Frank Hill
“SandRidge Energy might have to reconsider whether downtown is appropriate for its headquarters”
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
You mean, if Sandridge doesn’t destroy and suburbanize most of their HQ then those buildings will remain to be either converted to other uses or destroyed and replaced by a new structure and not a “corporate plaza” with no future development plans.
We all make mistakes. It’s okay.
So what, they’re just going to abandon their tower? I doubt that. If they get mad enough that they put it up for sale perhaps a company will buy it that wants to keep downtown urban. There is an article in the Oklahoman (today I think) about how 5 organizations are interested in purchasing the current Devon headquarters. I bet the 4 who don’t get chosen for that would be intersted in the SandRidge building.
Not to mention, they just dumped a good chunk of change purchasing the building and remodeling it, they are not in the financial position to abandon it.
I’m not 100% in favor of the proposal.
However, if we don’t allow SandRidge to do this, do we have any idea how long will it be before these buildings are “either converted to other uses or destroyed and replaced by a new structure”? A year? 5 years? 20 years? Never?
Go to the higher end Aaron because the city will get a reputaion of being confrontational with business.
Brian, I take it that you feel that Devon has done a good job getting buyers for their building and that they are doing things right. You realize that Devon is FOR the Sandridge Commons. If you trust Devon’s judgment with it’s building why don’t you trust Devon’s judgment on the commons? Devon has a heart for keeping OKC vibrant and growing – they are absolutely in favor of this. What should that tell us, if anything?
It depends how quickly Sandridge sells them. They’ll never get converted to new use if Sandridge a) destroys them, or b) never sells them to someone else. The fact is, there have been numerous offers over the years to purchase these buildings. All have been turned down.
I have been in favor of not preserving those buildings, but that is a bluff if I have ever seen one. Michael Herndon. Ha!
SandRidge is like a child testing limits. The DDRC and Board of Adjustment need to remain firm in enforcing city ordinance of design guidelines. If that happens, SandRidge will quickly learn that design guidelines mean something.
I call this bluff. You don’t move your corporate HQ in response to not getting as large of a landscaped plaza out front as you’d initially proposed. That’s just nuts.
Yeah, they might rabbit, they just might.
But, they aren’t going to pack up and move and leave that area closed, dark and dreary. There is no money in that.
How lovely that the captcha for this comment is
‘not fists’
Jeffrey, Have you been to other cities. They all having zoning ordinances. Companies adapt to the ordianances not try to break them. It is these ordinances that draw people and businesses to cities. Look at Portland, they have the strictest zoning ordinances and they (before their latest tax increase) draw people and businesses downtown in droves.
Exactly. Zoning ordinances make cities a nice place to live and work. People want to live and work in nice cities. If one company gets pissy because we don’t let them tear down some historical structures, well, tough. Other companies will understand. I know this for a FACT. I know it because every other city in the country enforces its ordinances. Expecting a company to follow those ordinances is like expecting them to pay their electric bill. It’s the standard.
Portland, Santa Fe, and other places with super strict ordinances also happen to be some of the most expensive places to live – connection there? Also keep in mind that the economy has changed many cities philosophies on just how strict they want to hold to certain zoning limitations. Like I suggested earlier, no U.S. city at the moment can prosper with the motto: “Come to our city – We make it hard on Business.” Sandridge just might come back and tell Mr. Hill, “No, Sandridge Energy might reconsider if OKC is appropriate for its headquarters.” Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and many other cities would be glad to work with Sandridge to bring those jobs there. Heck, Detroit would clear-cut 3 square blocks and give SR a big chunk of change to go north.
I think this could end up ugly for both sides, not only with an empty IT but an empty SR Tower as well. Brian, Kris, etc. is the India Temple building the “Hill You want to die on?” (Pardon the metaphor) Is that the building where you’re gonna go all in? I just don’t see how this structure is the deal-breaker.
And no one has yet to comment regarding Devon’s endoresement of the project.
Portland, Santa Fe, and other cities also happen to have much higher levels of income than we do, as well. Better jobs equals more money. Nicer places usually cost more. Yes, if downtown becomes a much nicer place, it will probably cost more to live there. So?
Let Sandridge leave. I once dated a girl who kept threatening to break up with me if I didn’t do whatever she said. Can’t see friends. Can’t do anything unless it’s with her. Can’t do this. Can’t do that. “Or I’ll break up with you.” Eventually you’ve just got to kick them to the curb. Anyone who threatens to leave over something so insignificant, isn’t dedicated to you in the first place. If Sandridge wants to leave because we won’t let them build their little park, then they’ll sure as hell bolt as soon as a better opportunity comes along.
Is this the hill I want to die on? Why not. It’s as good as any. Sandridge’s proposal doesn’t meet design review requirements. If we aren’t going to enforce them, what’s the point of having rules at all? If Sandridge isn’t going to follow them, why should we expect anyone else to do so?
Playing this “leave downtown” card is something I was expecting. Yes, you’re getting a lot of letters of support because it’s not easy for someone downtown to stand up to all the wealth and power of Tom Ward and Sandridge Energy. Does anyone here think it would be asy to say “no” for a letter requested, for all we know, by Tom Ward himself? This whole thing has left a very sour taste in my mouth. Playing the “leave downtown” card was icing on the cake for my disgust.
I watched most of the proceedings and the decisions regarding the India Temple and 300 N. Robinson buildings were not as clearly decided as the posts here seem to indicate. Both votes were 2-1. The board members did not agree on which buildings should not be demolished. Different board members gave different reasons for why they favored one building and not the other. From what I observed the decisions appeared to more procedural than definitive. I suspect that the process is not over.
The reality is that the tower renovation is being included in order to get this project up to $100 million. The tower renovation is finished. Or as they like to call it..the SandRidge Tower “ppppppreservation.”
I’m going to throw something else out there. What about the “pppppreservation” of our city ordinances? If you look strictly at the city ordinance, which explains in black and white what is appropriate for downtown, you will see only one conclusion. Not that SandRidge is a good or bad project, but that the project is clearly contrary to the city ordinance for downtown development.
That city ordinance however is in place for a very good reason.
If the Ordinances are so cut & dry, why do we need a Committee to judge compliance? Why doesn’t some emotionless computer just spit out the indisputable judgment? …Because the design GUIDELINES are just that! Read the Ordinance and you’ll find words like “shall,” “must,” and “should.” The “shalls & musts” are law; the “shoulds” are unenforceable judgment calls.
If Lackmeyer hadn’t stirred this pot in the first place, the work would be progressing right now, and you density-handwringers wouldn’t know any better. I’m not saying the pot shouldn’t have been stirred… I am saying there are MANY principles of good urban design, and street-wall maintenance is just one. (Go read another a book.)
The targeted buildings are junk. The SandRidge proposal will vastly improve this small area of downtown. They should be allowed to develop THEIR property.
They’re S%*T. Cut and dry Brian. I have been in them and they are what they are. You can’t polish a terd.
Talk of having Sandridge “just leave” is just stupid. The kind of jobs that Sandridge provides is the type of jobs we need on OKC. And OKC has lost alot more of those type of jobs in the last 10 years than we have gained. One shouldn’t be so fast to condemn Sandridge just because you don’t agree with their vision of their building.
Rob, those buildings aren’t turds. They’re beautiful buildings that can be restored to their former glory.
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9423/ymcac.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9022/indiatemple01.jpg
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8150/indiatemple02.jpg
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/4554/kermac.jpg
Nick the fact is, they are willing and trying to invest 100 million into downtown OKC. Don’t discount that, unless you have invested 100 million before and it is old hat to you. And the tower renovations are not complete, not yet. Still going on there buddy.
Matt, if they are crap then SandRidge made them that way. They were scheduled to be turned into condos in 2005. Why would they not be suitable for that kind of adaptive reuse today?
Whoa! This thing is going all over the map here without a compass. I’ll add to the disarray by saying the following.
1) None want SandRidge to leave downtown or Okc, for that matter. SandRidge’s attorney is the person who raised that specter’s head in the proceedings: “SandRidge Energy might have to reconsider whether downtown is appropriate for its headquarters.” As I’ve said, maybe he spoke out of turn and regrets what he said, but so far none from SandRidge have said, “It ain’t so.”
2) Preservation Oklahoma (and most everyone else, I think) hopes that the matter can be compromised, even now. But it takes 2 to compromise. Thus far, SandRidge gives no appearance of being willing to give one inch. Given that the SandRidge proposal will not increase SandRidge’s corporate revenues one iota, an outsider (me) is left to wonder, “Why isn’t SandRidge willing to compromise?” As far as I can tell so far, the answer is ego-driven and has nothing at all to do with the profitability of SandRidge to its stockholders.
3) Changing contexts a bit for an analogy, were I wanting to get permission to do something with my residential property which was at variance with existing zoning ordinances, I would want to be be in a position to go before the planning commission to show that I’ve discussed with those involved to arrive at an agreeable plan, even better, with an agreeable plan in hand, to grease the skids and cause approval to be all the more likely. The history that I’m aware of shows no attempt by SandRidge to reach out to those interested in historical preservation, even though the category is identified in the ordinance involved, to reach an agreeable accommodation. Instead, yesterday, SandRidge rejected a 2nd offer by the the National Trust for Historic Preservation to perform, at its own expense, a historical study of the properties involved. Sounds like SandRidge is worried about what such studies might disclose.
4) Oklahoma City will not live or die based on what
SandRidge decides to do or not do. SandRidge is the tail. Oklahoma City is the dog. It is not vice versa. Oklahoma City was surviving rather nicely before SandRidge purchased the premises, and it will survive just fine if Frank Hill’s suggestion proves to be the position of SandRidge and it elects to find another buyer of its downtown properties and move its corporate headquarters to suburbia or to some other city or state. Whatever might happen, the precedent of the the tail wagging the dog would not be good for the city, in my opinion.
5) SandRidge is an owner of downtown property and it purchased that property when existing ordinances were in place. Like all other owners of downtown property, before it can demolish existing buildings, it is required (yes, required) to show a lawful basis for doing so and get a permit authorizing the same. Like any other individual or corporate citizen, a demolition request is required as a predicate to show a lawful (ordinance-based) basis.
6) Heaps of letters from friendly corporate supporters don’t do that, they just show that SandRidge has corporate friends, and that’s all good. But those letters don’t do anything toward accomplishing 5), other than perhaps divert attention from ordinance requirements.
What will SandRidge do? What will the city do? Good karma is that that SandRidge will be less puffy and will be a good corporate citizen and work toward a compromise.
Bad karma? That will be in SandRidge’s hands, honor, and character, to say what happens then.
“They’re S%*T. Cut and dry Brian. I have been in them and they are what they are. You can’t polish a terd.”
Apparently, you can’t spell “turd” either.
That was a closing argument, Doug.
Dennis–to respond to your post, your right, there are other ideals of urbanism to which you can prescribe to. Nobody has willingly gone along with what they knew was wrong unless money was involved (ie, Rogers Marvel Architects..SandRidge is an anti-urban anomaly in their portfolio). I get it that you probably have a picture of Joel Cotkin and other anti-urban thinkers above your bed, and that’s great. At least you’re thinking and prescribing to a theory of urban design rather than being ignorant like the rest of the anti-urban crowd. I’m not aware of any anti-urbanists in OKC who are as thoughtful as you.
I will say though that there is a theory of urbanism that is generally a lot more vetted and a lot more popular. That general theory of urbanism is typically the accepted train of thought for right now, or the zeitgeist. If you go against the grain, that’s great–but it should be acknowledged that your theory is going against the grain.
Nick,
I am not anti-urban any more than you’re anti-capitalist (I’m assuming you’re not a socialist). I am more pro-freedom than the chorus of density barkers that insist ambiguous guidelines should trump someone’s freedom to spend millions of dollars to develop their own property.
One of the critical components of the density equation is PEOPLE. I think it odd that so many of you progressive urbanists would rather have an empty street wall, than a vibrant, dynamic, POPULATED streetscape…
If I were a large company considering buying some of Devon’s old space, right now I’d be reconsidering.
Thank you Dennis. I have never met Nick, but I would like too. His arrogance is astounding.
Brian, nice argument. I didn’t know there was an official spelling of turd. Now I know.
Brian J, Triangle development was going to tear down the India Temple too, ask Steve.
Let’s see what else…Nick you call all of us anti urbanists, but we just have a different opinion. I wouldn’t live as close to downtown if I didn’t feel that way. You would make a lot more headway with me and possibly others if you weren’t so arrogant. Believe it or not, you think you know architecture and urban design but you don’t understand the business. Practice for about 10 years and then let’s talk. In the meantime, quit telling licensed practicing architects how to design. It makes you sound ridiculous.
Rob, who here really knows if the ITB’s facade is intact? Has an ultrasound or an xray been performed? Why did they cover it up in the first place?
I think the last link to the photos says it all. The building on the left, if you look at the photos has a lot more floor to floor height. You can tell that by looking at the size of the windows. It makes it alot more useful today. It is too bad, those buildings were built on the cheap back in the day, and that is what is sealing their fate today.
Doug, if I might make a point of correction. You state that OKC was doing quite nicely before Sandridge came along. In actuality, downtown OKC was worried about an almost completely empty corporate tower being dumped into the downtown office space market and what that might do to downtown. Remember that Anadarko was just holding the building empty, therefore it wasn’t yet on the rolls. Because of the Chesapeake/Sandridge deal, a new tenant moved downtown and that space never went on the market. Would Devon had built a new tower when a completely empty one was just sitting in downtown? When it was announced SR was occupying that building there was a collective sigh of relief downtown- reference Steve’s story in the archives if you don’t believe me. So to suggest that somehow OKC did SR a favor by letting them HQ here is a bit misleading.
Now how that should play in the current situation – who knows? But Sandridge is not the devil and that needs to be emphasized continually on this board. I have a sense that there’s going to be a compromise on the two buildings in question with one going and one staying. Not sure which it should be, that’s just my hunch.
Jeffrey has some very good points – again proving to be a very valuable contributor to this site.
I’ll add this: I’ve not seen anything that would cast SandRidge as the devil either. They genuinely believe they are doing the right thing (encouraged, I’m sure, by the advice given by Rob Rogers). When when you have two sides that sincerely believe that what they are doing is right, and they are in opposing directions, you end up with the conflict we are witnessing and discussing.
On another matter – it is true that the Triangle guys, from all appearances, had no plans to do anything with the India Temple building. They were going to renovate the Braniff and Kermac (savings and loan) buildings into housing, and tear down the YMCA to make way for a parking garage. The 120 N Robinson Building wasn’t a part of the deal, but the India Temple was.
Matt, if a project has a licensed architect behind it, does the public have any right at all to second-guess that architect? Are people supposed to avoid using any terms relevant to architecture and sound completely ignorant out of deference to a few quackitects? I am sorry for my strong words on this, but this is I.M. Pei 2. I have read many of his ideas and they were all based on this appalling notion of “what every city will be like in the near future.” Someone explain, why do we need a corporate plaza? I can tell you why we need downtown housing, mixed-use, and boutique hotel rooms, especially in the heart of downtown’s skyscraper core. Now you all tell me why we need a corporate plaza.
Dennis said:
“One of the critical components of the density equation is PEOPLE. I think it odd that so many of you progressive urbanists would rather have an empty street wall, than a vibrant, dynamic, POPULATED streetscape…”
But we know very well, given the choice between those old buildings restored into lofts or a boutique hotel for the India Temple as opposed to a corporate moat, which will obviously translate into more people and vibrancy for downtown.
Nick apparently doesn’t understand the realities of a capitalist society… He’d like to wave his magic wand and POOF! the worthless old buildings are thriving utopias!
I wholeheartedly agree with him that lofts and boutique hotels would be vastly more desirable than an urban tall-grass prairie.
The City could indeed force SandRidge to keep the old buildings; but they can never force vibrancy to occur where it doesn’t make sense… If these old buildings are mandated to remain, they’ll most likely remain as ugly, empty tombstones to poor logic and regressive politics.
Absolutely, an architect has probably one of the most public professions, outside of politics,hollywood and pro sports. Scrutiny is part of the profession and you learn very early on to develop thick skin.
Most architects have an ego too, and if you are national doing high profile projects like Rob Rogers, your ego is probably bigger than most. I think that everyone on here would agree that your heart is in the right place, but when you say you are going to email Rogers with some design suggestions, it is laughable. I don’t know you so to call you arrogant is wrong, but you have shown a lot of arrogance on this subject.
The ITB would make a wonderful boutique hotel except that the floor to floor is 10′-0″. That isn’t floor to ceiling. It is finish floor to finish floor. After you calculate floor slab, structure, mechanical, electrical, fire protection – you are going to end up with a 6′-0″ ceiling. It doesn’t make sense.
This is not IM Pei 2. That was far reaching and it tore down buildings indiscriminately to make space for new sparkling buildings that never developed because of the oil bust. The same thing is not happening here. It isn’t even close. You have blinders on, you can’t see the big picture. You are focusing on these empty buildings that aren’t being used now and won’t be in the future if they are saved. This development will do more to that area than what’s been done in almost 40 years. The project is exciting and should be welcomed.
Your blog says you are republican, but you talk like a socialist. Don’t take it personally, just think about it.
Dennis:
And what exactly makes you think the SandRidge park area will be a “vibrant, dynamic, POPULATED streetscape”? The renderings they produced? There are something like 5 or 6 corporate plazas/park spaces in the immediate area that are all terribly underutilized or completely empty most of the time. What about the SandRidge park space is going to change that?
Thanks!
Doug,
Do you teach a writing class? Love your style (try to credit it when I rip it off)
“This thing is going all over the map here without a compass. I’ll add to the disarray by saying the following.”
Larry,
I don’t necessarily think that SandRidge’s urban grassland will contribute to a vibrant, dynamic, POPULATED streetscape… any more so than will a bunch of empty old buildings. My comment was directed toward the prospect of SandRidge moving to a more development-friendly location.
I would prefer to see successful, populated buildings, rather than another open space. I would also prefer freedom of development, rather than glassy-eyed obstructionism.
The proposed SandRidge development is better than a bunch of useless old buildings.
You’re welcome!
Dennis,
They are only “useless old buildings” because SandRidge has deemed them to be (and aren’t willing to put them up for sale). If they were up for sale and no one came forward to buy them, then maybe you would have a point.
Should we bulldoze the buildings in Bricktown (some along the Canal) that have sent vacant since the Canal opened 10 years ago? Deteriorating because the owners aren’t redeveloping them?
If no one came forward, the City might need to do what they did and stepped in to save the Skirvin (one of the few things Mayor Humphreys did right)
You keep mentioning things like “development friendly”, the tearing down of historic buildings is the antithesis of development. They aren’t replacing the India Temple with another building. If SandRidge wants a suburban campus, it needs to be placed in a suburban setting. There are a myriad of locations where they could do it without destroying what little urban fabric is left. Even in the downtown area.
Most don’t have any problem with most of the SandRidge plan (where they are restoring or replacing a structure with another structure).
They aren’t historical, Larry. They are old, though. Therein lies the problem with the obstruction in my opinion.
I could be wrong but isn’t all of Bricktown historical? If that’s the case, it is a completely different situation.
Why should they sell it? That isn’t a good argument.
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” -Thomas Jefferson
I’m writing on behalf of a small group of concerned young Oklahoma City residents:
1.) No one has asked that SandRidge rehabilitate these buildings, in fact if they would step back and put them up for sale, they could actually make money on the deal. It is worth noting that it will cost them money to demolish these buildings, regardless of what they replace them with.
2.)If SandRidge will comply with requests to place the buildings up for sale, and someone chooses to purchase and rehabilitate these buildings, it will mean countless jobs for citizens of Oklahoma City and around the state. There are federal and state tax credits that could be utilized to mirror these projects with other extremely successful renovations projects throughout the state like the Mayo Hotel, the Skirvin Hotel, the Gold Dome Building, the Atlas Life Building (now the Marriott) and the Seiber Hotel (this is only a very small few of the successfully saved and very profitable building projects).
3.)It should be reiterated that the so-called “deficiencies” claimed by SandRidge in these structures HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN. These “experts” have not come forward, and there has been no documentation to support this claim. This is something we can’t let SandRidge continue touting without some form of proof. Further, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (an organization comprised of experts who are more than willing to document their findings!) has offered now TWICE to (free of charge!) complete historic assessments of the structures, an offer which SandRidge has flatly refused. This raises some concern with us, because if they are as community and culturally minded as they’d like us to believe, why would they not want to take this opportunity?
4.) It is EXTREMELY noteworthy that the Regency Towers apartment building recently sold for over 1 MILLION dollars more than its original asking price (and for almost 6 million dollars more than what it sold for just 6 years ago). While the building is already configured for residential living, considerable work will likely take place to bring this building into a more modern and marketable state. This reflects the fact that Oklahoma City’s downtown market is in fact booming, with a 96% occupancy rate in downtown rental properties. It is also worth noting that there were 17 interested parties vying for this property. Clearly there is a demand for properties downtown; this is something SandRidge should consider before demolishing viable options for buildings that occupy such a large space in our collective memory.
This website is a very informative and non-biased presentation of the facts of the proposal:
If SandRidge doesn’t build their HQ, then we go back to nothing happening in that portion of downtown. The buildings remain dark and mostly vacant.
That seems like a GREAT idea.