Heritage Hills, a very special interest

Just a real quick observation: It seems as though the Heritage Hills fuss over The Edge @ Midtown has now gotten more legitimate attention and consideration than we poor, lowly SandRidge protesters ever got. And certainly more attention than the backlash against Chris Johnson's horrendous Bricktown Canal parking project (on that one, I admittedly did little because I couldn't even fathom the BUDC would approve it).

But let's get back to Heritage Hills. This is a neighborhood that has a history of meddling with the redevelopment of the Mercy Hospital site. Back before the 2008 bust, when OCURA went through its first round of RFPs for this site, it was once again Heritage Hills that some feel got to call the shots. Wiggin's ridiculous "Overholser Green" proposal beat out Marva Ellard's edgier "Mercy Park" proposal (to be fair, I believe Ellard resides in HH/MP) because of a concerted desire to go with the more subdued, traditional, all-residential development. As hard as it is to believe today, there was a legitimate backlash in that decision against mixed-use.

This was back when I was running okmet.org, which I used to argue for Overholser Green even. I believe back then I had a certain admiration (and willingness to believe anything) for the elite residents of Heritage Hills. I think it's a fairly normal thought process in our society to think that, "Well these are successful people, so I'm going to side with them." It's as wrong as anything. It's wrong because you're letting someone else, and their interests, decide for you--needless to say I'm over that thought process, but let's just say I fully understand how pervasive it is, especially in Oklahoma.

Now it seems that the Heritage Hills folks are at it again in opposing this project due to concerns that it will weaken their water pressure. Here you have an organized group of neighbors, regardless of whatever level of involvement the actual neighborhood association has (and I understand that they do have an official stance against this development??), who are essentially opposed to the quality infill that OKC so desperately needs because they think it will affect their morning showers. I've heard it all when it comes to urban design and infill, but this is certainly a new one.

There have also been many complaints to the city (officially recorded) that accuse this development of being Section 8 housing (rents will start at $1,000 a month, sounds like Sec. 8 to me). You know it's bad when a group of elitists are playing so fast and furious with the facts that Steve Lackmeyer has to write a blog post titled, "When facts get in the way." They've raised a storm over the density, especially. Pete Brzycki pointed out that this development is essentially equally as dense as the hospital that was originally on this site.

I'll go one further though. The Heritage Hills elitists, and their admirers (which as I've already admitted, did include me at a time I was very young and malleable) got the Overholser Green project chosen earlier. That was going to be around a 10-story condo tower. This will be 5 stories.

Not to mention, that when you live on streets that are numbered as low as 14th, 15th, 16th, etc.--there's a good chance that you may have to endure the tortuous and horrific trauma of having some stylish infill development near you. This one isn't even on their side of NW 13th, the busy four-lane thoroughfare that separates Mid-town from Heritage Hills.

For anyone who is truly interested in learning the facts on this development, which may be one of the highest-quality developments this city has seen in a while, here is an excellent fount of information (the DDRC agenda item regarding this development).

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.

SandRidge drinking game: "Drinking our Buildings Away"

This is for anyone at home watching the proceedings of the SandRidge hearing on Channel 20. I know it's during the day, but the idea of losing these buildings is truly depressing. I know just what should take the edge off..

PREGAME
1. Everyone selects a lucky building that will be referenced to a lot, by people wanting to tear it down, and by people insisting that it can be saved. Every time your building is mentioned take one drink. You may take 4 drinks once your building has been approved for demolition.

2. Everyone selects a favorite planning buzz word..like "streetwall" for example. Everytime an urbanist or a SandRidge person brings up your word, take one drink.

ONE DRINK
Take one drink every time Rob Rogers says the following:

"A beautiful ecosystem"
"The block is very windy"
"We will incorporate Oklahoma's natural environment"
"Connecting downtown"
"Opening up the block"
"We designed this for people, look at all the people in the rendering."
Any reference to greenspace projects in NYC
"It would take effort to restore the Kermac and India Temple"
"This project increases walkability"

*When Rob Rogers gives a list of planning buzz words that he thinks apply to his project in some way, take a drink for each one.


Take one drink every time Suzette Hatfield says the following:

"You wouldn't have this problem in the first place.."
"We believe.."
Any attempt to prove that the buildings are structurally sound
Any time that she has to correct Frank Hill on another inaccuracy


TWO DRINKS
Take two drinks every time Frank Hill says the following:

"These buildings are blight"
"They haven't been occupied in 5000 years"
"The buildings are structurally unstable, we say so"
"Demolition will lower office vacancy rates downtown"
*Anything else that is utterly false, if not mentioned
"No, we won't let you prove anything with an outside report"
"Well, if we do have to submit to a structural analysis, can we pick who does it?"
"These are our bldgs, we are the owner of these, you can't legally tell us what to do"
"If they're so valuable why doesn't a developer buy them up?"
"I present letters from everyone who matters in OKC supporting this project"


Take two drinks for any of these other possibilities:

A well-known urban activist sits on the preservationist side of the room.
The preservationists all sit on the right and SandRidge people all sit on the left again.
Doug Loudenback is walking around snapping pictures.
Steve Lackmeyer is outside grilling a SandRidge official who won't answer his question.
The SandRidge spokesperson who is present says "No Comment" every time you look at her.


THREE DRINKS
Take three drinks anytime a commissioner says the following:

"Uh, yeah I have some concerns"
"I wish we could get a structural analysis.."
"Could someone please clarify on the consideration of historic merit?"
"This is taking too long, I have to go"
"I'm leaving now, bye everyone"
"This is so convoluted"
"Can we approve some of the demolitions and not some others?"


FINISH YOUR DRINK
When the hearing is over and every single building in downtown has finally been approved for demolition, and to be replaced with a lovely ecosystem, erm I mean a corporate plaza. Poor a little our for your homies and start planning your move to some other city that actually has a downtown.

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.

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??

SandRidge appeal

This is the application that never ends, it just keeps going on and on my friends..

And yes, now it has been appealed. Text of the appeal that was filed are here, on Doug's blog. I haven't gotten a chance to look over it much, but I was looking into who sits on the Board of Adjustment.

I don't think it looks good for historic preservation but I will say that SandRidge is not going to have an easy time getting this application through. Honestly..I'm starting to wish that more could be done to work WITH SandRidge and not AGAINST SandRidge to get the best masterplan for this site.

SandRidge wants the best too, they just see us urban enthusiasts working against them. We're not opposed to them or their project, just a small part of it. This is indeed a very broken process. More later..

Keep Downtown Urban

The SandRidge fallout is beginning to roll. Keep an eye out for this new site..looks really good. The address is Keep Downtown Urban and it is going to be dedicated to opposing the SandRidge application and hopefully other anti-urban proposals that continue to destroy the remainder of Oklahoma City left over from the first Urban Renewal (with today being the "second Urban Renewal").

Also you can read more about the political fallout here on Steve's blog..and there may be an appeal down the road. I honestly didn't even realize that opponents of a proposal could appeal a DDR ruling. My personal opinion is that DDR members are doing a good job, they're doing the best they can. They deferred it as long as they could and did due diligence to survey the buildings themselves.

Something just doesn't seem right with SandRidge and the OKC good ole boy system, and my opinion is it'll be interesting to see what happens to Betsy Brunsteter who was the only committee member that voted against the demolition. Anthony McDermid was extremely critical and said that "blood" was on their hands, but in the end he voted yes just because it was a forgone conclusion in his opinion. Or did he vote yes for other reasons?

Steve raises some good questions.. why was Jim Couch there? I've been to DDR meetings myself before and I know Jim Couch doesn't typically come to those. Typically by the end of a DDR meeting I am the only person there, because it's just people who have an item up for consideration and they leave as soon as they get a verdict. Jim Couch does not even attend City Council meetings typically because he is supposed to be too busy running the day to day operations of the city to give a crap about the crazies who speak at the end of meetings or Brian Walters' political posturing as the neo-con who's gonna save OKC from the grip of the libs. (to summarize a typical City Council meeting)

There are a lot of other good questions being raised. Now it appears that the most important question of all is, did the DDR members have any choice but to vote yes towards the demolition?

Tear that sucker down

That sucker I am referring to is Downtown Oklahoma City. SandRidge Energy's application for what is being dubbed as SandRidge Commons, which includes the largest demolition downtown has seen since the 1970s, proving to the world that urban renewal and downtown demolition is still alive and well in Oklahoma City. Maybe we can also put Urban Renewal Capitol of America in with the rest of our hokie promotional pitches--that is one that there would be virtually no other contender.

Downtown Design Review voted 6-1 to approve SandRidge's application for demolition of four buildings, including the India Temple with its historic merit, and the Kermac Building with its historic merit as well as feasibility. My opinion on the DDR verdict: It was expected. Can anyone say they're surprised? Should DDR have acted differently? Probably, couldn't they have split the proposal and granted all demo's except the Kermac? Probably, but at the end of the day, it was SandRidge's bad proposal. Go check out Automobile Alley, MidTown, Core to Shore, and now especially the downtown area and can anyone TRULY say that demolition isn't becoming extremely widespread? What's more is that almost none of these buildings being demolished left and right, probably about 8 total for now, are going to be replaced with ANYTHING. So this is en effect the continued hollowing out of our downtown core. The only two that are being replaced by something else is the MidTown Medical Business District redevelopment site and one of the uglier buildings SandRidge is demo'ing.

This is an example of a dense downtown (Louisville)



This is what we've done to our downtown, and we continue to regress. We continue to lose density, create more vacant space in downtown, and tear down great historic buildings. There is at least one building with historic merit AND redevelopment potential that we are senselessly losing to SandRidge alone, not to mention the Community Foundation, and other demo's elsewhere.

This is the impact: Can you seriously tell me Downtown OKC is urban on a "Big League City" scale? How can we tout ourselves as a model of urban growth, when to be frank, we are not even close. How are we proud of Downtown OKC? The pride that we did have was mostly in our historic areas and what LITTLE density we did have, and those things continue to shrink and get smaller and smaller in our city. So what do we say next time there are comparisons made between Downtown OKC and .. Tulsa? Charlotte? Fort Worth? Kansas City? How does our downtown compare, what impression of our city will we give out of town residents, etc? The answer can be nothing short of the fact that we are modeling Downtown OKC more and more after Amarillo it seems. With all of the great stuff going on, all of the public investment going on, and all of the private investment just flowing .. we are STILL loosing density, and not gaining density. 2 steps forward, 2 steps backward.. destined to be a downtown that falls well short of the standard set by real cities, such as Tulsa, Louisville, Fort worth, Kansas City, and yes..even Charlotte, which isn't foolishly demolishing numerous buildings without replacing them.



So feast your eyes: It's the downtown of the future that OKC could become..Downtown Amarillo, almost the most underwhelming "urban" environment in America (which is saying a lot in America).

Doing a world of good in the inner city

A lot of times, I seem like a pretty critical guy--especially when it comes to the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, the Downtown Design Review Committee, the Central Oklahoma Transit & Parking Authority, the Mayor's office especially, and virtually everyone that's not the Chamber of Commerce. But here's the reality guys: OCURA, DDR, and COTPA are all doing an alright job. They deserve to be questioned, and hopefully all the constructive criticism I endlessly lavish on them can help them raise the bar. Here's some examples of each agency doing a world of good in the inner city.

Starting with OCURA. OCURA has kind of become the whipping boy for crappy development on this blog, and the scapegoat that I like to blame everything on. That's not fair to them, and to paint an accurate reflection of the complete picture, I want to write about something REALLY, REALLY GOOD that OCURA has done, and that is where they have made a world of good in the inner NE side of OKC with the redevelopment of the JFK area. I sort of assume that this is one of the reasons why the new Douglass High School has been infinitely more successful than the new John Marshall High School gang-central, and the brand new U.S. Grant High School which is so gang-infested that OCPS decided last week to just close down. Douglass has shown how a high school and a neighborhood redevelopment project can go hand in hand and raise an entire community to a new level.

The JFK redevelopment project is a huge city area bounded by M.L.K. Ave. to Stonewall Ave, and NE Fourth St to NE Eighth St. Since 2003 the neighborhood, in the heart of a blighted ghetto area with some of the city's highest crime rates, has seen more than 100 new homes built since 2003. 20 years ago the entire area was leveled, and now OCURA is hoping to gain some neighborhood retail that people can walk to along the east end of the neighborhood. OCURA started out in the right direction by marketing the land to spec builders and giving them the land practically for free, but things really took off when they did the unconventional, and let single home buyers (rather than developers) purchase plots and build their own dream homes on the site--including that of Oklahoma Highway Patrolman Wayne Linzy, who has become a community pillar along with his big, oversized 3-car garage house. Word of mouth in the community among friends, family, and church members has turned the redevelopment project in Oklahoma City's African American community into OCURA's best mixed-use redevelopment project. Right now OCURA has agreements with builders to develop 39 more new homes in the next year. The new homes in JFK range in price from $100,000 to over $300,000, and the lower-end houses offer more value than homes in Moore or Edmond due to tax credits the builders have utilized.

In the heart of Oklahoma City's African American community, OCURA has done a world of good in the inner city that everyone in OKC can be proud of. By stepping in and facilitating the development of a true community centered around community churches, the new Douglass High School, new retail to come, and respectable friends and family who would have otherwise contributed to the inner city exodus, OCURA has helped lay a foundation for social change in the inner city. By turning the tide of failure and neglect into momentum of success and change, OCURA is truly helping strengthen an important community in OKC.

Another much maligned agency that's been doing very well lately is COTPA. And what a difference a year makes in the case of COTPA, although they've got their work cut out for them in terms of restoring their reputation. A year ago the criticism was that COTPA has ran its parking garages into the ground (to the point that they're eyesores), ran out any retail tenants, running the worst bus system in the nation, embarking on these laughable "transit" projects like the Spirit Trolleys and the Oklahoma River Cruises, and so on. COTPA was by all means an embarrassment. NOW though COTPA has gotten serious about fixing some of its down falls. There's been a lot of discussion about reforming the bus service and switching to a grid system, where routes just follow the street grid instead of complicated turns here and there. COTPA, from what I hear, is also about to renovate the Santa Fe Parking Garage, which is a start. They hope to give it a less offensive facade, and move in the Red Earth Museum to its ground floor space.


Most importantly with the new COTPA is getting serious about streetcar, since it looks as though whether or not COTPA gets it together, they will be overseeing the streetcar part of the project. But the good news is that COTPA is now taking a proactive role in the formation of the project, years after the Fixed Guideway Study was released. Unfortunately the FGS is still going to be guiding a lot of the discussion in the beginning, but it's a start nonetheless. What I'm talking about is the Let's Talk About Transit public forums. These will be a series of public forums, much like the Core 2 Shore meetings, that will shape the streetcar project. The focus will be on alternatives analysis, route selection, and educating the public..although I feel like the public is already pretty familiar with streetcar given that the item carried the MAPS 3 ballot for the most part.

The Let's Talk Transit movement is well underway, with the launching recently of the new website here. On the website you can give your input on the pending streetcar system. The 7 public meetings will take place over the course of March, April, and May. I'm also excited about these forums personally, as COTPA's PR firm contacted me about covering the meetings as an independent guest blogger. I'm excited to be able to help out however I can in contributing to a turnaround in COTPA's handling of transit. Here is the meeting schedule:

March 29, Noon -- Council Chambers
March 29, 6-8 pm -- Council Chambers
*April 13, 6-8 pm -- Hall of Mirrors
April 29, 6-8 pm -- Hall of Mirrors
May 11, 6-8 pm -- Hall of Mirrors
*May 27, Noon -- Council Chambers
*May 27, 6-8 pm -- Council Chambers

The star denotes meetings I will be covering. But I would encourage readers to make as many of these as they can and to speak up and make your ideas and concerns about transit heard. If you have a route suggestion, any opinion on streetcar, etc--it's all fair game, and that's the point of these forums. You can read about the other guest bloggers here, and also there will be an online message board soon where you can join and post freely about OKC transit. Your ideas will be heard and taken into account.

Another downtown agency that's doing a good job, although they haven't necessarily been doing a bad job in the past, is DDR--the Downtown Design Review Committee. DDR is the committee that oversees building permit applications in the city core and analyzes the design merits of each application. It's board consists of volunteers who have a high level of expertise in Downtown, including architects such as Anthony McDermid, and developers such as Chuck Ainsworth. A lot of times it seems as though crappy property owners and their works slips through the cracks in the system, but sometimes Brewer projects in the past were just given permits without even being processed. And even Brewer projects have gotten remarkably better.

DDR is also the group that recently evaluated the contentious SandRidge proposal. They evaluated the arguments from both sides and tried to make sense of it all..they decided that the SandRidge people saying the India Temple can't be saved were pretty persuasive and the urbanists saying that the KerMac Bldg can be saved were also pretty persuasive. The solution, they decided, was to defer the decision on SandRidge Commons and take a field trip to the SandRidge site and evaluate the buildings for themselves. I am also glad that I had a chance to help the urbanist camp, as a letter I emailed to Scottye Montgomery that morning was read at the meeting earlier this month.

DDR decided to defer the SandRidge decision to a special meeting April 8, 2010 at 8.30 in the Council Chambers. Props to DDR, whatever they decide to do on the matter, for doing due diligence and getting to the bottom of the issue: whether the buildings can be preserved or not. DDR has a strong track record of reinforcing historical integrity issues and their members are highly responsive to citizen letters. DDR, just like OCURA in JFK and COTPA in turning itself around in general, is a city agency that is truly doing the work of the people.

SandRidge delayed

For those who haven't heard by now, SandRidge Energy's request to demolish several structures has been delayed until April 8th at 8.30 in the City Council chambers. The delay will give Downtown Design Review committee members time to individually tour the buildings slated to be replaced by nothing more than a plaza. This will allow each committee member to individually make the assessment of the building's potential for reuse.

A letter I sent to Scottye Montgomery was read at the meeting, since I wasn't able to make the meeting myself on account of being up north. Steve Lackmeyer suggested I post the letter. Since it was provided at the public meeting, here it is. For the record I don't think my letter had significant impact..I think the individual members of DDR know what they're doing, have a good feel for the community, and they've got a good staff. I just hope that my letter can show that, should they be inclined to seek out a better proposal from SandRidge, they have strong community support. The community, and everyone who reads this blog, is keenly interested in the preservation of downtown and good urbanism.

Here's the letter:


Dear Ms. Montgomery,

My name is Nick Roberts, and I'm a local resident at [address removed]. I maintain a blog advocating for Downtown Oklahoma City, but as I'm an architecture student out of state I couldn't be here for Thursday's meeting. I recently came to a Downtown Design Review meeting back in December to speak on the SandRidge Commons proposal, which was inappropriate for a non-agenda item I understand, but you gave me your email if I wished to contact you about it.

I just wanted to share some serious concerns about the SandRidge proposal, prefaced with my appreciation that SandRidge is willing to invest $100 million into our community on top of keeping Kerr McGee Tower off the vacancy rolls. They have become a true downtown supporter, which is why it's odd that this proposal poses so much harm to downtown by further hollowing out what little density remains.

The premise that sight lines from one end of downtown through to another end need to be improved so we can all feast on the site of SandRidge Tower is ludicrous. If it's for shame that great historic brick buildings block the view of the tower from Robinson, then perhaps every charming, historic building our city has left needs to be a part of SandRidge's proposal to improve sight lines of glass, steel, and concrete towers. I also am concerned by SandRidge's attempt to develop a corporate campus in the middle of downtown, when that concept is much better suited for the burbs. We'll gladly take a corporate campus out by my neighborhood, and they can enjoy incredible sight lines out there as well. In downtown, those of us with a vested interest in the center city don't want more focus on corporate towers. We want more focus on pedestrians and streets, which is a situation that gets worse when you remove density and defined space from the streets of OKC.

I would seriously question the wisdom of the out-of-state architectural firm employed by SandRidge, and clearly they are not at all familiar with OKC history. It is upsetting that they try and bring back 1965-style urban renewal, by tearing down the original headquarters of Kerr McGee as well as a 1902 building that for 4 years was home to our State Legislature. It is as if they are attempting to recreate the I.M. Pei Plan that was responsible for downtown's demise. Do they not realize the folly with the Pei Plan?

I think SandRidge's willingness to improve the two city blocks they occupy should be commended, but they should have seeked citizen input on this matter, and not the input of out-of-touch and out-of-state architectural firms. What do NYC architects care about OKC history? As evidenced by their proposal to turn the India Temple and KerMac Bldg into rubble and debris, not a whole lot. The reality is that both buildings can be placed on the national register of historic places due to their local signifance, and are eligible for tax cuts that can cover 20% of development cost. They can be feasibly brought back, and according to the man who laid the horrible EIFS facade over the India Temple, even that can be removed. Even if they went the demolition route, they would still have to do expensive asbestos abatement before the wrecking ball could come in, so by the end of it, demolition is hardly the only option due to cost constraints, especially for the KerMac Bldg which can undoubtedly be saved even if the India Temple really is "beyond saving."

Once they are demolished, notice that the immediate plan calls for none of the buildings to be replaced. Instead they will be filled in by a windswept plaza, which is a problem that currently plagues downtown. There is hardly any defined space except on Park Avenue because in the 70s we razed all our historic buildings and replaced them with these corporate moats, and now SandRidge wants the same, a moat around their corporate fortress. No plaza is good, no matter how pleasant the orthographic drawings are--they all degenerate into the same continuous windswept plaza that seems to wrap around all of downtown's lamest buildings.

There are actually a ton of people upset over the SandRidge proposal, not just myself, and I just hope that we get the best plan of action for the two city blocks between Broadway and Robinson that they own. I know it's probably too late for my comments and concerns to have much impact, but I just realized that the hearing is at tomorrow's meeting. If there is any way for my objection to be a part of the public record, I would appreciate that very much.

Thanks so much for everything you do for our great city, and thanks for hearing me out!

Sincerely,
Nick Roberts

Thursday means History, Streetwall, and Corporate Campus

March 18th will be the showdown at City Hall over whether SandRidge can turn OKC history into rubble and debris as a part of their newfangled makeover of the SandRidge corporate campus.

So before I make my last post before the vote, let's examine this concept..corporate campus. I think that first we have to identify the nature of SandRidge's project. Is it fair to label it as a corporate campus, and if not, what else could it be? I would argue that if it's not a corporate campus, it should be a dynamic and urban-friendly addition to downtown.

A few more questions are, if the project falls under the category of corporate campus, is that good for downtown? What are the ramifications of that?

Here's a better question, is it fair to look at this in the context of what the ideal development of this site would entail (comparatively opposed to the proposal at hand), or should we be bending over backwards just happy as a peach that someone was willing to occupy KMG Tower immediately after it was vacated?

Needless to say, this will be an objective post. For the most part.

This is an ideal corporate campus. It is that of Chesapeake Energy, who has gobbled up land around NW 63rd and Western Ave to build the corporate campus of Aubrey McClendon's dreams. AMC, the only OKC resident on Forbes' list of billionaires, is quoted in the Gazette saying, "I want to turn 63rd and Western into the second major focal point of this community." The Chesapeake campus continues to grow by leaps and bounds as the company expands, and currently they employ 3,500 people at their OKC headquarters that currently has just under 1 million square feet. The funny thing is that the plan keeps changing and evolving, in the masterplan shown here you see "Chopt Square" or the older, uglier office buildings at the heart of the campus--as I posted earlier, those were recently demolished for a recreational green for CHK employees. The plan has also grown to include a large mixed-use village component across Western. In the mind of AMC, his corporate campus would be completely constructed now if it weren't for the pesky recession (talk about a man with vision).

But at the end of the day, the Chesapeake Energy development is a corporate campus. That is to say the epitome of "dead after 5," and it could just as well go around any major intersection in the metro, whether it be NW 63rd, the NW Expwy, Memorial Rd, May Ave, Edmond, Hefner Rd, Broadway Extn, I-240, SW 119th, Norman, or..well you get the point. You can do a corporate campus anywhere, it's a development genre that is more suited to a suburban corridor than it is a downtown, so therefor it is in essence a type of suburban development.

The strategy behind it is to have a fabulous setting to showcase a corporation's image that dominates the entire environment it is projected onto. Downtowns boost their corporate image in the form of a skyline, and that is it (for the successful downtowns at least), whereas with a corporate campus you can have wide, rangy plazas, useless green spaces, and other elements that act like a picture frame around your corporate headquarters. All of these plaza and landscaping elements don't get in the way of pedestrians or any street life or functional purpose, because it's a corporate campus, and it's functional purpose IS to make the corporation look mighty.

There is nothing wrong with corporate campuses, and the really nifty ones like Chesapeake are planning to add the detached urban village across the street from the corporate confines. They just aren't suitable for a downtown environment in most successful downtowns.

On the other hand, the whole "dead after 5" problem that people talk about with our downtown stems from the fact that from the 60s until recently, the goal was apparently to turn downtown into one large corporate campus. I would actually suggest, aside from the point I'm getting at, that today downtown has degenerated into an executive fantasy land, where on the west side of the tracks you've got the wonderful suburban office park, and on the east side of the tracks you've got the wonderful upscale gated community--all it lacks is the gate with a sign that says, "Maywood Park." And Lower Bricktown, of course, is the suburban strip mall de jour.

Obviously we in OKC are not serious about building a downtown that is designed for people, diversity, density, and PEOPLE! If we were, then we'd be boosting downtown's density, not tearing down buildings. We would be attempting to attract residential development at all different price points, and not doing everything we can to prevent development at reasonable price points (OCURA!!). And most importantly, if we were serious of course about this whole urban thang, our focus would be on the street, and framing the street--not on corporate office towers, and framing them.

For those not familiar, Tom Ward was a co-founder of Chesapeake Energy with AMC--he left on amicable terms, and now AMC is in lone charge of CHK. However, I would use this as proof to venture that Tom Ward is a suburbs man. He's a corporate campus man. He understands the potential impact that Devon Tower will have in terms of projecting Devon's corporate image on downtown, and he knows he has to keep up in terms of the community relations race (it's not enough to have commercials everywhere there's a Devon commercial, billboards everywhere there's a Devon billboard). And believe me, that 850 ft tall tower will be visible everywhere from Edmond to Norman. From Tom Ward's perspective, he's going to go with the suburban model because that's whats most familiar to him--and the whole Devon thing means that it's time to step it up. Keep in retrospect through all of this that Tom Ward didn't go downtown for reasons that he just always liked downtown..it was financially a real deal for him to move into KMG.

_________________________________________

Or is SandRidge Commons a suitable downtown development? Does it contribute to the livability, or 24/7 vitality of downtown? Does it add life downtown, or just more of the same unfortunate sameness of corporate plazas and useless parks? You be the judge.


"Oh, but this will be different. This will be nice pavement and grass." That's what they always say..

Of course, even if you are convinced of how horrible this development will be for downtown, it is still worth considering that SandRidge still has an argument. I don't think that my argument is 100% infallible, I'm not that big-headed. There are still the arguments of property rights, and whether SandRidge should have to take marching orders from the public. That said, I don't think it's too much to ask for quality developments at least in downtown. Also I think there's something to be said for how thankful we are that SandRidge is growing, here in OKC, and that they took over KMG Tower. Should we be bending over backward and let them lay waste to our downtown since they helped us with KMG Tower?

I think it's pretty obvious that this is about developing a corporate campus. This is about taking the hollowed out area of downtown around the old Kerr McGee campus and expanding it all the way to Robinson Ave, hence how SandRidge has boasted that demolishing the KerMac will "improve the sight lines of the tower." Translation: It will inflict the corporate image of SandRidge Tower, once hidden from sight on Robinson by the streetwall.

Streetwall, which I once again brought up earlier, brings me to my last point. I agree, everyone around here has been talking about streetwall lately, and I'm no different, and it's a tired argument. Except for the point that it's true. Great cities and great downtowns are made up out of well-defined space, and private property that comes together and frames the public realm, and also adds its own flavor to it. That indeed does exclude windswept plazas which contribute nothing, but actually detract in terms of possibility cost, as well as lack of definition for the public realm. What we ought to be doing with all of these plazas is start fashioning them into the surface of the moon (how about a plaza made out of cheese?), because that's about how urban they are.

But Thursday's not about streetwall. It's not about history either, even though yes, we do stand to lose significant parts of OKC History when the India Temple and KerMac are turned to rubble. It's not about urban renewal, either. It's about corporate campus, and a combination of all of those things. On Thursday, Downtown Design Review has the opportunity to say "NO" to tearing down OKC history, urban renewal in the year 2010, removing one of OKC's last streetwalls, preventing historic loft conversions, and last and not least, hollowing out more of downtown for a suburban corporate campus.

_____________________________________________


I recently discovered a REALLY COOL set of KerMac interior pics on Steve Lackmeyer's okchistory.com website. Apparently the inside of that old building is just full of old murals and paintings commemorating Kerr McGee's storied history in Oklahoma, afterall, the shabby old KerMac building IS the original headquarters for old KMG. If we have to lose the building that temporarily housed the Oklahoma Legislature for 4 years because the building is beyond saving, that's sad but so be it, but let's at least not lose the old KerMac Building that we know investors would like to convert to historic lofts. Imagine it: Kerr McGee Lofts, or better yet, Oiler Lofts.

If you're interested in a cumulative read, and have lots of time, consider reviewing the long series of posts I've written on the SandRidge demolition proposal:

Save the KerMac!
It's baaaaaaack... (Urban Renewal)
Hard to argue
Building demolition rampant
The problem with an otherwise excellent SandRidge proposal

As well as as these Cityshots:

Cityshot XVII
Cityshot XXXVI