More on the SandRidge Demolition Debate
I spoke to Dr. Bob Blackburn today about the SandRidge demolition plan …
To be clear, to answer questions that have arisen in recent days, the Oklahoma Historical Society has not taken any money or sponsorships from SandRidge Energy.
He worked closely with Melvena Heisch, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in determining that the buildings targeted are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All comments were based on legal criteria, and numerous conversations were held with city staff prior to the vote by the Downtown Design Review Committee.
He also doesn’t see, based on the criteria, how the India Temple and Kermac buildings could be eligible for the historic register, and that new surveys were conducted.
“Anything that could be done today would be a reconstruction, which would not make it eligible, because it’s new. These aren’t Bob Blackburn’s rules, these are the rules according to the national register.”
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Dennis, I’m not going to lie.. I have been trying to figure out how you got to be so opposed to city planning. I suppose I can show up at your home and rob you of everything you own as well, provided I’m stronger than you, and that it is indeed a free society.
As for Blackburn–would it be a complete reconstruction? I agree with him that there’s no way that would get on the register, BUT I disagree with him that it would be a complete reconstruction. The Kermac is in no worse shape than the Braniff and earlier on this blog we discussed that the India Temple is in a very similar condition that the pediment of the Skirvin Hotel was in prior to rehabilitation.
It would be a rehabilitation, not a reconstruction. Does Blackburn recognize the difference?
Thanks for all of the posts on SandRidge Energy’s plans for their downtown campus. I’m glad to see both sides represented on this blog, since I (like many) have been conflicted between our horror at the idea of more buildings coming down (destroying yet another the street wall), and our pride in the substantial investment being planned for the properties.
I will be happy if SandRidge’s plans truly inject some dynamic street life into the area; and especially happy if that translates into additional investment in creating a truly urban fabric for our downtown.
“Anything that could be done today would be a reconstruction, which would not make it eligible, because it’s new. These aren’t Bob Blackburn’s rules, these are the rules according to the national register.”
So why don’t they reconstruct what they demolish then? If that’s the only thing that could be done?
Answer: Demolition and building a park is easier and less responsible.
Reconstruction is prohibitively expensive and a HUGE risk unless the payoff is huge because you just don’t know what you’ll find when you open up walls. What if all the plumbing needs to be replaced. Then, while you’re replacing the plumbing you discover that 3 floors of the building are crumbling or rotted – now they must be replaced. While replacing the rotted floors you discover wiring that you didn’t know was there, is not on any of the plans you have, and now that must be traced. In doing the tracing you discover that all the wiring above the 3rd floor was replaced around 1960 and was never inspected or approved by the city. Now all the wiring above the 3rd floor must be redone – so why not do the whole thing now.
Does this sound easy and less responsible to you? I’m not exagerating about the kind of things you find when you decide to rehab a building – ask the owners of the Marion hotel.
I don’t think the point is to “get it on the historic register” as much as it is to save the facade of the building, even if it has to be a reconstruction or rehab and to keep the urban fabric and not replace it with empty space.
Steve, another question, okay so OHS hasn’t taken donations from Sandridge, but what about from Tom Ward as an individual or some of their higher paid execs or anything else that might stem from Sandridge? It’s weird to me that Bob Blackburn says India Temple has no significance.
Nick,
I’m not opposed to city planning. Planning and Zoning Ordinances are the only tools we have for managing the built environment. However, they cannot force you to build something that is clearly not in your best interest!
SandRidge is not a criminal, as you would be if you robbed someone… poor analogy.
The subject buildings are junk. Yeah, I’d rather see street-wall buildings replace them, instead of a pansy park… but above all, I’d like property owners to have the freedom to shape their environment as they see fit! There are plenty of rules & regulations to make sure that development happens in accordance with the public interest. If you don’t like the rules, change them.
Nick – not a very good analogy. Kris’s was better, same context.
Also, since you say these things about the buildings, about their shape, I am assuming you have been in these and have the technical knowledge to know that structurally, mechanically they are in the same condition as the Skirvin? I can tell you that I know they aren’t in the same condition, not even close, not even on the same planet.
Unfortunately, like Lackmeyer said, KM blocked these buildings from getting on the register 15-20 years ago, when maybe something could have been done.
Also, like Lackmeyer blogged before, Sandridge’s plan is only demolishing one more building than previously planned. Where was the uproar then?
And don’t compare the ITB to the Skirvin anymore. There is no comparison. Read thru the Oklahoman annals and count the number of stories on each.
Bob Blackburn is a bureaucrat. Bob Blackburn is a historian of events and people. He is not considered an authority of historic properties as far as the National Trust is concerned.
These properties are all eligible for the registry. The economic importance of being on the register are the significant tax credits available for rehabilitation.
The other significance is that because The Braniff Building was already on the registry it could not be considered for demolition without SIGNIFICANT local and national opposition and litigation.
Bob Blackburn has forgotton more about historic properties and preservation criteria than Mike or anyone else on this site will ever know. Don’t attack the messenger just because you disagree with the message.
I feel this probably dooms the appeal, but stanger things have happened.
Matt, I’m not sure Oklahoman annals are the way to judge historic merit. By that process Deep Deuce also would have no significance – the area was virtually ignored by the Oklahoman until the 1990s.
As for Bob Blackburn, one might disagree with him or question his judgment on this debate, but he is by far the most respected, authoritative historian in the state and I for one am indebted to him for all he has taught me over the years. And Steven, I can only take Dr. Blackburn at his word concerning any sponsorships, support, etc. involving SandRidge.
Steve, I agree, another poor comparison. This blog is going down the drain, I tell ya…
My point was that the Skirvin is way more beloved by the community, has more history, and has been documented more often than the ITB. No one would have ever dared to demo the Skirvin.
No doubt about that the Skivin being more beloved. I’m just not certain that’s the chief criteria for something being beloved. By that standard the concentration camps in German have no historic merit.
I’m not meaning to dismiss what you’re saying – these questions and comments really bring up some good questions – what makes a property historic?
So are you comparing the ITB to the concentration camps? If you are, I think we should destroy it…
I know where you are going with this.
ITB is the oldest building downtown = historic
ITB also held the State Legislature for a few years before the capitol was finished = historic (if you think the state legislature is worth anything)
ITB has been altered beyond recognition = not historic
Can the city somehow get a deal done with Sandridge to purchase it? Would it then use the same method to restore it that it used with the Skirvin (tax credits and incentives)? It will cost millions just to bring it up to code.
To bring the Skirvin up was around 150 Million – and that building had been down for only 20 years and it had a guarenteed revenue stream once completed. ITB would cost at least that much. 50 million more than Sandridge’s entire project on only one building with no guaranteed renenue source? There’s lots of empty space downtown with much more on the way with Devon.
There is a time when you get past the tipping point – are we there?
I want to be accurate so I need to make a correction. Steve let me know it was 54 million not 154 million for the Skirvin – thanks Steve. That was still for one building however. Sandridge could easily pour their entire 100 million into the ITB just to get it up to speed, which would leave nothing for anything else. I’m sure folks here would like that, but is that in Sandridge’s best interests.
this isn’t an argument about historic preservation alone but also about how to plan, develop and sustain a downtown urban environment, which last time I checked didn’t involve removing buildings and adding trees. i also agree with a previous comment about reconstruction and the issues/costs involved in doing so, however, i am skeptical if this option was even investigated for potential viability.
There is no way ITB would cost 100m to fix. Maybe 20. Even less if they left the interior fit-out to the tenants.
It wil cost more than 20 million just to reconstruct the outer facings. It will also cost several million for asbesthos abatement more than likely. Engineering studies, plans, plumbing, electrical. All those things add up quickly.
Unlikely any tenants will pay to fit out that building when there is plenty of class a space available already.
Jeffrey, unless you’re an architect (I’m not), I don’t think either of us have a clue as to how much it would cost to renovate the India Temple Building. We also don’t know if the the project might qualify for state and federal tax credits or TIF facade grants.
And that’s part of the discussion here: there’s been no indication by SandRidge that they’ve looked into these questions either, and certainly the Downtown Design Committee failed to ask these questions.
This building may be prohibitive to renovate. Or it might not be. What troubles design and preservation advocates is that no one bothered to find out and they believe the Downtown Design Review Committee (with the exception of Betsy Brunsteter)was derelict in their duties on this application.
SandRidge indicated they’re anxious to start work – but don’t be surprised if this project is now held up for years if Preservation Oklahoma should decide to go to District Court if they don’t get a reversal at the Board of Adjustment.
Obstructing progress for the sake of junk buildings? …If they do take it to court, Preservation Oklahoma is myopic and dangerous. (“If the only tool you have is a hammer, every issue becomes a nail.”)
The time to save the ITB was BEFORE it was allowed to be transmogrified. I hope the public comes out in droves to help defend SandRidge against this irrational attack.
Steve, I don’t have to be an architect and you don’t have to be either to know that reconstructing this trash can of a building will take massive amounts of money. I’ve been around plenty of these type of projects to realize the same pattern takes place almost every time: 1) People go in thinking “We can do this quickly and cheap.” 2) Architects and contractors develop the cost to redo the stucture. 3) Eyeballs pop out of peoples heads.
Steve, please don’t attempt again to muzzle my opinion on the basis that I’m not an expert while giving free reign to all the non-experts that happen to agree with you. If that’s your criteria than shut the blog down because very few here are experts on city planning, urban design, etc.
And if you think the ITB can be reconstructed to its original historical setting for 20 million, I’ll take that wager with you right now.
I’m not trying to muzzle you anymore than those who want to save the buildings.
Also, you might be surprised what I really think. Because I’m questioning the process, reasoning and arguments doesn’t mean I’m for or against demolition. All I’ve said is I’ve not seen a thorough, thoughtful discussion take place. And whenever I see a certain side resist delving into details and rushing to end discussion and move forward, the more suspicious I get.
Such a rush occurred with Bass Pro Shops. Has the store been a disaster? No. But it’s fallen far short of expectations, and I know many people who wish that city leaders had pressed the retailer to at least fit in better with the canal and design of Lower Bricktown.
As for the cost of India Temple, it’s naive of anyone to think this would be an easy or cheap job. But we’ve seen a lot of structures in similar condition (Sieber, Steve Mason’s properties, Plaza District) brought back to life. We’ve also seen preservationists battle for structures like the YMCA (next to the Memorial) where I never quite understood how it could realistically be not just fixed (extensive bombing damage) but also adapted (extremely low floor to ceiling heights on the room floors).
Jeffrey, I don’t think the India Temple can or can not be renovated for $20 million. Neither do you. What I do know is that you’ve got an ally in this argument, Dennis, who is an architect.
So that’s that. Please don’t confuse me challenging you with muzzling you. You’re a great contributor to this site, and I don’t want you, Dennis or anybody else who engages in good back and forth discussions to shut up or back down.
Dennis, what’s your thought on the high grass SandRidge proposes using? Wasn’t the same landscaping initially used with disappointing results with the new federal building?
Steve, I personally don’t like urban prairies, or xeriscapes. Ornamental & tall grasses have their place, but forcing them into an urban setting in such high densities seems like the result of foreign designers thinking they’re being hip & knowledgeable about local flora… It’s a tired fad.
I agree with Steve and Dennis about the landscaping choices.
There is a huge difference here between the very hands-on work being done by The Office of James Burnett on the Myriad Gardens and Project 180 and the short-sided work of Rogers Marvel on this project. James Burnett HIMSELF has probably spent 90 days working here over the last 6 months. I doubt we can say that about anyone working for NYC-based Rogers Marvel. They have no connection to the spirit of OKC or any motivation do do what’s right for the city as opposed to what looks nice in their portfolio.
I walked past the site after the marathon today and couldn’t believe how empty that area will feel after Tom Ward takes his wrecking ball to it. You already have the suburban BancFirst branch on the SE corner and Kerr Park on the SW corner, plus the empty space where the Chamber building is supposed to go. It really is unfortunate that the Design Committee couldn’t ask them to look at replacing the buildings with BUILDINGS. It’s not so hard.
As Steve said, this is looking more and more suspicious. They are trying to rush this through without questions asked. The only building that they aren’t knocking down is the one they CAN’T. Hmmm.
Also, Steve, you say you can only take Blackburn at his word, but with all due respect, surely you can do more. You could find out if Ward or other Sandridge-connected individuals have contributed to the OHS. Surely those are part of the Open Records Act.
Jeffrey: “asbestos abatement” is probably a non-factor because it has to be dealt with if the building is saved or destroyed (read that is the hangup right now with bull dozing of the downtown post office that is in the MAPS 3 Park path). May even be more of a concern with complete destruction. Seems that it is only a problem when it deteriorates and becomes airborne. Only the material that is disturbed is a problem. With a complete destruction, everything is disturbed.
Steve: you touched on the Bass Pro deal, I haven’t read anything recently on it. The last article (several years ago) was it had fallen short of projections, but was discounted by City officials by saying sales taxes from other businesses made up for it. Question is, has the loan (or whatever the official arrangement was) been paid back/on track to being paid back the way they said it was? I take it from your post that it still hasn’t. How far off are they?
Steve, I know you aren’t.
Jbrown84, not wanting to sound offensive, but do you know what you are talking about with either SR or the Gardens?
There are a lot of confusing things being posted here about the national register status of buildings that need to be clarified. The National Register (which, btw, has nothing to do with the National Trust for Historic Preservation – it is administered federally by the National Park Service and by each state’s historic preservation office) has specific criteria in categories such as architecture, associations with historic people and events, etc., that buildings have to qualify under. Buildings that have been significantly altered typically do not qualify. That being said, there are examples in Oklahoma and across the country of buildings that have been successfully restored and THEN qualified for the National Register.
Would this happen for the ITB, or any of the buildings here, proposed for demo? Who knows. But more investigation could be done, such as removing some of the cladding, without getting in as deep as rewiring the entire buildings or spending thousands on asbestos removal, before they are demolished.
Another distinction: plenty of buildings are “historic” but for some reason or another do not qualify for the National Register – it has its purpose, but there are buildings out there that are old, and of value, and worth keeping, but are not eligible. Plenty of cities across the country have local preservation ordinances that differ in what they qualify as historic from the National Register, taking into account local history and patterns of development. National Register eligibility, and the related tax credits, are a big deal, but they should not be the ONLY deal in deciding whether or not to demolish a building.
Oh, and one more thing: The National Register only impacts federal agencies – Sandridge, or anybody else, could demolish the whole block tomorrow and the National Register would have nothing to say about it at all, as long as no federal agency was involved. NR listing doesn’t stop private citizens from doing whatever they please with their buildings. They, from a National Register perspective, do not “have” to save the Braniff building, although the city may have frowned upon a proposal that included that for demo as well.
How can one propose demolition with no proposition to rebuild according to downtown design guidelines?