Frank Hill
we are saving, enhancing and preserving over 75 percent of the square footage of this site. There is just a time when certain buildings don’t work anymore, and that is the case with the buildings we are proposing for demolition./
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
So Oklahoma City is now Rome? If that were only true. I don’t think its fair to compare a city thats over 2,000 years older than OKC to OKC. The India Temple is not the Coliseum and the KerMac building is not the Vatican.
Poor choice on Mr. Hills part.
Yeah, that’s because those buildings in the city center of Rome are hundreds/thousands of years old. Comparing the city center of Rome to the city center of OKC is like comparing apples to oranges.
So just because our buildings are only 80-110 years old we shouldn’t preserve them?! That’s logical!
The point I was making was that Rome sees the value of ALL old buildings– even those as “new” as 100-300 years old. They have decided that their age, historical significance, architectural beauty, etc. are important. How is that not applicable to Oklahoma City.
And just because Devon proposes a fantastic addition to downtown does not mean we should rubber stamp everything they support. If they said, “you know, we really need to replace the Colcord with a different hotel. As its owners we’re going to tear it down and build a new one set back 50 feet from the street,” we would RIGHTLY object.
Appropriate captcha: another hustling
But Devon didn’t propose that Brian and that’s exactly the point. Devon bought the Colcord and is holding it in escrow bascially until their construction is done in order to keep the owners from suffering financially due to their expansion. That is unheard of! Why? Because Devon cares about downtown OKC. They want to see OKC grow and prosper. They don’t want to sell their building to a local company because that won’t bring in new jobs. They essentially donated their TIF money to redo the downtown streetscape and the Myriad Gardens. Again, unheard of!
Really Brian J, what more does Devon need to do to convince you that one of their core principles is helping the city? And that company has endorsed the Sandridge plan. I have no doubts they would have shot the thing down if they thought for one moment what Sandridge was doing would hurt downtown. Discredit Devon if you want, but Devon’s actions so far give their opinions credible weight in my book.
As far as I am aware..this SandRidge Commons proposal could not be further from Devon, and actually, just because Tom Ward obtained a letter of support for SandRidge from Devon doesn’t mean anything about the urban planning ramifications of SandRidge Commons.
Jeffrey, do we have a right to consider the urban planning ramifications of SandRidge? Of anything?
Sure you do Nick. But your voice is not the only one and perhaps not the right one. All I’m saying is at least in Devon’s judgment, they were willing to support what Sandridge is doing. Companies don’t just throw their support behind other projects like this haphazardly. Could they be wrong, certainly. But their willingness to support it should count for something in the debate.
I was recently in Rome. In their city center they do not allow any demolition. All plans for expansion/remodeling must include the existing structure. You cannot tear down buildings for the sake of “better visibility” or a plaza.