Here’s another one. Why won’t Sandridge offer to sell buildings they deem worthless? Why doesn’t the DDRC allow partial consideration in their vote from the public’s input?

Why is Sandridge so adament in destroying these buildings without looking at the whole picture in an objective point of view? I perceive that SR Energy could care less about the historical integrity of these buildings and only looks at their goals and objectives. To me this is not being a very good corporate citizen. OKC deserves better!

What questions did you want to ask Preservation Oklahoma and the National Trust for Historic Preservation?

Joe, remember, Preservation Oklahoma granted interviews after the meeeting, SandRidge did not.
Here’s what asked:
Questions for Preservation Oklahoma team:
. SandRidge Energy and Preservation Oklahoma are providing very different accounts of Oklahoma Historical Society director Bob Blackburn’s thoughts on the historic merit and viability of the older buildings on the SandRidge campus. Would it help clear up any confusion if he appeared at the next Board of Adjustment meeting?
(yes – but this is a city, not a state issue and they say he might be reluctant to get into a city fight)
2. Did you (Jonathan Poston) get to tour the inside of the India Temple building? (no)

Question I didn’t get to ask but will:
3. What should have been the basis for the Downtown Design Review Committee’s decision on whether the buildings in question should get their approval for demolition?

Thanks Steve. A couple more questions for your consideration to ask:

For both sides:
What are your plans if the BOA decides against you? (Would you appeal to District Court? Would you work with the other side on a “compromise?” Would you concede and do nothing further?)

For the Preservation Oklahoma team:
Why did your group oppose the demolition of the Petroleum Club/Globe Life Building and subsequent planned replacement of it with a mixed-use building by SandRidge?

What are your plans if the BOA decides in favor of your appeal? (Will you reach out to SandRidge to attempt to broker a “compromise?” Will you help the City of OKC fund the costs of a potential lawsuit in District Court?)

Also for preservation Oklahoma:
Can you expand on your effots to preserve other buildings in downtown? How do you plan to help save the Marion hotel? What about the old Red Cross building recently torn down on 10th between Harvey and Hudson? How were you involved in the preservation of that structure? What about the garages torn down by the OKC Foundation? Is the scope of your activity and agenda limited to one square block and one company?

Steven,
Sandrige or any other company that owns the tower will probably never sell the buildings on that block surrounding the tower. Because the tower is set back and not on street level you can’t risk who might own the buildings that front you. Would you ever keep your house and sell the garage to someone else? A severly cash-strapped KerMac was considering doing that but as soon as Anadarko got control the idea was nixed. They realized the block is much more appealing to corporations completely owned.

A couple more questions;
Are all of the buildings unoccupied?
If so, how long have they been unoccupied?
How long has SR owned the buildings and were they ocupied when they bought them.

Why should Sandridge answer any of the questions?

The Downtown Business District is not an historic district. The Downtown Design Review Committee has two powers:
1) Design Review – “To administer the design review process for the DBD, DTD-1 and DTD-2 Districts”
2) Certificate of Appropriateness – “To issue Certificates of Approval for property located within the DBD, DTD-1 and DTD-2) Districts” . … requirements for which are found in section 7200.1 of the Oklahoma City code. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for Demolition of a structure over 20,000 sf, unless they are dilapidated.

In terms of defining criteria for demolition of buildings in the Downtown Business District, the code is silent. On the other hand, the sections of Oklahoma City code for historic districts, urban conservation districts, stockyards, etc. all have specific criteria stated in the code for determining whether a building is worthy of not being demolished. This would suggest that the only criteria for determining whether a building should be demolished in the Downtown Business District are Design Review criteria.

The Purpose and Intent of the Oklahoma City Downtown Design Districts (7200.1) are a set of conflicting objectives. On the one hand, the code says Development regulations are intended to “create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities in the downtown area.” On the other hand the code says regulations are intended to “enhance existing structures, preserve and restore historic features, and circulation patterns in the downtown area.” Which ultimately means that the Downtown Design Review Committee must exercise its judgment when exercising its power in Design Review.

Therefore, the first question to be answered is: Does the Sandridge Energy redevelopment proposal meet the codified design requirements of the Downtown Design Districts, whose purpose and intent are to promote “the conduct of all forms of business activity, including mixed-uses in a single building, within the central area of the City”?

Only after this first question is answered can one then address the question of demolition of buildings.

If the buildings were is a historic district, or if they were on the historic register, the first question would be one if history. But the buildings are not in an historic district and are not at this time eligible to be placed on the historic register.

It would seem that for the appeal to be granted, the Board of Adjustment would need to circumvent private property rights, forcing Sandridge to maintain and/or renovate property it has no interest in using.

Kokopelli, those are not fair questions because both Sandridge and Kerr-McGee have intentionally left those buildings empty, allowed them to deteriorate, and denied numerous offers to purchase and renovated them.

So, Sandridge and Kerr-McGee do not have the right to leave buildings empty? If someone offers to buy a building, it must be sold? If the government wants to buy my property for 1/2 of what I paid for it, do I have to sell it?

Steve, I think Joe might be tactfully suggesting that, although Preservation Oklahoma indeed granted an interview, perhaps the wrong questions were asked.

Here’s a question I wanted to ask but won’t in public… how corrupt is SandRidge in this deal? Why are they refusing to work with anyone and in ANY way acknowledge that there are other people in OKC besides just THEM.

Good grief.. I am still upset about it.

Nick, I understand why you’re upset. But I’m not sure it’s fair to suggest SandRidge is corrupt in this deal. They’ve got a preference on how they want to see their property developed and they happen to be at odds with some folks who believe such plans conflict with downtown design guidelines. The fact that SandRidge may or may not want to listen or consider other ideas does NOT make them corrupt. They believe in their plan. You don’t.
That’s called a disagreement.

Lawyers lying before the BoA, stating that the buildings haven’t been occupied in 25 years. Their architect making erroneous claims about walkability that he can’t honestly believe. The DDRC approving the proposal going against city code and the planning staff recommendation. The possibility that everyone is going along with this because it reduces potential office space competition (i.e..Beffort, etc). The erroneous assertion by SandRidge’s lawyers that the buildings are structural insufficient–and their refusal to allow any impartial 3rd party to come in and back up that determination, not that it matters apparently. Their insistence to invoke “property owner’s rights” which we all know is a straw man.

And I also happen to disagree with them..

Nick, can I call you elastic man for that reach you’re trying to make about occupancy? -Non issue.

Say Sandridge left for Houston and the block was dark for 6 years. Then another company came in and said they would buy the block and fill the tower with, oh, 700 white-collar jobs. Their only requirement was that the other buildings on the block – all of them – had to go. What would be the smart play by the city?

Is this your fantasy dilemma, Jeffrey?

No, I’d rather avoid it by working with Sandridge, who is here now and has proven to be a good friend of OKC, than against Sandridge with obstructionism and name calling – which might in the future put the city in a position where they have no choice. There aren’t a lot of companies floating around that can fill a 20+ story tower.

Jeffrey, let me tell you, it’s useless to try and reason with some of these folks. On the ‘Sandridge threatens to leave downtown’ thread, sentences like ‘what do you know, you are in Texas’ and ‘I bet you didn’t know that the Indian building was the State capitol once!’(I can only imagine he was speaking of the temporary home for legislature after the ‘midnight move’ from Guthrie to Downtown, which ironically I learned in my OK history class at KERR Jr. High. That is the midnight move…I have no idea where the temporary home was, but I’m guessing by the reaction, that it was the India Temple bldg.). Oh, and my favorite ‘historicity isn’t a word’ as if their passion for these buildings overrules Webster’s and likewise discredits others opinion of what should happen.
Being that I spent half my life in OK, attended its schools and graduated in OK. and still have family in OKC, I could take offense to that, but I chalk it up to passion.
Obviously Steve is very passionate about the historical value of some of these buildings and is willing to voice that opinion. His in depth knowledge of the history of downtown is extensive and he wants an exhaustive attempt made to save the buildings.
But, you have to wonder how corporations that are thinking of coming to OKC are going to react to Sandridge selling of the properties and skipping town.
You know it’s interesting that a few months ago Steve brought out a concern about 900,000 sq ft of office space Devon was vacating to get into their new bldg. How would it affect the market? But, now apparently there are 5 out of state buyers interested.
So, we really have no idea what the market can handle. It truly is in flux. The more negativity, however, out of state companies face, the less momentum for downtown. And I think this Sandridge deal is going to weigh heavily upon the minds of those interested corporations.
If I had to guess right now, putting Sandridge between a rock and a hard place, and trying to force them to keep buildings that are hard to maintain and doesn’t fit in their vision is unfair. When it comes to our properties, we build or remodel the way we want. We do have to abide by city ordinance and code and if the building is deemed a historical site, we must accept that too! But, what if our home wasn’t a historical site. We buy it with intentions of tearing it down and building a new one. But, a third party tries to prevent it because it has some sort of connection to history. Either, the sale should be refunded or the person should be able to proceed.
But, from what I understand, these buildings were not recognized as historical and were not in a historic district. They should be able to do what they want, and OKC should take it as a lesson for protecting the NEXT building they feel is historic.
Between this instance and the opposition to so many of the core to shore elements, I’m thinking the OKC momentum will slow substantially. That’s unfortunate.
Fine Print: (this afforded opinion has not yet been approved by the ‘passionate historical society’ and will be deemed rhetoric and be discredited!)

It’s interesting to me that everyone seems to think I’ve expressed an opinion on whether some, all or some of these buildings should be torn down.
I ask questions. I poke and prod. Sometimes that’s not appreciated by one side or another. That doesn’t mean I’m against them.
All I’ve ever advocated in this whole discussion is that serious deliberation take place and that all the questions be asked. And it appears as if that’s happening now – it certainly wasn’t happening back in December when I began writing about this project. And Ka, there is no censoring occurring on this blog (other than a hold put on comments by those who have a history of using stolen identities or engaging in personal attacks). This site does have an aggressive spam filter and your comment was caught in it. I released it as soon as I saw it.

hehe! all in jest Steve. I was expecting a severe lashing from other posters, similar to comments from the Sandridge story you posted. Thanks for the clarification though!