consider any alternatives? If so, why weren’t those made known to the public knowing they would be uneasy about tearing down the India Temple building.
Steve, I imagine no one was outcrying when Triangle Development wasn’t protested more because hardly anyone knew about their exact plans and they didn’t have a fancy PR campaign with a world-renowned artist like this Sandridge Commons proposal does. Look how much more press it received.
Lots of good points made here but this is not simply a binary all vs. nothing issue.
Of course, SR is great for downtown and should be commended for renovating the old KMc tower, bringing great jobs downtown, etc.
And of course further investment in downtown is a good thing.
But can’t we have both those things and still retain SOME of the density, preserve the Robinson urban canyon and not great a huge open space in the middle of the CBD? Certainly we can.
So, how about a compromise??? If SR would merely add back a building or some sort of structure south of the Braniff building along Robinson, I think 99% of the objections would cease and this entire project would could move forward with great support.
I think the reason they’re taking down buildings is that there are no good sight lines from the street to the Tower. You could walk around virtually that entire block and not even realize one of the tallest buildings downtown is there. The whole mistake here started when KM was allowed to set back the tower in the center of the block rather than streetside. That can’t be helped now. Sandridge is trying to bring visibility to the jewel of the block, the tower. That’s why they’re looking to take down some structure on all sides. To ask Sandridge to place something back in the KerMacs place would go against what they’re trying to accomplish in the first place – showcase the tower.
So we’re back at that tension again. What should be the priority – the aesthetics of the street or of the tower?
Michael Herndon, I love how your opinion has changed about Sandridge. You finally realized that SR does not suck!
Pete (and Michael too), there has to be the demand for another building. The recent market collapse came about because people were building towers with no one to fill them. Dubai, Miami? However, who is to say that there won’t be a demand in 5 years to add another building soon? Yes now SR is leaving an open space, which is better than what is there now. Now it will at least be usable.
I am sure all of you are familiar with Chesapeake and the way they develop. I look out my window and they are doing something new all of the time, adding buildings or developments. If natural gas keeps gaining traction, who is to say that SR won’t add another tower in the green space they are showing now. It could happen, probably sooner than everyone realizes too.
While it will be a shame to lose the India Temple building (if it’s restorable, which seems likely), it would be great to gain a space like Boston’s Copley Square. (Which is framed, by the way, quite beautifully by I.M. Pei’s Hancock Building).
The trick will be making sure the park space is actually used and not just empty space framing SandRidge’s new digs.
@Matt: Or they could raze another building to showcase their newest addition.
@Jeffery: You bring up a valid point of seizing the opportunity to take advantage of the $100 million investment. However, what if all of the buildings (especially India Temple) are demolished and the new development is never completed; or, 20 years from now they move their headquarters? We are stuck with the same thing issues, just buildings of less value. If India Temple can be salvaged, Sandridge has a responsibility to do so to the community and to the preservation of what little remains of historic OKC.
There are a lot of “what if’s” here, so preceding carefully to both improve and develop downtown while preserving what is worth preserving is the best answer to the city and its citizens.
The truth is this; The Downtown Design Review Committee knows that they have an obligation to preserve the urban integrity of the downtown area and they also have an obligation to develop the area. This committee, in my opinion, needs to be exercise more scrutiny and seek out viable alternatives to offer potential investors. From what I have read no one was really excited about approving demolition on this building but they felt their hands were tied.
I hope the demolition is blocked and I hope DDRC gets a serious hand slap and learns to find compromises and alternatives that will work for everyone involved. Didn’t the Planning Department recommend NOT TO DEMO India Temple?
BJ the same logic could be used this way – what if 20 years from now the India Temple is still vacant – just as it has been for the past 20 years? When does the statute of limitations run out on buildings that, for whatever reason, can not or will not be occupied? I’m concerned about denying someone the opportunity to do something new on that block on the hope that somewhere down the road, someone will do something with that building. I think the Skirvin was dark for around 20 years – that’s entirely reasonable. What if it was 2025 and the Skirvin had been dark for 40 years? Again, the tension of what is appropriate comes up. If we want to preserve something then someone really needs to pay to at least keep it secure and dry. Should the city do that?
BJ, your paragraph, “There are a lot of “what if’s” here, so preceding carefully to both improve and develop downtown while preserving what is worth preserving is the best answer to the city and its citizens”, says it all. Worth preserving.
Don’t forget, Triangle Development was going to raze the ITB as well.
Where do we stop telling people/ companies to do with their properties? If the buildings were on the register, then that would be one thing to bitch about but they aren’t. When I was a freshman in college working in Kerr Park back 1995, those buildings were blighted just like they are now and Robinson Street, where KerMac stands, was deader than a doorknob.
Now that there is interest to develop the area, there are alot of tears and cries for help. In the 15 years from when I worked there until now, why wasn’t there a big push to get those buildings on the register? Because people didn’t care.
Matt, the buildings couldn’t be added without cooperation by Kerr-McGee, which we now know fought placement of the Braniff Building (this one apparently got added because Kerr-McGee had some sort of internal misfire and they fought the nomination too late)
Funny thing about Rick Dowell and Dowell Center. He is the only one to have the tenacity after Stimulus Funds. The funds administered through the City of OKC are facilitating an complete asbestos abatement of the building.
If he hadn’t had bought it and used his professor skills to chew through the mountain of paperwork to obtain the Stimulus Brown Fields Grant, it might another building that would have been demolished and potentially absent.
Steve is right. The Sandridge presence does shore up the viability of this also vacant skyscraper.
@Matt, couple of things. First off, this city/citizens RARELY if ever have told corporations what to do with their property. This is the only instance I can think of in recent history, other than the suburban McDonalds they wanted to build in Bricktown.By chance have you looked into why the IT building was never placed on the historic register? Maybe you should look into that, looks like Kerr McGee fought against it several times.
Furthermore, back in the 90′s downtown was dead and very few people lived downtown, or even had the option to live downtown. Now, there are a few thousand of us living downtown, and downtown is vibrant again, thus more people that care
Interesting point Steven. I agree, I am within a couple of miles of downtown and I want it to be vibrant too, but let’s not call it vibrant yet. This seems like another key to making downtown more vibrant. Maybe this could help out Dean A. McGee too, that’s another dead street.
“So, how about a compromise??? If SR would merely add back a building or some sort of structure south of the Braniff building along Robinson, I think 99% of the objections would cease and this entire project would could move forward with great support.”
Well said, Pete! That would be a fantastic compromise. I agree with the spirit of Steve’s post. I just wish that denser replacement of these structures was considered, but those defending Sandridge continue to harp on the preservation issue.
captcha: socialism promoter
[...] Lackmeyer is all over the SandRidge dustup and the ramifications thereof. If you haven’t been keeping score, here’s where things [...]
Now that it’s happening I think it is perfectly appropriate to look at Sandridge Commons as a positive thing. Hopefully the India Temple is truly not salvageable. I think even from an urbanist view, it can be a very positive thing to have this space, as long as they ensure that the new plaza is intentionally filled with activity. Simply encouraging a food stand or other activity is a great way to ensure that the plaza does not become barren and uninviting.