Way to go, SandRidge!

I just wanted to take a moment to personally thank and congratulate SandRidge Energy, and their CEO Tom Ward, for their sponsorship of the newly-announced Oklahoma River Youth Pavilion, which will be one of the coolest new additions to the river. The 16,000 sf facility will cost somewhere in between $5-7 million, a significant chunk of which I expect will be coming from SR.

By the way, as SandRidge continues to instill some good faith in the community, I do plan to take down the permanent "Stop SR" feature at the top-right of this blog. Actually--it's been a goal of mine to replace that thing with a listing of important posts so that this blog can become easier to use as an OKC resource, but that is just time dependent.

How good developments go bad

This will be a post dedicated specifically to how developments get proposed, or rumors about, and then the developments halt and get to the point where they're dead on arrival. Since it's just a blog post, I'll make it short, and just focus on the primary reasons I've seen since I've been giving up my life to track OKC developments (kidding--well, mostly). The main reasons are unaccounted economic changes, incompetent development teams, what I like to call "strict 2009 adherence to 2007 ideas," and another big one is the limbo caused by big-ticket public projects, many of which are still up in the air.

I will also try and relate this back today, with the implications of post-MAPS3 passage Oklahoma City. Remember: We were supposed to see all of this amazing amount of spin-off development.

This is the Flatiron project, on Harrison Avenue, just north of Deep Deuce--proposed by Grant Humphreys who has been a successful, innovative urban developer. So what could have gone wrong (because this project is definitely been dead for a while, in spite of past efforts to revive it)? Humphreys was somewhat over-extending himself, especially at a time when he was still heavily leveraged in the Block 42 project which he finished a few years ago and has recently still been selling off the last units in that project. Block 42 was an innovative project for OKC because it combined townhomes and flats in a building with a striking urban design, so price points were high. It was also competing with several other projects within the immediate 3-block vicinity. The Flatiron project also called for a lot of mixed-use space, and I imagine it was difficult to find high-end commercial tenants to sign-up for an outpost location at a time when even Bricktown was losing retailers. It's a shame because it would have been an awesome project, but Humphreys will be back downtown, and is currently working on Carlton Landing at Lake Eufala.

The Cotton Exchange is an especially interesting project because it's up there with the old "Factory" proposal as the projects I most wish could have happened. I won't get into the details of how much I love this project, but it would have been a great one. It offered prime commercial space right on the canal as well as with frontage on Mickey Mantle, and it also offered a good amount of residential which Bricktown badly needs. The Centennial was a huge success, so it begs the question why OKC can't support this kind of quality mixed-use development, even though we surely haven't seen much of it. The developer, Gary Cotton, was in trouble though. He didn't have the resources to pull the project off--he had a little bit of equity from the sale of the Bricktown "Mercantile" building. He needed other investors but didn't want to listen to other ideas, from what I've heard. It's still a shame that this didn't go forward because he was using the brokerage team that The Centennial used (which sold out, and still had many interested clients), and because other experienced Bricktown businessmen were offering lots of advice. He also benefited from not just lots of Oklahoman and blogosphere coverage, but even got TV news coverage, which downtown development rarely gets.

Many people got very excited when Tom McDaniel announced that OCU wanted to move its law school to the gargantuan Fred Jones auto factory, which is an awesome historic building. The deal died when Tom McDaniel stepped down as president of OCU and a new guy came in, who didn't like the idea so much. But it's hard not to note the sequence of events: Chamber officials promise there will spin-off MAPS development, Tom McDaniel announces OCU will develop law school downtown if MAPS passes, MAPS passes, Tom McDaniel becomes chair of MAPS Citizens Oversight Board, downtown law school plans are nixed. I would chalk this one up to political problems, if the new leader of OCU doesn't like the idea, then I don't see how anyone is going to "force" him to follow through.

For years, the Union Bus Station was a magnet for vagrants, which caused problems for the developers on both sides of the facility who wanted it gone. First, Dick Tanenbaum, redeveloper of The Montgomery on Walker, wanted to buy the bus station and close it down, and put a jazz club inside of it. It would have been a win-win, downtown didn't need the Greyhound station anymore, it was a blight, it attracted vagrants, he could have renovated it and turned it into a historic gem and just put a jazz club inside of it, which would have turned a problem for the neighborhood into an asset for the neighborhood. That's what you call making lemonade out of lemons. Obviously Tanenbaum, a veteran Central Oklahoma developer, had the resources to make it happen. One problem: The owner was pesky and had no intentions of moving, and was difficult to deal with. So Tanenbaum gave up and turned his files over to Nick Preftakes who was on his way to acquiring the whole block anyway. Preftakes also found the owner to be pesky, but by using his properties positioned all around the station, he was able to make it difficult for the bus station to remain there, and forced its closure that way. One problem now: The owner still doesn't want to sell to Preftakes, and harbors a grudge, seemingly. Well let's be honest, when Preftakes put up a property fence just to make it difficult for buses to make wide turns, that wasn't very nice. So I'm not sure Preftakes is going to get to include this parcel in his block in the end, anyway. I just hope the building gets restored somehow, and not leveled.

How could I not bring this one up? haha.. The Braniff Lofts proposal, from 2006 and 2007, would have been a really vital piece toward preventing a controversy (and a tragedy) that would soon follow. A group of investors local of investors ("Corporate Redevelopment LLC"), many with significant Downtown OKC experience and have been mentioned often on this blog, were negotiating with Kerr McGee to acquire these abandoned buildings surrounding their headquarters for redevelopment purposes. The plan was to, at the very least, use the Braniff building AND the KerMac building and convert the two into lofts--the developers at the time were convinced they had a winner, and many onlookers are still convinced the proposal could have been a winner. The deal fell apart because KMG was acquired by Anadarko Energy who refused to honor the deal between the investors and KMG. SandRidge acquired the block and demolished the buildings to make way for a corporate plaza. These buildings, except for the Braniff Building which was lucky enough to already be on the historic register, are goners and lofts or mixed-use of any kind on this block will never have an opportunity to happen. I would chalk this one up to corruption at many junctions.

It appeared to be one of the turning points of downtown development when the Downtown Ford announced it was closing and was demolished. The land owners, Fred Hall and Bob Howard announced potentially ambitious plans to redevelop the large site into a huge mixed-use development. The Jones-Hall family has been involved in other deals, and was involved in the OCU deal that fell through, and Howard has been engaged in redevelopment of of Mid-town lately, so there is no doubt that the development wherewithal and resources were in place. The site could have possibly been the largest mixed-use downtown development to date. "It's no surprise, and it fits our long-term plans to develop that site into commercial retail and housing," remarked Hall, at the time. It was lauded as a success of MAPS spin-off. Why did the deal fell through? Because it got gobbled up by a MAPS subcommittee that insisted the convention center needed to go on THE most promising piece of real estate in all of OKC.

I'll make this my last one, and I think it's a big one. No matter how you slice it, The Triangle masterplan died. At a time when the possibilities for bubble-style downtown development appeared endless, the plan seemed fail-safe. A group of investors including Bert Belanger, Ron Bradshaw, among others, would team up to do a ton of development in a small area. However each one encountered difficulties selling units of their first project and then 2008 hit, and it became apparent that downtown development could not go forward purely driven by speculation on condo units. The group broke up, although they are still individually engaged in development in the "triangle" area, although hardly according to the original plan. And some new investors have popped up and added projects such as LEVEL and Aloft.

So, here you see a multitude of reasons. In every one of these cases, it is a shame that the development died, although this is not always the case--sometimes developments are bad and projects dying would be good. However, there HAS to be a way to meet over these kinds of things and compromise. Bad developments need input for improvement before they actually apply for the permit. Good developments need input to ensure their success. This goes both ways, the process shouldn't JUST be about putting pressure on bad projects. Furthermore, a lot of these reasons are preventable. Switching to a more sustainable economic model for real estate would have prevented a lot of the post-2008 development lethargy we were seeing until recently--the economy never stops, sometimes it contracts, and even that presents an opportunity (for more modest real estate deals). For instance, people still need housing when they can't afford a mortgage, which is why for-rent housing has thrived in the post-2008 economic climate. Capitalizing on that could have prevented a lot of these projects from collapsing. Also, a LOT of stuff is in limbo when we have these big-ticket items in limbo. Do you think somebody wants to build a mixed-use or housing investment when they aren't yet 100% certain where the streetcar route will go? Do you think somebody wants to invest in a huge hotel project without knowing where the new convention center and likewise, streetcar lines, will go? Of course not!

One thing that has been an absolute failure thus far is MAPS accounting for the spin-off development. It was one of the most persuasive reasons why we passed MAPS3. We wanted to buy into a vision for building a city, not just for building a single park or an isolated convention center. These things aren't being coordinated AT ALL. There is no single planning document that has more than one big-ticket public investment component in it. There are however millions of planning documents, district masterplans, streetcar route ideas, convention center proposals, and so on and so forth. Nobody is proposing that this stuff come together. Furthermore, a lot of the interests behind certain projects need to step down and realize that their project isn't the center of the universe. The end goal is spin-off development, not having a city built around a convention center. When you eat your most promising site for mixed-use development to put the convention center on it, you miss the mark. You can have your cake and eat it too. The convention center subcommittee needs to address the goals of downtown as a whole just as every other subcommittee needs to be concerned about it. Ignoring the big picture is setting us up for failure at a time that immense resources have opened up such an enormous opportunity.

Every MAPS3 subcommittee needs to be tasked with the exact goal, and it needs to be an overarching goal of what we as a city hope to create with this opportunity. Each subcommittee needs to be opening its meetings discussing this goal, whether it be attracting investment, or improving quality of life. There needs to be a singular vision shared by all. Right now what we have is a convention center subcommittee that has run amock with the process, stepping on other projects to make sure that at the very least the convention center gets done, and running completely contrary to the goal of MAPS.

These guys need to sit down and analyze universal MAPS goals. They need to ponder what they as a convention center subcommittee can do to improve quality of life and attract mixed-use development to downtown. I'll tell you one thing: You can do a LOT more to accomplish this than by eating the best real estate in the entire city for your convention center, which is going to happen anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Cityshot LXVI

RIP

SandRidge...

Wow, what a great company. I only hope that my child grows up to have as much integrity and vision as these guys do.

Puke.

Plaza done right..or is it?

Pretty spiffy urban plaza in front of the Old Post Office in downtown St Louis. Took this picture when I came through, on my way back from Chicago. The tower rising behind it on the left side is condos, and they are adding a restaurant to this plaza right now, apparently.

And let me just say, about those scrubby little trees adorning the edges, what a beautiful urban ecosystem! This plaza also maintains other resemblances to the SR Commons..it improves sight lines for the condo tower, it also requires that you STEP UP onto it because of the vertical separation between the plaza and the street level at the edge. Very anti-pedestrian, anti-urban.

I think you'll notice that there are a total of 2 people (plus myself, so I guess three) in existence on the entire plaza. This picture was taken at 4 pm on a Friday afternoon, when I'm sure even BOk Plaza in downtown OKC is more "bustling" than this.

I will say that you could make a stronger case for the need for a plaza in St Louis than in OKC, too--corporate towers in St Louis do not typically come surrounded by a moat and drawbridge like that they do in OKC (or in other words, a corporate plaza). Aside from the new elongated 3-block long "Citygarden" (green park) in downtown St Louis, there is very little open space.

And this, my friends, is the best-planned plaza I've seen in a LONG time.

Today hope got Dunn-in 3-1

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.

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.

The other side

Since this is just one guy's blog, I have never felt compelled or required in any way to present a balanced viewpoint--that's obviously not what this is even remotely intended to be, and normally I would say balanced viewpoints are worthless. In this instance it may be helpful to see what some people think is the more compelling viewpoint here.

Ask Brent Goodens, SandRidge's PR "guru" of sorts, and this is what he would tell you:

-SandRidge will pack up and leave downtown if we don't get our way. This comes from the highest levels of SR, not just Frank Hill.
-The buildings have to go because they are a part of a larger masterplan, and you can't remove one critical piece of the puzzle and get the same effect. (-Rob Rogers)
-This is about spending money, and we are prepared to make a $100 mil investment downtown. Why are people standing in the way of downtown investment, they must hate downtown to do that. The preservationists are being "obstructionist" and are holding up the economy by doing so.
-What ever happened to property rights in this country?? We are being dictated to us by people with no personal interest in this site what to do with it, and that's not right.
-These buildings are obsolete, have been abandoned for 50 years now (-Frank Hill), don't meet city code, and would not withstand an 8.0 Earthquake.
-The SandRidge Commons project IS a mixed-use redevelopment that will add vitality. It will add a new park, a new company restaurant, and a new company gym facility.

And to be fair, I don't believe there are only 4 people that are for this. I believe that there are a few people out there, Mayor Mick for example--I believe that those close to Tom Ward are going to be for this project, and that accounts for those that Brent Goodens has "gotten to."

Then there are people in the community like Dennis Wells. Wells is an architect doing some cool things downtown, and has been a leading urbanist voice for the SoSA (South of Saint Anthony) area. It is interesting here how Wells has gone up AGAINST preservationists in the so-called "Cottage District" who were arguing to keep the neighborhood dominated by small, wooden shacks about 100 years old. Nothing wrong with these homes, and they can be cool if restored, but they don't offer the same urban potential that a vacant lot being looked at by Dennis Wells does, and that's a fact. I am not sure if Wells is predisposed to oppose preservationists or if he was influenced by his fight for SoSA, but he is indeed a modern deal urban renewalist downtown and he does have some great ideas. More of his great ideas are articulated here on Steve's blog, where he has been a frequent contributor. His response to Suzette Hatfield's long update is as follows:

Suzette,
POK should carefully analyze Ralph McCalmont’s comments. They sound more like political reality, rather than the glove-slap you perceived.

If the BOA upholds the DDR’s decision, and if POK continues to fight, POK will end up more than just “marginalized in the community.” The headline will read: “Impudent Preservationists Stymie OKC’s Economy”

If the BOA overturns the DDR’s decision, we’ll be treated to the same headline.

(PS: I’m just a regular citizen of OKC. I’m not related to SandRidge in any way. I happen to think that their proposed development will improve that area of downtown.)

I think Dennis Wells reminds us often that there are shades of gray, and there is no sense in coming out for or against certain "values" 100% of the time. I obviously don't oppose historic demolition 100% of the time, I don't support density 100% of the time, I don't support historic restoration over new development 100% of the time, and so on. Each case is unique. SandRidge Commons is uniquely bad in my opinion.

A Letter from Suzette Hatfield

The following was posted as a comment on Steve blog. I think it needs to be spread around and illuminated. Without any further ado:


So, what’s happening with Preservation Oklahoma?

We were inclined to stay out of the conversation this weekend, to lie low and let the wind blow around us. However, there have been so many questions and speculations about what has happened lately that I decided to post to clear the air.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am posting as me, not as the official spokesperson for Preservation Oklahoma. When I say “we” in this post, I believe I am reflecting accurately things that our appeal group has seen together and consensus that we have reached.

On Tuesday of this week, Ralph McCalmont called POK to extend an invitation from SandRidge Energy to tour the buildings slated for demolition. He said that this would also be a good time to have a conversation about collaboration and compromise. We were a bit surprised to have the offer coming from McCalmont, because he has been known as a preservationist and was POK’s first president.

Katie Friddle accepted the invitation and asked for inclusion of Barrett Williamson, myself and Marva Ellard. No problem.

McCalmont later phoned Katie and said that he had invited others to join the tour, including two former POK presidents and another POK board member.

We reported for the tour at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, where we were greeted cordially by the SandRidge contingent, consisting of Marsha Wooden (VP, Administration), Rick Brown (Facilities Director), Allen Brown (architect, FSB), Aaron Young (architect, Rogers Marvel), Stan Lingo (structural engineer, construction manager) and Steve Ford (structural engineer).

We were supplied with flashlights and toured 107 Robert S. Kerr (India Temple), 125 RSK (YMCA) 135 RSK (Connector) and 300 N. Robinson (Oklahoma Savings and Loan or KerMac). We also toured the Braniff Building which is not on the demo list.

We were surprised to find the India Temple in quite good condition. It does not meet current code but that is to be expected of a building of that age and lack of maintenance. The building (and this is common to all of them except the Braniff) has been completely stripped. A great deal of original brick remains on the facade under the plaster panels. That brick is a beautiful warm brown color and is in good shape. Original window openings exist on the south, west and north sides of the building. There are no structural cracks around the windows. We are confident that this building is a strong candidate for mixed use. It was under contract for development at the time SandRidge acquired the buildings from Anadarko.

The YMCA could possibly be restored for mixed use but it would be a dilly of a project because prior owner removed about 15 feet from the front of the building. Ouch. There is really not much to work with here.

The Connector was built as such in 1959. As someone else who toured said, “This is a preposterous piece of crap.” Nothing at all to recommend it as a project.

The OK Savings and Loan is a great building. Certainly, it needs updating to meet current code but it would be a prime candidate for mixed use development. Except for window modifications made in the 1960′s, the original facade remains in good condition. In our opinion, it is in about the same condition as the Braniff Building.

There are only two real differences between the OK Savings and Loan and the Braniff:
(1) There is a bit of original crown molding, marble and signage left in the Braniff, whereas the OK Savings has been stripped.
(2) The Braniff is on the National Register.

During the tour, when we asked Mr. Ford about the buildings’ condition, he would only speak to the fact that they do not meet the current seismic code and would be seriously damaged during a significant seismic event.

After the tour, we were escorted to the executive conference room where we were offered refreshments.

Marsha Wooden began by indicating that SandRidge was surprised at POK’s opposition to the project because they thought they had covered all the bases, having contacted the SHPO and having had some sort of analysis done by Dian Everett.

Tom Ward came in at this point and said that SandRidge’s motto is “grow or die”. He said that accomplishment of their entire “master plan” was key to this strategy and that, if they do not get their entire plan approved, they would have to consider whether or not downtown Oklahoma City is the appropriate place to grow the company.

So, for those of you who wondered whether or not Frank Hill had the authority to say those words at the Board of Adjustment–yes, he did.

Aaron Young showed us a presentation about the planning process for the SandRidge Commons and showed some representations of the Braniff Building with a new glass wall with projections that would replace the back parti-wall.

We had the opportunity to ask some questions about the project. The dense landscaping plan had bothered me as a safety hazard so I asked if the company had a plan to secure the site from those seeking temporary housing. Marsha Wooden said that they have a competent security detail and will have a lot of cameras to keep the area secure. Their officers have already worked with OCPD to run off meth smokers.

POK sees several ways the company can grow on the existing site, without removing the India Temple and the OK Savings. Barrett asked if they would consider any compromise to their master plan.

We were told, unequivocally, “No.” Marsha Wooden repeated, in the nicest and most attractive way, that the company would consider moving out of downtown if their master plan is not approved.

We were surprised at this point when Ralph McCalmont addressed us and asked us to just, “Swallow the bitter pill” and cease our opposition to the project at that moment. He told us that Preservation Oklahoma would find itself “marginalized in the community” and that funding sources would dry up if we were to go forward with our opposition. He said that we would be seen as extremists and obstructionists and that it would be very difficult to be included in more important efforts, such as saving the First National Building, if we continued.

Marsha Wooden said that she hoped that we would not go forward as opponents, as that would “stress City resources more than they already have been.”

That pretty much concluded the event. We were grateful for the opportunity to tour.

Later in the day, Katie received a follow-up call from Mr. McCalmont repeating some of his comments, including his dire forecast for the future of POK if we continued in our position.

We found out that board members were receiving calls from Mr. McCalmont and others and that folks who had been friends and contributors to POK were receiving calls asking them to pressure us to stop.

For awhile we were worried that there may actually be a groundswell of support in the business and civic community for SandRidge. For a millisecond, we doubted ourselves.

Then, after a little due diligence, we found out that it’s just the same old folks behind the screen, tripping the little levers that release the smoke and mirrors. It turns out that this is what happened…

SandRidge hired a PR guy named Brent Gooden to wipe up the mess left by their inept handing of this project.

Gooden has been behind almost every statement or document that has been pro-SandRidge. The op-eds in the paper? The letters to the editor? Yes, Brent Gooden wrote those and had them signed by others. I’m not saying that Ford Price, Frank McPherson and others aren’t supporting the project. They obviously are. But, it appears they didn’t spend their own time and personal energy putting their viewpoints forward.

Frank Hill worked the phones and sent e-mails to some civic leaders giving them SandRidge’s perspective about the project. He urged them to get on the phone and pressure friends of POK to call off the dogs–us.

I’m sure you’ll recall the last Board of Adjustment hearing when Frank addressed the board and stated that, “City Staff approved EVERYTHING in our application.” Since POK’s position is to support the staff recommendation, which was to deny four demolitions, we were puzzled. We continue to be amazed that this is the information being conveyed to these prominent people in order to enlist them in the SandRidge “army.”

There has also been talk of “7500 jobs lost to downtown” if the project doesn’t go through. Who are these people? SandRidge’s “Linkedin” profile shows 2205 employees. Some of these are field personnel, not downtown office dwellers. Yes, SR just purchased Arena Resources. D&B lists Arena as having 71 employees.

One long-time civic leader, who has made innumerable contributions over the years, bought into the spiel and has been making lots of calls.

Others received the goods from Frank and Brent but did not drink the Kool-Aid.

So, the giant groundswell of opposition turns out to be 4 people, two of whom are paid by SandRidge.

Have there been threats? If you consider social and community marginalization to be threats, then surely there have been. I guess that’s the modern equivalent of shunning. They want us to take our buggy and go home.

Are we worried about losing our funding? We would hate to lose money but we are on our mission and message. Preservation Oklahoma’s duty is to advocate for the brick-and-mortar history of Oklahoma. We hope there are folks who see us hard at work and want to write a check to help us go forward.

And, unfortunately, we do have a business relationship that will terminate if we go to district court. I’m not going to name names here, but we have had a very successful partnership statewide that has been beneficial to both parties. We received a message that, if we go to court, we will be deemed to be “controversial and divisive” and the partnership will be over. That’s too bad because the small towns and cities where we do the projects don’t give two cents about the SandRidge Commons project in OKC.

Do I really believe that SandRidge will move out of downtown if they don’t get their way? They would have to hire two dozen Brent Goodens to clean up the public relations nightmare in the wake of such a move. Can you imagine how many people would accuse them of packing up their Barbies to go home and play alone?

I can’t imagine that it would be a good financial decision for them, either. They bought the complex of buildings on Robert S. Kerr for about $22/sq. ft. They have plenty of room to grow there. If they kept the India Temple and OK Savings, if they put their new recreation building north of the India Temple on Broadway and if they built a new tower at 120 RSK to mirror the existing one, they would be able to more than double the size of the company. Where else could they find prime office space for $22/sf?

What will happen Monday? We don’t know. We do not believe that due process at the Board of Adjustment has been corrupted at this time.

The two remaining buildings have been lumped together for one vote. We believe this is improper since the Downtown Design Ordinance gives the DDRC (and now, in its stead, the BoA) the authority to demolish A building larger than 20,000 sq ft per permit.

There will be four members of the Board present and voting. Jeff Austin is permanently recused because of his contract with SandRidge.

The only way that the 107 RSK and 300 N. Robinson buildings will be saved is if there is a 3-1 or 4-0 vote to reverse the decision of the DDRC.

The municipal counselor produced recommendations yesterday that we consider to be way off base. The document basically says that if the Board finds that the building(s) is/are economically feasible for SandRidge’s purposes, the Board can reverse the decision of the DDRC. It says if the Board finds that the building(s) is/are not economically feasible for SandRidge’s purpose, the Board can affirm the decision of the DDRC.

Yes, it really says that. Of course NONE of that is in the ordinance in ANY way. I wonder if the attorney has recovered from the thumbscrews yet.

SandRidge submitted a seismic/condition assessment of the remaining buildings only yesterday. In glancing through, we thought the report was pretty favorable.

Will POK appeal if things don’t go our way on Monday? We have scheduled a special meeting later in the week if we need to make that decision.

Careful with words

I think everyone needs to be a lot more careful than they have been in choosing words to describe buildings. We've seen a lot of examples lately where words have been used to degrade old buildings as worthless, particularly by people who are just very uninformed.

Take the Daily Oklahoman's editorial board for example. I'd like to say it's the intent that matters, although I'm not sure what the intent is, and I still think the article does damage because people do read the paper. A column touting the recent big developments downtown had this to say about the SandRidge Commons debacle, in a sentence immediately following Devon: "Another energy company, SandRidge, has its own big plans for downtown — provided it can assuage preservationists who wish to see some decrepit old buildings left alone." First of all, I will mention that calling it "big plans for downtown" following news of Devon Tower gives off the false impression that this is a development that will have a similarly sized impact, when in fact one adds about 50 floors, when another subtracts 50 floors from downtown. The myopia of this editorial is especially evident when you consider that in the same text they praise the historic rehab work that has been done in Bricktown, and they say this of Steve Mason: "An area that was once a stretch of abandoned and dilapidated buildings is now thriving."

So without insulting the intelligence of the average Oklahoman reader, are people really supposed to believe this? So the Oke's position on old buildings is that if they've been restored, that's awesome..but if not, they're decrepit and need to go. I think it's at this point that a reader of average intelligence should question the double standard that seems to put old buildings at a disadvantage, which is a shame considering the intrinsic value that they old, similar to a well-aged wine. As for the word decrepit, one could argue that is true that the buildings could be in better condition--BUT I would contend that decrepit is one of the strongest words you could possibly use to describe a state of disrepair, and what is the point in having a newspaper that is using colorful, vivid descriptions of the state of disrepair which some great buildings happen to be in. It's as if the Oklahoman is actively working against these buildings by invoking these descriptions, using the word "decrepit," which is comparing it to this..the top Google image result for the word "decrepit."


Perfectly describes the KerMac, Braniff, and India Temple, right?

I also see here in the Medical Business District Masterplan Final Report on page 18 it refers to "the success that is being had by housing developers in the downtown office core (mostly converting obsolete office towers) and in the adjacent Deep Deuce and Triangle sub-districts." Since when was the Park Harvey Tower obsolete? Granted, it is much better as apartments, and has been nearly 100% occupied as apartments--it was also nearly 100% occupied as an office building, almost completely by attorneys (due to its location across from the Courthouse). So obsolete? Seems like a strong word to use when you can be easily proven wrong..and I'm not aware of many more office towers that were converted to residential at the time of this study (since there has been the upper floors of City Place).

Also, in an article about the struggle a few years ago to save the historic Gold Dome at 23rd and Classen, this was printed in the Oklahoman: "'They (the building owners) have a building that is functionally obsolete,' said Dennis Box, an attorney representing Walgreen Drug Stores." I've said it before, but if the Gold Dome is "functionally obsolete" (implying that it was beyond bringing back) then maybe "functionally obsolete" is the new cool.

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.

Rogers Marvel architects

I have been searching for an email address for Rob Rogers that I can send him my suggestions for how to improve the SandRidge Commons proposal. Can't find ANYTHING on the web, not even on the Rogers Marvel Architects website. If anyone knows the email address, please let me know. You can leave a comment on here or email me as many readers do at moore.energizer@yahoo.com.

Thanks, and save the India Temple!

Do 66 voices matter?

I was wondering. Even though the poll is closed after a month of voting, and I'm probably going to keep that particular poll topic up until SandRidge is settled, what does it even mean? So to get to the heart of that, here's three questions:

1. Do 66 votes on a blog mean anything? What if the blog is read by numerous developers, urbanists, and fairly educated people? What if the blog is one of the few downtown/urban specialty web sources that exist for OKC? If the 66 votes on here do or don't matter, what about the 146 votes at KeepDowntownUrban.com? By the way, the 146 votes overwhelmingly oppose SandRidge by a margin of more than 4-1.

2. Out of the 30% in my poll who supported the SandRidge Commons plan, how much of that support is conditional and not as strong as it could be if SandRidge would heed the concerns of the pro-urban community? I don't think anyone is unconditionally opposed to the project, I know I'm not, so that's to say I'm not 100% against it--but how much of that support for SandRidge is 100%?

3. Does support and public opinion even matter? Does SandRidge have a right to do whatever they want with land that they own, and does the community have any input or right to recourse if that plan is likely to endanger the common goal of bringing vibrancy back to downtown? Where is the line drawn on that sort of thing? At what income level does someone's opinion matter, then?

Fixing SandRidge Commons

What if we could make some simple changes to the SandRidge Commons proposal? By making minor strategic changes, accepting Preservation Oklahoma's request to preserve historic buildings on the site, and by moving the cubist structure proposed at 120 Robert S. Kerr, you accomplish a handful of things:

1. Getting 120 RSK out of the way extends SandRidge Commons against the Park Avenue streetwall, creating more room in front of RSK.
2. SandRidge Commons becomes a viable green space because it extends it up against a straight southern edge, creating a well-defined space and a regularly-shaped space..which will lend themselves to enhanced functionality.
3. By selling the buildings the Preservation Oklahoma wants to protect, you've reinforced the streetwall along Robinson and once the buildings are restored as mixed-use redevelopment projects, you inject a ton of life deep into the heart of downtown.
4. By moving 120 RSK to Broadway, adjacent to a preserved India Temple building, you also create a NEW streetwall that reinforces Broadway.
5. Increased and improved sightlines about--from the main tower you can see straight to a clear edge on the south of the project boundary, the sightlines are improved from Broadway coming in from A-Alley, and the cubist recreational building (an awesome piece of architecture) gets enhanced visibility as well.
6. As a result of enhanced visibility for the recreational building, the restaurant on the ground level that opens up to the SandRidge park may be viable and not require a subsidy that it would if placed on Robert S. Kerr, a corridor with ZERO traffic and visibility, unlike Broadway.

An unpopular, controversial $100 million project becomes a well-loved $50 million project, an asset and a jewel for downtown. Sometimes less is more. SandRidge can sell the buildings off to prospective developers and recoup a small profit as well as save the large demolition expense. By rearranging the site plan to something that makes more sense, it is possible that the restaurant will be remarkably more successful than it would have been with less visibility.

Cubist recreational building proposed by SandRidge for 120 Robert S. Kerr.

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??

A thousand questions

So many questions, so little time. In lieu of a full post (currently working on an exhaustive retail post), I think for this week I'll just post some questions that are burning in my mind. If anyone would venture some answers, feel free.

I am afraid that if it's questionable, in "this current economy" (I disagree with that..) and in the current malaise that is private development in downtown OKC, you have to assume the worst..that each of these possible projects are negligible. I want to be wrong. Or here's a much more optimistic possibility: Maybe everyone is waiting to see what's going to happen with MAPS 3 before they put any more investment into downtown? Too much up in the air right now. There is an amazing amount of change going on, but it's virtually all public sector and instead of invigorating the private sector, the private sector seems to have taken a breather.

So here goes, no particular order:

1 Is OKC still doing anything to attract more retail? Did the ULI panel give the city some ideas? Is the city willing to subsidize a "Core to Shore boulevard" retail development?

2 Has anyone besides myself realized the demolition spree that this city is on? Multiple buildings on 10th Street, the SandRidge proposal, Bricktown Steffen Creamery bldg, and more. Now it looks like the next may be a row of shops at Classen and NW 30th. Oh and the site Bradshaw cleared at Broadway/12th. The more I think, the more examples I come up with.

3 How has first-floor leasing been going? Legacy and Park Harvey were huge successes in that regard. What about the Maywood Lofts? Chuck Ainsworth's Candy Factory project? I'm sure there's some I'm forgetting. I know there is no first-floor retail yet in the Candy Factory "Lofts" or in Maywood Lofts' spaces..

4 I'm curious what Steve Mason's been up to. He's always up to something cool.

5 The Maywood Brownstones have changed hands. So does that free Ron Bradshaw up to do some more projects? Hopefully something more economically feasible. And what does this mean for Maywood Park? Will the brownstones be finished out as originally planned? (dozens more were originally planned)

6 When I was last in Bricktown I saw a ton of site work going on around the Steel Yards project. Is that going forward, or is something else entirely going on?

7 Did the ULI knock some sense into the city, or is Mayor Mick still intent on building the convention center adjacent to the Core to Shore park? It might make or break MAPS 3. Not really, but still--why be intent on making the worst out of the top-dollar ticket item?

8 What is the deal with Chesapeake? I realize we will never find out, but it's worth speculating. So much construction equipment between Classen and the tracks, on top of several blocks that I'm guessing they cleared. They've also been clearing a half dozen apartment buildings off of Grand Blvd between Western and 63rd. There was an apartment building on 63rd in front of Nichols Hills Plaza they also just razed. No announcement from Chesapeake as usual. What is going on? We already know Whole Foods is going in where they tore down the funeral home earlier this year.

9 Ron Bradshaw (I think it was him) bulldozed that site at like.. NW 12th and Broadway. What will come of that? Another site that was bulldozed just to sit for decades? We all thought we'd see development of that site by now, no surprise--no development. Maybe something is still planned, or is he no longer developing?

10 What is going on at Saint Anthony's Hospital? I'm hearing a lot about two possible new mid-rise buildings at the hospital, including a new emergency ward--and in addition to that, I'm hearing about a group of doctors interested in building a new doctor's office building (significant midrise as opposed to lowrise from what I hear).

11 What's the deal with some of these downtown developments that you hear nothing about? Like The Carnegie. The First National Building renovations? The CityPlace Lofts (in the upper floors)? Will Lower Bricktown ever be finished (is Randy Hogan going to be 'let off' or will OCURA ever take the land back)?

12 Our friend Nicholas Preftakes... 'nuff said.

13 Are some property owners actually trying to make sure that the downtown streetcar does not go in front of their property? Words can not describe how misdirected I think such a move would be. Streetcar = good. Usually the argument against it is "I'm too cheap to pay for it," and not.. "It better stay off of my lawn!"

14 Would a downtown grocer even be successful? Crescent Market closed. The deli is still open, thankfully. People really do a lot of talking about what downtown needs and yada yada--when someone comes in are they supporting them? It's a valid question I've heard raised by many. I've asked people what businesses they think are in need of support, nobody wants to specifically name a business that's doing badly, but maybe we really do need a downtown endangered list..if it would help.


Not to be all negative, unexpected answers that have come up..

1 Is Bricktown EVER going to have some decent retail? Apparently, yes--in June. The people behind the Red Dirt Emporium are opening a "public market" type space in June that will feature a collection of local vendors with different kinds of booths. It will also hopefully act as an incubator for new retail in Bricktown, where people who make shirts or food or whatever--can start out with a booth here and then get their own store as they expand. The market will be located on the canal level of the Jackson Building in upper Bricktown--the interior will be very avant garde, very Bricktown. Can't wait to see it.

2 Will SandRidge be opposed? Yes, big-time. An awesome group has formed with the mission to "Keep Downtown Urban." Preservation Oklahoma has filed a public appeal against SandRidge Energy's plans to raze north downtown leaving only SandRidge Tower standing. Today during lunch they held a "Building Hug" ceremony downtown, gathering about 40 participants, as well as spectators and news reporters. They gave out free "Keep Downtown Urban" t-shirts as well.

3 Can development happen during this economy? Yes. Look at Paseo, look at the Plaza District--not only is there significant redevelopment going on, but these are also by far some of the highest-risk (as far as lender's are concerned) development areas of the city. Low risk development: Bricktown, or Memorial Road. High risk: Plaza District (because there aren't active precedent indicators that a project will be successful). Look at the transformation the Plaza has undergone during a bad economy, and look at the local retail tenants that have miraculously popped up. Plaza has a truly awesome retail scene in my opinion. Maybe the low expectations lent themselves to a surprisingly successful district? Maybe the ridiculously high expectations are what's problematic in Bricktown.

Think about it, OKC.

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?