It is the hope of many that even the core of downtown Oklahoma City can some day become a vibrant, mixed-use arena. I would like to ask those who spoke in opposition to Preservation Oklahoma today, how they intend for that to ever come about. It is evidently clear that many of them have no such hope, no such intention, and no such wish.
Board of Adjustment commissioner Michael Dunn, who spoke first and gave a damning assessment of the economic viability of downtown residential as a whole, based his conclusion on a lack of parking downtown. Where will a happy family of 4 living downtown park all those cars? His assertion was that residential is completely impossible without specifically attached parking.
I think you can apply that to anywhere downtown, and you can include Bricktown to that mix as well. MidTown is going to have to lose some buildings to make way for some surface lots, but it's still doable there, according to Mr. Dunn. I think we should not take lightly AT ALL his comment and that it is not even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can presume by his statement to believe that Dunn is referring to a commonly held belief (apparently) that downtown residential is an impossible proposition.
I think Dunn was also inventing some facts. He conceded that the Park Harvey did have around 95% occupancy, but alluded to that occupancy dropping to 40% when parking was no longer available at the City Center/Galleria Parking Garage (Devon's new garage). I wonder what Dick Tanenbaum would have to say about such a negative analysis of one of the keystones of his real estate portfolio. I also wonder what Dunn would say to the Regency Tower, which has room for some residents to park on-site, but not even close to all. It has been a very successful investment, and will continue to be so for its new Omaha-based owners, speaking of whom I believe Barrett Williamson mentioned were preliminarily interested in the KerMac or India Temple bldgs. Dunn also corrected us all on City Code, which apparently recommends demolition when economic feasibility isn't where one would want it to be. So I guess we were all wrong on that. For future reference I would be VERY interested in seeing where exactly it says that, or if that is in the recent puzzling legal opinion from the city attorney's office, and if it is an actual part of the Code then why we weren't briefed on that by city staff whose sole directive was to inform the board where the project stands with City Code. I guess whoever compiled the exhaustive report recommending denial of SandRidge Commons would also be very interested in Mr. Dunn's revelations provided today.
This misconception of economic feasibility certainly seems to be the basis that today's 3-1 vote was based on, so it would have been interesting to have gotten a final word on its applicability BEFORE the verdict was already in. Other interesting observations..
It was fascinating to me to see Jim Allen cover his tracks from the last meeting where he voted in favor of saving the India Temple. He gave a complete public apology for doing so and iterated that he cast his vote "in error." I just hope whoever he was apologizing to will eventually forgive him.
The other two votes didn't ever give a single comment on the application today. At the last meeting, chairman-elect David Wanzer voted to save both buildings, and cast the lone vote in favor of Preservation Oklahoma today. Wanzer conducted the meeting very efficiently and gave each side an ample opportunity to express their conditions. Chairman-emeritus Rod Baker, who voted to save the KerMac but not the India Temple at the last meeting, cast a vote against Preservation Oklahoma in its entirety today and did not open his mouth a single time. Wanzer had to recognize the motion laid out by Jim Allen, who I don't think understands parliamentary procedure in spite of being a veteran of service on city boards and having fought for a lot of great things in the past.
The motion was laid out prematurely before Wanzer or Baker got to speak, but I'm not going to say the two weren't glad to have an opportunity to avoid speaking and just get straight to the voting. Can't say it made any difference because with these types of things, usually everyone's mind is already made up.
And that is how the cookie, and the buildings, crumble. I think we need to remember Michael Dunn's words, and I believe that they will be in a book someday--similarly to I.M. Pei who is quoted in Steve Lackmeyer's Second Time Around saying "You are whistling in the dark if you ever think streetcars will ever be successful again in downtown." Or something like that.
This is a huge historical blunder that we are in the midst of.
Showing posts with label Board of Adjustment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Adjustment. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Here we go again
Here we go again, for what, the 5th time? About to leave and head downtown for what is hopefully the last SandRidge hearing.
All that's at stake is historic preservation, the authority of planning boards, the value of urban design standards, and the city ordinances. If SandRidge Commons goes forward it will repudiate every planning and urban design doctrine we have recently adopted and undermine the authority of the planning boards, city ordinances, and the public process altogether.
I think it is especially prudent to note that SandRidge advocates have insisted that this is a special case that stands alone and will not set a precedent, and even in the unlikely case that it is so, that's a pretty negative "proponency" point to make that at least it won't lead to a larger cirrhosis like all of our ordinances and standards spiraling down the drain. Aren't all projects part of the bigger picture, for better or for worse?
So consider this Geronimo's Last Stand, which I think is an apt comparison in a tongue-in-cheek way, with SandRidge dismissing urbanists and preservationists as just obstructionist and oppositional.
I am going to assume Steve will be live-blogging today again, so I'll recommend the OKC Central blog for need-to-know and up-to-the-minute updates. This blog will probably have the first full analysis up. Doug will probably have a more complete, and further in-depth analysis up later, probably tomorrow.
Let's hope for the best for Oklahoma City, and can't wait to see what lovely threats SandRidge has waiting for us this time.
All that's at stake is historic preservation, the authority of planning boards, the value of urban design standards, and the city ordinances. If SandRidge Commons goes forward it will repudiate every planning and urban design doctrine we have recently adopted and undermine the authority of the planning boards, city ordinances, and the public process altogether.
I think it is especially prudent to note that SandRidge advocates have insisted that this is a special case that stands alone and will not set a precedent, and even in the unlikely case that it is so, that's a pretty negative "proponency" point to make that at least it won't lead to a larger cirrhosis like all of our ordinances and standards spiraling down the drain. Aren't all projects part of the bigger picture, for better or for worse?
So consider this Geronimo's Last Stand, which I think is an apt comparison in a tongue-in-cheek way, with SandRidge dismissing urbanists and preservationists as just obstructionist and oppositional.
I am going to assume Steve will be live-blogging today again, so I'll recommend the OKC Central blog for need-to-know and up-to-the-minute updates. This blog will probably have the first full analysis up. Doug will probably have a more complete, and further in-depth analysis up later, probably tomorrow.
Let's hope for the best for Oklahoma City, and can't wait to see what lovely threats SandRidge has waiting for us this time.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
5:30 left in the 4th: Appalachian State, 17 -- Michigan, 10
Shocking developments in today's Board of Adjustment meeting which I just got out of. I couldn't wait to post these before I got off work so here will be the short version:
There is no finality yet, but it looks like there may be a strong shot to save both the Kermac building and the India Temple, which to save typing, will be the IT building. David Wanzer is in support of saving both buildings. Jim Allen wants to save the IT but doesn't see the architectural or historical merit of the KM. Rod Baker wants to save the KM, recognizes that it is an architecturally attractive building and talked a lot about the streetwall and the urban experience, but doesn't believe the IT is as potentially conducive to SandRidge as the KM is so does not support saving it.
In order to get Jim Allen and Rod Baker to come together on both buildings instead of coming together on neither buildings as SandRidge will endeavor toward, we need to develop a strategy for both.
Rod Baker strategy:
I was pleasantly surprised to see Rod talking about the streetwall and the urban experience, but his concerns about the IT are that it is not as conducive as the Kermac to being used by SandRidge. I think that will be difficult to bring him to save the India Temple but it can be done by emphasizing that the ordinances talk about the good of the city and not one corporate tenant having free reign over two full blocks. Devon's tower doesn't even take up an entire block, and it will integrate very well with other uses such as the Colcord Hotel and the downtown library that will be adjacent. SandRidge is saying they don't want any other uses on the block. Wrong. The ordinances are written to guarantee the wellbeing and vibrancy of the city, not with the needs of a particular single corporate interest in mind. This is a community and we want SandRidge, but SandRidge has to be willing to accept mixed-uses in downtown.
Jim Allen strategy:
Jim truly seems to understand the intrinsic value of the India Temple and he wants to save that, and he asserted that it can be a valuable component of a campus redevelopment. I just think he doesn't like the Kermac building. Someone needs to assess the architectural and historical qualities of the Kermac with him, and it might not hurt to emphasis the point about the streetwall for his sake, but I really don't think there is a single planning buzzword that can convince Jim of anything. He just goes by his gut and he knows that the India Temple can be a good project if saved and wants to see that. He just needs to be convinced the same of the Kermac.
There is no finality yet, but it looks like there may be a strong shot to save both the Kermac building and the India Temple, which to save typing, will be the IT building. David Wanzer is in support of saving both buildings. Jim Allen wants to save the IT but doesn't see the architectural or historical merit of the KM. Rod Baker wants to save the KM, recognizes that it is an architecturally attractive building and talked a lot about the streetwall and the urban experience, but doesn't believe the IT is as potentially conducive to SandRidge as the KM is so does not support saving it.
In order to get Jim Allen and Rod Baker to come together on both buildings instead of coming together on neither buildings as SandRidge will endeavor toward, we need to develop a strategy for both.
Rod Baker strategy:
I was pleasantly surprised to see Rod talking about the streetwall and the urban experience, but his concerns about the IT are that it is not as conducive as the Kermac to being used by SandRidge. I think that will be difficult to bring him to save the India Temple but it can be done by emphasizing that the ordinances talk about the good of the city and not one corporate tenant having free reign over two full blocks. Devon's tower doesn't even take up an entire block, and it will integrate very well with other uses such as the Colcord Hotel and the downtown library that will be adjacent. SandRidge is saying they don't want any other uses on the block. Wrong. The ordinances are written to guarantee the wellbeing and vibrancy of the city, not with the needs of a particular single corporate interest in mind. This is a community and we want SandRidge, but SandRidge has to be willing to accept mixed-uses in downtown.
Jim Allen strategy:
Jim truly seems to understand the intrinsic value of the India Temple and he wants to save that, and he asserted that it can be a valuable component of a campus redevelopment. I just think he doesn't like the Kermac building. Someone needs to assess the architectural and historical qualities of the Kermac with him, and it might not hurt to emphasis the point about the streetwall for his sake, but I really don't think there is a single planning buzzword that can convince Jim of anything. He just goes by his gut and he knows that the India Temple can be a good project if saved and wants to see that. He just needs to be convinced the same of the Kermac.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
SandRidge....again
Brief recap from SandRidge appeal today:
Meeting began at 1:30 pm. Did not end until 5:30. Settled nothing. We brought our A-game, and Preservation Oklahoma made an incredibly impressive and persuasive case--so I suppose it's to their credit that the meeting didn't end at 3 o'clock with a vote of 0-4 against the appeal.
The meeting has been rescheduled. I think June 28th? I'll have to double check that now. Currently using WiFi at a coffee shop downtown..very tired, and worn out. My own jarbled speech did not go as hoped--despite being guaranteed by the BoA bylaws of 5 minutes speaking time we were all hurried up in the interest of time, and I had no complaints with that! Didn't get to many of my points, but got through some..initially brought talking points to the meeting, rewrote them several times during the meeting, opted against talking points for the most part while I was speaking..only had to pause once to regain my train of thought and get to my next point.
All of this would have been prevented if we didn't have this broken process. In order to do largescale development projects like this a developer SHOULD be holding neighborhood meetings like they do for development in many, many other cities. A neighborhood meeting would be the appropriate venue for us to air our concerns and meet an amenable solution.
It would be a heckuva lot better than this stupid process where we are pitted against an entity that could do a lot of good for downtown. In order to send this back to the drawing board and satisfy community input it will require a "NO" vote, and that's unfortunate.
Now I'm exhausted..I'll do more of a recap later. And I am STILL trying to get around to doing a recap of last week's transit meeting, it's just that SandRidge is on the front burner for now.
Meeting began at 1:30 pm. Did not end until 5:30. Settled nothing. We brought our A-game, and Preservation Oklahoma made an incredibly impressive and persuasive case--so I suppose it's to their credit that the meeting didn't end at 3 o'clock with a vote of 0-4 against the appeal.
The meeting has been rescheduled. I think June 28th? I'll have to double check that now. Currently using WiFi at a coffee shop downtown..very tired, and worn out. My own jarbled speech did not go as hoped--despite being guaranteed by the BoA bylaws of 5 minutes speaking time we were all hurried up in the interest of time, and I had no complaints with that! Didn't get to many of my points, but got through some..initially brought talking points to the meeting, rewrote them several times during the meeting, opted against talking points for the most part while I was speaking..only had to pause once to regain my train of thought and get to my next point.
All of this would have been prevented if we didn't have this broken process. In order to do largescale development projects like this a developer SHOULD be holding neighborhood meetings like they do for development in many, many other cities. A neighborhood meeting would be the appropriate venue for us to air our concerns and meet an amenable solution.
It would be a heckuva lot better than this stupid process where we are pitted against an entity that could do a lot of good for downtown. In order to send this back to the drawing board and satisfy community input it will require a "NO" vote, and that's unfortunate.
Now I'm exhausted..I'll do more of a recap later. And I am STILL trying to get around to doing a recap of last week's transit meeting, it's just that SandRidge is on the front burner for now.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
SandRidge appeal tomorrow
Tomorrow is the day of the SandRidge appeal before the Board of Adjustment. The appeal was filed by Preservation Oklahoma and has recently gotten a letter of support from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The meeting is tomorrow in the City Council chambers, at 1:30. I will be taking off from work to attend the meeting. The way I see it, I already saved these buildings once from demolition..against the odds, time to do it again.
I don't really take ANY credit for saving the buildings initially, the real credit goes to Scottye Montgomery who read my letter to the City Council and other citizens who actually were able to show up on that day. The Downtown Design Review Commission obviously saw that citizens were concerned and responded by deferring it to a special meeting at which we eventually lost.
I still don't feel very confident about the appeal, but we have to make a good showing nonetheless on the off chance that we can make a difference. I also wrote a letter to Kathe Casula, who works for the Board of Adjustment. Her email is: kathe.casula@okc.gov
My letter is as follows:
Dear Ms. Casula,
My name is Nick Roberts and I run a popular local urbanism blog at downtownontherange.blogspot.com--recently I did a poll of my readers on the SandRidge demolition permit and determined that 42 of them actually opposed the $100 million SandRidge Commons project simply on the grounds of the demolitions. 20 readers approve of the project, but I wonder how many of them are just "glass half full" people who still wish SandRidge would do more to preserve a few buildings rather than tearing them down.
I like the SandRidge Commons proposal--in concept, but the incompetent, horrible, uneducated architects and planners who put it together need to be banned from ever doing any Oklahoma City projects again. If they really knew OKC, they would know how sour we still are over the I.M. Pei legacy. He ruined our city, basically--and they want to continue his urban renewal schemes. Basically we oppose two of the demolitions and support the other elements of the project, but with hesitation.
The India Temple, as I am sure everyone in downtown is aware now, is the oldest remaining building (built in 1902) and also served as the home of the Oklahoma State Legislature for years. It is an incredibly relevent historical site and SandRidge wants to tear it down and replace it with...nothing. A windswept corporate plaza will replace it. The person who put the false facade over it says it can be removed, although SandRidge says it can't. The building poses challenges but should be given a chance. Asbestos abatement will have to be done before it can be demolished anyway.
SandRidge wants to tear down the KerMac building to increase the visibility of the main tower. This is not only a bad proposition, but also sets a dangerous precedent for other companies thinking they can move downtown and establish a "corporate campus" area by demolishing density that leads up their tower. This building has no structural issues and on the outside appears to have a lot of really cool historic detailing--it should be saved even if the India Temple can't be. There is just no reason for it to not be saved, and in the past, there have been numerous (not just one) development groups interested in redeveloping this building and the adjacent Braniff building (as well as the India Temple). These buildings should be restored, not by SandRidge if they don't want to do it (but by someone), and not torn down and replaced with nothing but dead plaza space. We also need to preserve the streetwall along Robinson, one of the few in-tact streetwalls that remain from downtown's urban days. The effect of these streetwalls is defined space, which is becoming a rarity in downtown of all places.
The rest of the plan doesn't threaten the existence of downtown, but that doesn't make it wonderful. There is a really great cubist modern building proposed on Robert S. Kerr, but it's proposed in the middle of the Commons area and doesn't have any frontage on Robinson or Broadway. It makes no sense to have this building where it is proposed and it should be moved to be along Robinson or Broadway--preferably Broadway, where it can help reinforce an area with poorly defined space. This also would extend the Commons area up against a straight edge, which would support the commons and give it more definition as well.
By saving the India Temple and KerMac and allowing redevelopers to buy the buildings from them, moving the new building to Broadway near the India Temple, and extending the Commons to a straight edge--SandRidge Commons goes from being a horrible assault on downtown's urbanity and becomes a fantastic addition that will surely be praised in architectural journals as being a well-planned downtown asset. At any rate, we need to go back to the drawing board with this proposal--the public needs to be heard and the community's concerns for downtown's density and urbanity need to be taken into account. By taking into account these concerns, not only does SandRidge get a truly fantastic proposal at the end, but also would deserve praise for valuing the public process. How about it?
Thanks for reading, and I hope that you will pass my concerns along to anyone who might be concerned.
Have a great day!
Nick Roberts
-address removed-
OKC, OK 73170
(Walters' ward)
______________
In hindsight, I forgot to mention another important point: This should technically be against city code. City code for downtown development states that setbacks aren't allowed for downtown development and new buildings should be built right up to the sidewalk--so why is SandRidge being allowed to demolish buildings that DO come right up to the sidewalk in favor of nothing, for the sake of a plaza setback for their main tower. The city code states no setbacks for new development, but we're still allowed to have development that is basically just one huge setback??
The meeting is tomorrow in the City Council chambers, at 1:30. I will be taking off from work to attend the meeting. The way I see it, I already saved these buildings once from demolition..against the odds, time to do it again.
I don't really take ANY credit for saving the buildings initially, the real credit goes to Scottye Montgomery who read my letter to the City Council and other citizens who actually were able to show up on that day. The Downtown Design Review Commission obviously saw that citizens were concerned and responded by deferring it to a special meeting at which we eventually lost.
I still don't feel very confident about the appeal, but we have to make a good showing nonetheless on the off chance that we can make a difference. I also wrote a letter to Kathe Casula, who works for the Board of Adjustment. Her email is: kathe.casula@okc.gov
My letter is as follows:
Dear Ms. Casula,
My name is Nick Roberts and I run a popular local urbanism blog at downtownontherange.blogspot.com--recently I did a poll of my readers on the SandRidge demolition permit and determined that 42 of them actually opposed the $100 million SandRidge Commons project simply on the grounds of the demolitions. 20 readers approve of the project, but I wonder how many of them are just "glass half full" people who still wish SandRidge would do more to preserve a few buildings rather than tearing them down.
I like the SandRidge Commons proposal--in concept, but the incompetent, horrible, uneducated architects and planners who put it together need to be banned from ever doing any Oklahoma City projects again. If they really knew OKC, they would know how sour we still are over the I.M. Pei legacy. He ruined our city, basically--and they want to continue his urban renewal schemes. Basically we oppose two of the demolitions and support the other elements of the project, but with hesitation.
The India Temple, as I am sure everyone in downtown is aware now, is the oldest remaining building (built in 1902) and also served as the home of the Oklahoma State Legislature for years. It is an incredibly relevent historical site and SandRidge wants to tear it down and replace it with...nothing. A windswept corporate plaza will replace it. The person who put the false facade over it says it can be removed, although SandRidge says it can't. The building poses challenges but should be given a chance. Asbestos abatement will have to be done before it can be demolished anyway.
SandRidge wants to tear down the KerMac building to increase the visibility of the main tower. This is not only a bad proposition, but also sets a dangerous precedent for other companies thinking they can move downtown and establish a "corporate campus" area by demolishing density that leads up their tower. This building has no structural issues and on the outside appears to have a lot of really cool historic detailing--it should be saved even if the India Temple can't be. There is just no reason for it to not be saved, and in the past, there have been numerous (not just one) development groups interested in redeveloping this building and the adjacent Braniff building (as well as the India Temple). These buildings should be restored, not by SandRidge if they don't want to do it (but by someone), and not torn down and replaced with nothing but dead plaza space. We also need to preserve the streetwall along Robinson, one of the few in-tact streetwalls that remain from downtown's urban days. The effect of these streetwalls is defined space, which is becoming a rarity in downtown of all places.
The rest of the plan doesn't threaten the existence of downtown, but that doesn't make it wonderful. There is a really great cubist modern building proposed on Robert S. Kerr, but it's proposed in the middle of the Commons area and doesn't have any frontage on Robinson or Broadway. It makes no sense to have this building where it is proposed and it should be moved to be along Robinson or Broadway--preferably Broadway, where it can help reinforce an area with poorly defined space. This also would extend the Commons area up against a straight edge, which would support the commons and give it more definition as well.
By saving the India Temple and KerMac and allowing redevelopers to buy the buildings from them, moving the new building to Broadway near the India Temple, and extending the Commons to a straight edge--SandRidge Commons goes from being a horrible assault on downtown's urbanity and becomes a fantastic addition that will surely be praised in architectural journals as being a well-planned downtown asset. At any rate, we need to go back to the drawing board with this proposal--the public needs to be heard and the community's concerns for downtown's density and urbanity need to be taken into account. By taking into account these concerns, not only does SandRidge get a truly fantastic proposal at the end, but also would deserve praise for valuing the public process. How about it?
Thanks for reading, and I hope that you will pass my concerns along to anyone who might be concerned.
Have a great day!
Nick Roberts
-address removed-
OKC, OK 73170
(Walters' ward)
______________
In hindsight, I forgot to mention another important point: This should technically be against city code. City code for downtown development states that setbacks aren't allowed for downtown development and new buildings should be built right up to the sidewalk--so why is SandRidge being allowed to demolish buildings that DO come right up to the sidewalk in favor of nothing, for the sake of a plaza setback for their main tower. The city code states no setbacks for new development, but we're still allowed to have development that is basically just one huge setback??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
