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.
Showing posts with label preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preservation. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A City of Neighborhoods
I wanted to do an in-depth look at the overall inner city, which for all intents and purposes, means the north side, so here it is. The inner north side is where OKC is at its best--where OKC has the potential to step it up a notch and evolve into a city of neighborhoods; a city for people; a city with an emphasis on sustainable, healthy lifestyles. If we strengthen the inner north side we can make the most sizable dent in all of OKC's sprawl symptons--traffic, pollution, obesity, brain drain, and the pandemic of low-density places not worth caring about long-term. Ask yourself how anything being built in Moore, just to name a suburb, creates any kind of lasting legacy that is worth maintaining 100 years from now. For the answer, look no further than Crossroads Mall. Then look at the inner north side, which has a legacy that consists of beautiful landmark churches, beautiful grandiose neighborhoods, tree-lined boulevards (sometimes), great old theatre buildings, lively nightlife strips, a plethora of arts and cultural assets, and much more. We have to refocus the bulk of our civic attention on this part of town, where our urban treasures are located. It's time to restore those urban treasures and capitalize on the potential laying in the inner north side.
To assess where these neighborhoods are and how to improve this part of town, I've done a number of assessments. Essentially there are three things that we need to focus on: Corridors, neighborhoods, and landmarks. In terms of corridors, the goal is to identify which corridors strategically connect different neighborhoods. An obvious example is 23rd Street, which borders a lot of the prominent neighborhoods--despite that the Paseo is the only neighborhood bordering it that has prominent placemarking signs. The goal with neighborhoods is to identify which neighborhoods need help, which to promote, which to designate as preservation areas, which to encourage infill and new construction, and so on. The goal with landmarks should be to identify what corridors and neighborhoods are densest in terms of architectural heritage, to identify where the potential exists to tie-in with architectural landmarks, and also to identify important pieces of our architectural heritage that are in need of rehabilitation. An example of this is the Skirvin Hotel, which the city realized was important and got proactive in pursuing its rehabilitation, and look at it today. An example of a landmark that I identified that could use some help is the abandoned May Theatre at 16th and May--an old historic theater similar to the Tower or Plaza that lays abandoned. Despite being surrounded by markedly improved neighborhoods, the May Avenue corridor has remained nothing too special. That should change, and identifying landmarks such as the May Theatre is a good way for the city to actively pursue that.
IMPORTANCE OF PLACEMARKING
The importance of placemarking is that if people do not know what neighborhood they are in, they won't care what neighborhood they're in. They won't even be curious about it. Oklahoma City's neighborhoods are extremely lacking in demarcation, which impairs the inner north side's sense of identity. In city's that are neighborhood-strong, you see a lot more focus put on the identity of the neighborhoods. In OKC, it's not uncommon to see a brick entrance to a neighborhood or to see street banners within the neighborhood, but other cities go a lot further--and these placemarking elements are notably absent from the main corridors--Classen, Western, 23rd, Penn, May, 36th, etc. In Tulsa you will see a colorful neighborhood logo stuck right underneath the street signs along any major corridor. These create a strong awareness of the neighborhoods you're passing by. In St. Louis, the main corridors through the city are literally a celebration of the neighborhoods you're cutting through. It's not at all uncommon to see large stone archways, wrought-iron gates, and other awesome neighborhood entrance markers. 
Not to bring up an extremely controversial issue, but I can't think of a more appropriate comparison--conservative lawmakers are pushing for legislation requiring pregnant women to at least name their child before they get an abortion, the thinking being that naming the little human being growing inside of you will endear it toward you. I know that was a horrible thing to bring up, but I think it demonstrates the power a name can have. For a while, OCU also had their PR campaign promoting their small student body as a place where "you're a name, not a number." When you name something, or make others aware of something's name, it has more value and meaning. I'd imagine that Heritage Hills is a lot more interesting to someone now that it's history and identity has been brought to the forefront of its physical appearance, and it's not just a cluster of homes most people can't afford, but it becomes a part of the city's history and the city's identity and something that everyone can feel like they have a vested interest in, therefor everyone will want the best for Heritage Hills.
On a side note (as a joke), perhaps we can motivate some of these neighborhoods to get their act together and start meeting city code by placing signs at all the entrances that say "You're now leaving OKC, and now entering the 3rd World Country known as Classen-Ten-Penndjibouti."
Here I have outlined most of the main corridors through the north side and just given them a good or bad status in terms of streetscape quality. Here, the streetscape qualities refer to the quality of the actual street infrastructure and are made irrespectively of the urban fabric quality. So for example, you see that just about the entire duration of Walker is actually a negative presence--despite that it mostly goes through great neighborhoods, especially Heritage Hills. I've always thought that something should be done to improve Walker and capitalize on it, especially because of what a historical backbone of OKC that street is, from north to south. I believe that the lanes in Walker are wide enough that you should be able to install a small landscaped median, bike lanes, or landscaping in the sidewalks--without requiring more land acquisition--this would create a real treasure of an outdoors environment going through Heritage Hills, and would create a huge asset to encourage further investment in J. Park, The Paseo, and Central Park (the latter of which could really use it).
One thing I did was also identify the more important corridors with broader lines, whereas the side roads have thinner lines. Notice that Western is hardly meeting anything near its potential. Notice the far south terminus of Classen Blvd which I marked green to indicate that between Sheridan and Reno Classen goes through an interesting plaza that hardly anyone with a permanent address ever sees, but could provide an interesting example of how to fix the rest of Classen. Point is that Classen is a scar on downtown that it can ill afford, because of its importance in framing the western side of downtown and providing that entry point from the NW. Most of 23rd is negative except for the Uptown area, and I guess maybe the area by Shepherd Mall, but I might have been too generous there since I know from first-hand experience how lacking it is from a pedestrian standpoint. May and most of Penn are also negative impression corridors, although there is a nice median in Penn once you go south of 16th towards what I actually believe to be Burger Heaven.
On the bright side, NW 10th makes a great impression, and will be a real asset once the Tenth Street Peace Park gets underway, if ever. I would say it's already affected some positive change on the north side of the Metro Park neighborhood, which actually has a great existing housing stock (albeit at least 90% of properties still severely rundown). The city had a HUGE win with the Plaza District steetscape. I normally hate bolding and capitalizing sentences, but let me just say this: I wouldn't have had the foresight to want to save 16th and anything south of 16th..clearly this area is a priority for the city and the city has had incredible success here. Had it not been for the community rising up and making a place for themselves in terms of revitalization, I would have been writing this post and limiting it to areas east of Classen. I think the city also has a winner, in the long-term, with the Asian District streetscape, although it's not going to turn the area around as suddenly as the Plaza District streetscape worked. And lastly, I'll point to the Shartel/18th bend streetscape through Mesta Park as a prime example of what can be done through a very constricting space. You don't need to do a lot of land acquisition in order to make way for sparkling new streetscape project. The result is what I think is possibly the most gentrified stretch of road in ALL of Inner OKC (Shartel/18th in Mesta Park).
Then I'd like to move your attention to actual corridor health assessments, made irrespectively of the streetscape quality, but rather the quality of the building stock along these corridors. This is similar to the last graphic I made, I just spent a little more time on it--there are three different levels of importance (example: 23rd east of Classen is the highest importance) and the darkest green = good, brown is mediocre, red is reserved for corridors that are actually really bad.
23rd for the most part, in terms of corridor health, is alright.. it would be about a 3/4 rating if I were doing it that way, for the most part. 23rd could be really nice though, and it is a long ways from that. Classen is really pretty decent, too, once you get north of 16th. Classen/Western on the western edge of downtown are just really, really bad--but what's interesting is that Western between 10th and where it merges with Classen at 13th, a full 3 blocks, is actually emerging as a sort of colony of SoSA (across the Classen Blvd ocean). I think there's 3 art galleries here, and a few more contemporary residences hidden from site on the west side of the street. What's sad is how Classen resembles just one of those classic automobile gifts from the early days of urban renewal. It makes no sense to have it and Western side-by-side, so close together, especially when they mostly go through blight and brownfield (term for industrial/urban wasteland). Urban renewal was not all bad in terms of Classen, considering the decent building stock that exists north of NW 30th, lots of great examples of interesting Mid-Century architecture. Setbacks aren't too bad, and the Classen corridor is largely a positive presence in spite of the bad neighborhoods behind it (Helm Farm).
There are a few examples where a great streetscape and great corridor health do not go hand-in-hand. The exceptions to the rules are all instances where either the streetscape is too new to be making a difference (10th Street) or where a strip has just been historically thriving, even in spite of urban renewal remedies to the inner city--such as Western Avenue. And as for this map, sorry to say, but you do kinda have to squint to be able to differentiate between the olive green and the brown. The brown (example: 16th from Penn-May) is to denote mediocre but not necessarily awful, and the olive green is to denote something that is starting to ripen and meet it's potential (portions of 16th on each side of the Plaza). Also notice that Western Ave is the darkest green on the entire map, the only other stretches that are that exact forest green shade are the Plaza District and the Shartel-18th bend through Mesta Park. If you want to see a street that resembles a perfect set of stairs from good to bad, check out Penn from NW 23rd to NW 10th--which, interestingly enough, goes contrary to the streetscape ratings I gave Penn in the previous map.
This is the exact same map as above, just turned 90 degrees to the right. I did this on accident, but on a whim decided to keep it because I think it actually helps people understand circulation patterns through the inner north side a little better. OKC is a very augmented city, with all of its little parts very detached from each other--I like how this different orientation shows the inner north side beside downtown and not really attached to it. Here you see what a vital corridor NW 23rd Street is, serving as this part of town's Main Street. The historic neighborhoods north, erm I mean west, of Penn are also not as old as those east of Classen Blvd, so I like how it shows them being "uptown" of Heritage Hills. When this city was being built around the turn of the century, the city's first developers and founders such as Anton Classen and (forget first name) Putnam did not build out in every direction. They started with one linear corridor, which typically had a streetcar route in the middle of it, and went all the way north and then moved a little to the west and started another corridor going north out of downtown. This is how "streetcar suburbs" (most American inner cities to this day) evolved.
Ah yes, the neighborhood quality assessment. The Planning Department actually did their own version of this exact concept for the entire city back in 2000, but I have no idea where the locate it--each neighborhood was rated from 1-4. At any rate, it's time for a new one especially in regards to the inner north side where conditions have overwhelmingly improved in the last 10 years. I would even not be surprised if the mean average for the whole area has gone from 2 to 3.5 (their assessments were somewhat more generous than mine in 2000 terms, if such a thing is possible given how generous I think I was as someone who is more than willing to give an urban neighborhood the benefit of the doubt). There are actually 4 different shades of green, two shades of yellow, and two shades of red..so you could say they're rated from 1-8. So in case some of the shades are hard to differentiate, I'll go ahead and announce each rating (pretend we're at a neighborhood awards assembly, which apparently actually exists).
BEST OF THE BEST
These are your name-brand neighborhoods, most of which are on the National Register of Historic Places in their entirety. The lone exceptions on that are Linwood Place and Edgemere Heights. These neighborhoods, with the exception of Mesta Park, mostly feature large homes on large lots that dwarf those in the nearby neighborhoods. Mesta Park features large homes on much smaller lots (in comparison to those across Walker), giving it a very dense feel. It has strong building/lot proportionality. In no particular order:
Heritage Hills
Mesta Park
Edgemere Park
Crown Heights
Edgemere Heights
Putnam Heights
Linwood Place
GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS
These are your other neighborhoods that typically come highly recommended to anyone looking to move closer to downtown. Some of them just recently turned the corner (like the Paseo) thanks in part to a huge wave of investment right before the financial collapse, others have been gentrified for a while (like Shepherd) and just happen to have smaller, less grandiose homes than you'd find on 19th Street in Linwood Place. And just to rationalize one of them, there is no such "Helm Historic District"--it was considered part of the highly run-down Helm Farm neighborhood by the OCPD crime reports..I just need to do some more looking into it because this area feels like a very separate neighborhood, particularly where there's been a lot of well-organized preservation and restoration along NW 38th. In no particular order:
Jefferson Park
The Paseo
Helm Historic District
Gatewood
Plaza District
Shepherd
Cleveland
Crestwood
Miller
Milam Place
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS
These are your neighborhoods that may be turning the corner still, but certainly are good neighborhoods, that are mostly tidy. Some, such as Douglas Park, are actually great neighborhoods that are just limited by the building stock being mostly smaller homes that will be difficult to fetch much more than $100,000, where I expect more homes to be valued at. And I think I might have underrated Denniston Park. Any trends you may notice with the names is totally unintentional. In no particular order:
Asian District
Uptown
Douglas Park
Woodland Park
Military Park
Venice Park
Denniston Park
Reed Park
NOT BAD NEIGBORHOODS
These hoods could do a lot of improving. I just didn't want to put them on my list of bad neighborhoods, mostly because they do have clusters of restored homes or newer homes. West Main Street actually has some huge potential, and is still an active business/industrial corridor, with well-maintained warehouses. In no particular order:
May-Penn
Memorial Heights
West Main Historic District
SOMEWHAT ROUGH HOODS
These are your neighborhoods that I'm not gonna cherry coat, they have a lot of work ahead of them. These neighborhoods are salvageable and have huge potential, they just have so much work to be done right now. And yes, I specifically put the OCU campus on a list of rough hoods, because their campus is terrible. They have some beautiful buildings, they have zero landscaping, and they clearly do not understand the concept of what a campus is. I have seen high school campuses that feel more college campus-like. They need to work on creating a campus feel or they will forever stay on my list of rough hoods. Of course, it doesn't help that the surrounding Epworth neighborhood is also very rough. Central Park is also a neighborhood that needs to be city-action targeted..apparently the city doesn't even maintain its own medians in Shartel. In no particular order:
Central Park
Epworth
OCU campus
Putnam Heights West
Sequoyah
Las Vegas
Lyons Park
TEAR-DOWN DISTRICTS
I think that these are the neighborhoods that represent the best candidates for new infill housing. They need the SoSA treatment. The main thing separating these neighborhoods from the "somewhat rough hoods" is that the building stock is going to limit its ability to improve much. It is largely somewhat disposable, and you all know what a brickhugger I tend to be. Classen-Ten-Penn is alright around most of its boundaries (Western, Penn, 16th), but the further south you go, the rougher it is--that's where the Flaming Lips reside. In the Aurora neighborhood there have already been a number of tear-downs, and I think I saw two new contemporary residences on a short drive through. If preservation everywhere else is enforced, it may actually be feasible to reposition these neighborhoods as the appropriate catchment areas for wide-scale redevelopment through tear-downs, and new infill housing. In this sense it is in the best interest of Classen-Ten-Penn to not allow any new construction in neighborhoods not named Classen-Ten-Penn, if that logic makes sense. Every neighborhood in this part of town has the potential to serve a purpose, and this is by far the best outlook for these neighborhoods. Hopefully someday they may resemble the Rice Military area of Houston. In no particular order:
Helm Farm
Classen-Ten-Penn
Youngs-Englewood
Aurora
DANGEROUS HOODS
Don't be fooled by Westlawn Gardens' pretty name. I wouldn't even recommend driving through these areas. Metro Park actually does have some potential, great building stock, maybe a small number of houses that look like they have been restored, others that have great potential, maybe one or two new infill houses. It's not as dangerous as the others but I'm sure that after dark it's still pretty bad. I imagine that the 10th Street improvements will help out over the longterm. The others are just industrial blight areas for the most part with dilapidated shacks mixed in for good measure. These areas will not even be a candidate for redevelopment because the city intends to relocate homeless services to this area. The new "WestTown" homeless shelter is currently u/c on Virginia, in Rock Island.
Metro Park
Rock Island
Westlawn Gardens
STRENGTHENING NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS
The neighborhoods forming a linear progression north from downtown form a "Central Corridor"--mostly the oldest neighborhoods in the city. These neighborhoods are connected in my mind, and there lays the potential to create stronger connections and through that, further gentrification of some neighborhoods that aren't yet where Mesta Park is. This happens through improvements to Shartel and Walker in particular, and strengthening crossings at 23rd and 36th. Perhaps even adding pedestrian crossings, like the mid-block light proposed in front of the Tower Theater on 23rd.
As you can see here, a connection between downtown and Fair Park are inhibited by the blight, homeless services, and dangerous neighborhoods in the way of such a path. In the future you may hear this area considered for redevelopment and westward downtown expansion. This would seem like a crap shoot at best, although I know the points will be raised in the future because they have been raised in the past. I have read in one of Lackmeyer's books that city leaders used to envision downtown stretching from Lincoln to Penn, hence why we have the bizarre Linwood Blvd. I think Linwood Blvd has opportunities that may even be worth revitalizing. I think Main Street has even more. I think though that the idea of redevelopment in these areas is preposterous because of everything else we're trying to redevelop. A huge amount of our city's demand will have to be spent on Core2Shore. It won't take a lot to keep the momentum going in the inner north side neighborhoods, but it will take up some of it--hopefully here you can divert some suburban demand though. I also think that Deep Deuce, MidTown, Arts District, Bricktown, Lincoln Blvd--all these existing areas of downtown are so far from being finished. Can it all be done in the next 30 years? Maybe, maybe not. But you can go ahead and write off the idea of downtown stretching as far west as Penn--not until our urban population balloons to at least Dallas-proportions. I do think thought that this due-west corridor between downtown and Fair Park represents a great opportunity to try and push any and all undesirable elements that way. That can be a helpful thing, and in that way, Rock Island and Westlawn Gardens can also serve an important purpose.
16th and most importantly 23rd Street resemble the most important corridors for circulation between neighborhoods in this part of town. 16th is obviously slower and residential in nature and should reflect that, whereas 23rd Street is a former Route 66 alignment. I'm not saying it should service the north side as an auto-centric highway, but it is the main business drag. There are weaker neighborhoods up the center stripe of the inner north side, bookended by the May Ave and Walker Ave clusters--strengthening E/W connections can bridge that divide and spread the forces of gentrification around.
Classen/Western Ave and NW 23rd Street are clearly the two main corridors that connect the inner north side to the beyond. Not only are these corridors important to the overall health of the area because they bring people in from the suburbs or downtown, but they also resemble really important areas to make an impression on people, to say that you are in the inner north side. Unfortunately, that's kind of a week name "inner north side" to use to promote strong branding, but I'll address that as a last point. What I want to stress are the importance that when ice storms hit, these routes are clear. The city should also consider branding for the entire part of town and not just the particular sub district you're presently in when you're along Classen or NW 23rd. Classen and Western, being only two blocks apart from each other, are a combined "system" in my opinion, all the way from I-44 down to I-40.I also think rebranding the entire part of town, and coming up with a name for it, will be important to furthering these goals. Here are some examples of well-branded inner cities.
Houston's gentrified inner city is known as the Inner Loop. St. Louis refers to a collection of strong neighborhoods in a line west out of downtown as the "Central Corridor." And everybody who reads this blog is probably very well aware of Midtown Tulsa.
So what do we call the inner north side of OKC? Some possibilities..
Uptown--Uptown could collectively refer to the whole inner north side because it is up from downtown. Uptown 23rd Street isn't very well branded, and could just re-identify itself as the Uptown Main Street (similar to Capitol Hill/big part of town v. Capitol Hill Main Street/Commerce Street). Or the Tower District, or something else. It would also work well, logically, with the natural progression of Downtown, then Midtown, then Uptown. In Tulsa, Downtown is the furthest "up" from Midtown, and "Uptown" is in between the two--none of which makes any sense unless you just accept it.
The Heights--the north side is somewhat hilly, and it could help combat the reputation of OKC as being flat as a pancake, which is actually not necessarily true. There is also Crown Heights, Putnam Heights, Putnam Heights West, and Edgemere Heights. The "Heights" is a recurring trend in some neighborhoods, and could provide a unique title for the area other than the usual "uptown" or "midtown."
Flaming Lips City--because Flaming Lips Alley is already taken.
If anyone has any other good suggestions, I'll include them in a poll I intend to do on the matter later. And now, without any further ado, I am finally retiring to bed after working on these maps for days and spending 5 hours tonight putting it all together.
Monday, July 26, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Letter to Governor Henry
Dear Governor Henry,
I understand that you are currently reviewing a bill that would revoke state historic tax credits for developers. This would be a humongous loss for Oklahoma, economically. The losses to our state would be realized on two fronts, economically, and in terms of the historic buildings.
1. Just looking at the current list of building projects underway or about to become underway in Oklahoma that would qualify for historic tax credits, that is $185 million in rehab projects that infuses the economy and provides 3,700 jobs and a positive balance of $4.7 million in tax revenues (despite the tax credits, which are only 20%).
2. We also lose historic buildings with more character in them than anything that can be built new. We lose some seriously important character assets that make Oklahoma City and Tulsa the unique cities they are. These buildings will be demolished and paved over with parking lots because without the tax credits, rehabilitation of the buildings will not be economically viable. We lose an important growth asset as well. There is no difference in terms of new residents between 100 new tract homes built on former farmland and 100 new units inside a formerly abandoned unit. The only difference is that it can appeal to a segment of recent college grads that Oklahoma currently does not appeal to as well as other states, and this is a valuable economic argument as well--the priceless intrinsic value of urban development and historic buildings.
As for as incentives go, it is a much, much more efficient use of resources for the state to encourage historic redevelopment through these incentives than to get rid of the incentives and for us to only have sprawl for housing. Apparently myopic conservatives are willing to pay a HUGE subsidy in the way of new roads, new schools, new police and fire coverage, new water lines, power lines, sewer lines, and so on--for sprawl, but we are NOT willing to provide an alternative for smarter growth because we can't shell out the tax credit anymore.
I just can not believe what the conservatives running the state legislature have come up with now, in the interest of "saving money." I hope they realize the irrevocable damage they will do to our cities, our way of life, our state's downtowns, and so on. There are developers currently relying on getting these tax credits for projects already underway. I hope you will not let Oklahoma back out of its guarantee of these tax credits, leading to the financial ruin of everyone currently involved in historic preservation. It will send a message for a long time that historic rehab work in Oklahoma is not worth even considering, and after the moratorium is lifted, there will not be anyone remaining willing to take the chance on historic preservation again.
We will be up a creek, truly, if the moratorium is passed. I hope you will protect Oklahoma from this threat and veto the bill. Thank you very much, and for everyone thing you do.
________________________
For those who don't know, the tax credits that enable historic preservation projects in Oklahoma are currently under siege from the state capitol. The bill instituting a 2-year moratorium on historic tax credits was passed in the state legislature by people who obviously do not understand development nor economics. Letters can be sent to Governor Henry, who is currently reviewing the bill, here:
http://www.ok.gov/governor/message.php
I understand that you are currently reviewing a bill that would revoke state historic tax credits for developers. This would be a humongous loss for Oklahoma, economically. The losses to our state would be realized on two fronts, economically, and in terms of the historic buildings.
1. Just looking at the current list of building projects underway or about to become underway in Oklahoma that would qualify for historic tax credits, that is $185 million in rehab projects that infuses the economy and provides 3,700 jobs and a positive balance of $4.7 million in tax revenues (despite the tax credits, which are only 20%).
2. We also lose historic buildings with more character in them than anything that can be built new. We lose some seriously important character assets that make Oklahoma City and Tulsa the unique cities they are. These buildings will be demolished and paved over with parking lots because without the tax credits, rehabilitation of the buildings will not be economically viable. We lose an important growth asset as well. There is no difference in terms of new residents between 100 new tract homes built on former farmland and 100 new units inside a formerly abandoned unit. The only difference is that it can appeal to a segment of recent college grads that Oklahoma currently does not appeal to as well as other states, and this is a valuable economic argument as well--the priceless intrinsic value of urban development and historic buildings.
As for as incentives go, it is a much, much more efficient use of resources for the state to encourage historic redevelopment through these incentives than to get rid of the incentives and for us to only have sprawl for housing. Apparently myopic conservatives are willing to pay a HUGE subsidy in the way of new roads, new schools, new police and fire coverage, new water lines, power lines, sewer lines, and so on--for sprawl, but we are NOT willing to provide an alternative for smarter growth because we can't shell out the tax credit anymore.
I just can not believe what the conservatives running the state legislature have come up with now, in the interest of "saving money." I hope they realize the irrevocable damage they will do to our cities, our way of life, our state's downtowns, and so on. There are developers currently relying on getting these tax credits for projects already underway. I hope you will not let Oklahoma back out of its guarantee of these tax credits, leading to the financial ruin of everyone currently involved in historic preservation. It will send a message for a long time that historic rehab work in Oklahoma is not worth even considering, and after the moratorium is lifted, there will not be anyone remaining willing to take the chance on historic preservation again.
We will be up a creek, truly, if the moratorium is passed. I hope you will protect Oklahoma from this threat and veto the bill. Thank you very much, and for everyone thing you do.
________________________
For those who don't know, the tax credits that enable historic preservation projects in Oklahoma are currently under siege from the state capitol. The bill instituting a 2-year moratorium on historic tax credits was passed in the state legislature by people who obviously do not understand development nor economics. Letters can be sent to Governor Henry, who is currently reviewing the bill, here:
http://www.ok.gov/governor/message.php
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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..
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..
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Development potential
Sometimes you hear a site proclaimed as having the most development potential in downtown. There was even a survey back in 2005 that identified the intersection that would be the most important development site in the growth of downtown. This 2005 survey, way ahead of its time, predicted that Midtown would become a resurgent hotspot area, and recognized the fantastic building stock still standing along North Broadway in A-Alley.
That site, identified as the most important piece of the puzzle for downtown redevelopment, was the intersection of NW 10th and Broadway. Imagine the potential it had; it could have been anything..a corporate headquarters, a large mixed-use development, a condo mid-rise, an NBA practice facility, and so on. What ended up going on that site, the OKC Community Foundation, while underwhelming from a development standpoint, ended up being as good as we could have hoped for. The community foundation, a respected community institution dedicated toward helping the inner city poor, is a great thing to have there..it's a shame they have to bulldoze adjacent buildings for extra parking. The EIFS entrance is tastefully done, so we can surely forgive the dreaded "fake stucco," and I think their facility fits in well with the surrounding environment, even if it isn't the pinnacle that North Broadway could have hoped for.
So since there is no condo mid-rise at NW 10th and Broadway, in the interest of jinxing another site to be underutilized, let's ponder the NEXT best development potential. And it's worth considering that things such as potential change each year as downtown continues to evolve and revitalize. I think that the progress since 2005 makes NW 10th and Broadway even more vital, especially as we anticipate that 1101 and 1100 N Broadway get restored soon.
But the progress since 2005 also makes other sites pop up on our radar. Those sites will be around the Devon Tower site, sites that connect downtown and "Core 2 Shore" taskforce lands, key sites in Bricktown and Deep Deuce, as well as the city initiative to develop a particular site in Midtown.
I like the potential of the NW 10th and Harvey-to-Hudson block to be a "perfect" development, although I don't think it's the "most vital" to the city's continued evolution. I think it is important however for Midtown, in fact, it's not hard to imagine the site's development being a prerequisite for the further development of Midtown, which is currently a collection of separate hotspots, mainly the Walker Circle area. There is also the area around the Sieber, Beatnix, Packard, Church Row, etc etc.. The one site that will connect it all, to lay the path for Midtown to evolve into the next Bricktown, will be this site that the city is taking action on. The ideal development is not anything that might be much larger than the scale of surrounding buildings, but it's important to realize that anything that doesn't completely fill the site out would be underutilization. Something very similar to Marva Ellard's former Mercy Park proposal would be ideal. Something around 4/5 stories max, but more than 2/3, and try and package as many different uses as possible. The key with residential, in order to be assured success, is to appeal to the pent-up rental demand downtown and not buy into the utter fallacy that we need more high-end for-sale units. We all fell for that one..and most of us regret it today.
The site with the most importance, by far, for the city's continued development, given the current Devon Tower development underway--is the city block owned by Nicholas Preftakes to the west of Devon. It is safe to assume Preftakes has plans because of his history as a downtown developer, being involved in many, many past downtown projects, and now given his acquisition of this entire city block at such a convenient time. The important thing to realize here, in order for this city block to realize its full potential, is that every building must remain standing. This block already comes with an exciting stock of buildings that have a ton of potential, not to mention many unique architectural features, ranging from Art Deco to Brownstone. It's a very urban, diverse, and colorful block, not to mention a sadly underutilized block. The potential uses for these buildings, once redeveloped, should take an arts-based focus. The site is surrounded by the Myriad Gardens, Devon World Headquarters, Stage Center, the Civic Center Music Hall, the OKC Museum of Art, City Hall, and Trattoria il Centro. The uses here should reflect truly being in the center of it all. Here, an art gallery could thrive, as well as upscale restaurants, law offices, perhaps a bodega, a winebar, etc etc..
The potential for new development, even large-scale new development, is going to exist across the street between the Arts District and the planned boulevard. (I would be dismayed to see large-scale infill, any time soon, proposed on the south side of the boulevard.)
Many people have their own eye on sites in Deep Deuce and Bricktown. Because of the inorganic way in which Bricktown developed, you see vastly important sites just sitting there in the middle of Bricktown. Many of these include the festival site/parking lot across from the Brewery at Sheridan and Oklahoma, the surface parking next to Tapwerks at Sheridan and Mickey Mantle, and especially the canal-front sites along Mickey Mantle. And I could go on and on about the canal. Nevermind development sites along the east periphery of Bricktown, such as Candlewood Suites and The SteelYards, there is so much work left to be done at Bricktown's core. I know that people behind the scenes are still working diligently to attract the development Bricktown will need to be successful, and there are several deals in the works. Let's hope some of them are successful! What Bricktown needs, at this point, are rental units. It needs "rooftops" in order to pave the way for more retail, and also to take some of the seasonality out of its business cycle (which has been difficult for some "pro retailers" to grasp).
That site, identified as the most important piece of the puzzle for downtown redevelopment, was the intersection of NW 10th and Broadway. Imagine the potential it had; it could have been anything..a corporate headquarters, a large mixed-use development, a condo mid-rise, an NBA practice facility, and so on. What ended up going on that site, the OKC Community Foundation, while underwhelming from a development standpoint, ended up being as good as we could have hoped for. The community foundation, a respected community institution dedicated toward helping the inner city poor, is a great thing to have there..it's a shame they have to bulldoze adjacent buildings for extra parking. The EIFS entrance is tastefully done, so we can surely forgive the dreaded "fake stucco," and I think their facility fits in well with the surrounding environment, even if it isn't the pinnacle that North Broadway could have hoped for.
So since there is no condo mid-rise at NW 10th and Broadway, in the interest of jinxing another site to be underutilized, let's ponder the NEXT best development potential. And it's worth considering that things such as potential change each year as downtown continues to evolve and revitalize. I think that the progress since 2005 makes NW 10th and Broadway even more vital, especially as we anticipate that 1101 and 1100 N Broadway get restored soon.
But the progress since 2005 also makes other sites pop up on our radar. Those sites will be around the Devon Tower site, sites that connect downtown and "Core 2 Shore" taskforce lands, key sites in Bricktown and Deep Deuce, as well as the city initiative to develop a particular site in Midtown.
I like the potential of the NW 10th and Harvey-to-Hudson block to be a "perfect" development, although I don't think it's the "most vital" to the city's continued evolution. I think it is important however for Midtown, in fact, it's not hard to imagine the site's development being a prerequisite for the further development of Midtown, which is currently a collection of separate hotspots, mainly the Walker Circle area. There is also the area around the Sieber, Beatnix, Packard, Church Row, etc etc.. The one site that will connect it all, to lay the path for Midtown to evolve into the next Bricktown, will be this site that the city is taking action on. The ideal development is not anything that might be much larger than the scale of surrounding buildings, but it's important to realize that anything that doesn't completely fill the site out would be underutilization. Something very similar to Marva Ellard's former Mercy Park proposal would be ideal. Something around 4/5 stories max, but more than 2/3, and try and package as many different uses as possible. The key with residential, in order to be assured success, is to appeal to the pent-up rental demand downtown and not buy into the utter fallacy that we need more high-end for-sale units. We all fell for that one..and most of us regret it today.
The site with the most importance, by far, for the city's continued development, given the current Devon Tower development underway--is the city block owned by Nicholas Preftakes to the west of Devon. It is safe to assume Preftakes has plans because of his history as a downtown developer, being involved in many, many past downtown projects, and now given his acquisition of this entire city block at such a convenient time. The important thing to realize here, in order for this city block to realize its full potential, is that every building must remain standing. This block already comes with an exciting stock of buildings that have a ton of potential, not to mention many unique architectural features, ranging from Art Deco to Brownstone. It's a very urban, diverse, and colorful block, not to mention a sadly underutilized block. The potential uses for these buildings, once redeveloped, should take an arts-based focus. The site is surrounded by the Myriad Gardens, Devon World Headquarters, Stage Center, the Civic Center Music Hall, the OKC Museum of Art, City Hall, and Trattoria il Centro. The uses here should reflect truly being in the center of it all. Here, an art gallery could thrive, as well as upscale restaurants, law offices, perhaps a bodega, a winebar, etc etc..
The potential for new development, even large-scale new development, is going to exist across the street between the Arts District and the planned boulevard. (I would be dismayed to see large-scale infill, any time soon, proposed on the south side of the boulevard.)
Many people have their own eye on sites in Deep Deuce and Bricktown. Because of the inorganic way in which Bricktown developed, you see vastly important sites just sitting there in the middle of Bricktown. Many of these include the festival site/parking lot across from the Brewery at Sheridan and Oklahoma, the surface parking next to Tapwerks at Sheridan and Mickey Mantle, and especially the canal-front sites along Mickey Mantle. And I could go on and on about the canal. Nevermind development sites along the east periphery of Bricktown, such as Candlewood Suites and The SteelYards, there is so much work left to be done at Bricktown's core. I know that people behind the scenes are still working diligently to attract the development Bricktown will need to be successful, and there are several deals in the works. Let's hope some of them are successful! What Bricktown needs, at this point, are rental units. It needs "rooftops" in order to pave the way for more retail, and also to take some of the seasonality out of its business cycle (which has been difficult for some "pro retailers" to grasp).
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Save the KerMac!
As we all know, the KerMac Building, the original headquarters of longtime Oklahoma energy giant Kerr McGee, is slated to be demolished. After they get approval from the Downtown Design Review committee and get the permit from the city, there will be no stopping this particular component of an otherwise excellent and laudable sweeping campus redevelopment scheme being proposed by SandRidge Energy.
So before that happens, let me just pose the question: Was Kerr McGee important to Oklahoma? I would love to hear the explanation from anyone who can say KMG was NOT incredibly important to Oklahoma. The fact is that throughout much of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and especially the 80s, and on until 2005 when KMG was no more--that this was a very important corporation. Look at the people who have come from this corporation, the extremely powerful U.S. Senator Robert S. Kerr; and the godfather of Downtown OKC during Urban Renewal, Dean McGee (they now give out the Dean A. McGee Award to the biggest downtown players in his honor). These two people had an incredibly lasting affect on Oklahoma City, worthy of commemorating alone. These men's dreams to form an energy giant came together in the building SandRidge now wants to tear down.
The impact of Kerr McGee, as a corporation, is also widespread and huge. For a long time, KMG was OKC's largest energy company--up until the recent breakneck ascent of Devon and Chesapeake. It employed thousands and thousands of hard-working Oklahomans and powered the OKC economy. That's the good history. There's also bad history we must not forget, such as the affair with an activist employee at their nuclear facility in Crescent, OK--Karen Silkwood.
SandRidge is new to Oklahoma. I don't want to second-guess their commitment to the community, as it turns out SandRidge's founder, Mitchell Malone, is an OSU alum who recently donated $29 million to OSU. So there's no doubting their commitment to Oklahoma, and that's great. But SandRidge, formerly known as Riata Energy, is not from OKC--it relocated here from Amarillo. They are likely familiar with the Kerr McGee story as anyone in the energy industry probably is, but preserving that history is undoubtedly not a priority for them like it should be for people who are from OKC.
Furthermore, who's to say SandRidge isn't out-right trying to root out the KMG legacy around their headquarters and replace it with SandRidge footprints? I can even see a reasonable debate for and against that, because it's certainly understandable that SandRidge DID thankfully purchase and occupy the tower when KMG left us high and dry. However on the other side, the argument that KMG history is NOT Luke Corbett history has to win at the end of the day. KMG history is OKC history, and it's about the history of the thousands of people that worked for it, people from hard working oil drillers, to people like Karen Silkwood. It's the history of Oklahoma, in a microcosm. SandRidge needs to be respectful of that, and there is no reason for them to mow down the original headquarters of Kerr McGee and replace it with nothing more than a windswept plaza to inflict SandRidge's corporate image on Robinson Avenue.
The old KerMac building also needs to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places, and this is something that SandRidge can do. If SandRidge doesn't want to do it, then a historical group in OKC can start the nomination process themselves. If the National Park Service finds that the original headquarters of Kerr McGee is significant to the legacy of this former energy giant that shaped much of Oklahoma history, then it will be placed on the Register of Historic Places. This will be a boon for the property, with a plaque out front detailing the building's importance, as well as avenues for special preservation grants that can be used to rehabilitate the building. Many of the grants would not prevent it from being rehabilitated and put back on the market as offices or apartments. There's no reason that a building with its historical importance being rooted in business function can't be commemorated by being functional once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
