SandRidge delayed

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

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

Here's the letter:


Dear Ms. Montgomery,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Nick Roberts

Cityshot XL

I'm not Steve Hunt..

Someone made the comment as a personal attack on another blog that I don't even live in OKC and I'm negative 80% of the time. I can certainly see where someone who's just stumbled across this might make the mistake of seeing it all as negative criticism..

The reality though is that I am not Steve Hunt, in fact, I'm even a big Mayor Mick fan. I think Mayor Mick is great, and I keep a barf bag handy for every time I come across someone's half-brained reference to "Mayor Micky." And guess what, I'm not even a Not This MAPS guy. Some of you who think I'm 80% negative might be shocked if you went through some posts from back during the campaign and when I was blogging at full steam to convince the small number of MAPS skeptics that read this blog to vote yes.

The reality though is that we need more oversight than we're getting. If I'm perceived to be on the negative 80% of the time, then that's a badge of honor I'll wear proudly. If I can challenge things like the SandRidge urban warfare, convention center politics, and Core to Shore fantasies, then that's something I'll stick with.

I have no ax to grind, and really, I'm nothing but positive on the direction that OKC is heading. However if I can help make a strong argument for reason, I will continue to do so. If we all just stand around and not question anything, what is the point in being citizens? What is the point in even following the progress? What is the point in even having a brain?

And I actually DO write a lot of positive things..you'd be surprised.

Cityshot XXXIX

(Gasp) It's the other pesky streetwall.. maybe we should tear down some ugly inconsequential building like the Robinson Renaissance building in order to de-crowd Park Avenue.

Thursday means History, Streetwall, and Corporate Campus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________

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


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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________


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

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

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

As well as as these Cityshots:

Cityshot XVII
Cityshot XXXVI

Can't buy press this good

About time we finally get some good press from sports commentators. Gotta love just about every single second of this. Not only do they say great things about our team, suggesting that the Thunder will run the league after LeBron and Kobe get a few years older, but they balance it out with great things to say about OKC. They bring up that the Hornets wished they could have stayed in this market. They bring up that OKC can be just as good a place to live for an NBA player as all but the 4-5 elite cities in the NBA. They also bring up that we're one of the new booming cities.

My thoughts is that this is exactly the kind of footage you take advantage of if you're the OKC Chamber. Take just the parts where it shows people on ESPN talking about how great OKC is, and you've got a slam dunk video to show people considering a corporate relocation or something.

Told ya so!

For those who don't know, the Urban Land Institute Advisory Service Panel that was in town this week gave their report in the City Hall chambers this morning. Their task: to offer consultation regarding Core to Shore and MAPS 3, on behalf of the 21st century urban planning establishment.

And the planning establishment could certainly have a hey day in analyzing the things wrong with Core to Shore. The panel included numerous urban planning Masters', high-profile planning consultants, professors, and chaired by Bill Hudnut--who served Indianapolis as mayor for 16 years, bringing Indy to the forefront of urban planning, and also recently as mayor of Chevy Chase, MD (DC-area).

The recommendations with Core to Shore?

1. Move the convention center. They came to the same conclusions that all of us have, and even came up with one additional reason that local urban enthusiasts had overlooked: the shadow that a huge convention center would cast over the park. I'm not sure how strong of a point that would be, considering that appropriate private development would also cast something of a shadow during the morning, but the impact would be more with a convention center because it's one solid towering structure that isn't broken up at all.

2. Start the convention center first. The ULI panel recommended moving the convention center up from last to first as an economic priority and also to spur major development, especially what would probably be a boom in new hotels, including a convention hotel.

3. Convention hotel should be 700 rooms, $220 million likely, and up to 30% subsidized by OKC ($50 million). They didn't clarify on the subsidy, whether it should be a loan, a grant, or an investment share (which would entitle OKC to room revenues).

4. The envisioned boulevard is too wide, and the ULI panel has now become at least the millionth person to echo major concerns that the boulevard needs to be narrowed. The city should just accept this by now and take it as an opportunity to realize some cost savings on Core to Shore, considering that ODOT will pay for a "base thoroughfare" and any extra streetscape improvements will have to come from the city.

________________________

That's not to say that any one consultant is impervious to critiques, and surely they'll all say at least one thing that someone else can find disagreement with. But it does seem that there is a consensus developing between all of the OKC urban enthusiasts, Jeff Speck, many others, and now the ULI.

I think the ULI wants us to start thinking more about the convention center hotel, or at least, that's what I gather from this. They're not saying that the convention center is more important than streetcar or the park, but I think they're trying to send us a message to look beyond our rigid timeline. Mayor Mick and his planning croonies have cemented their positions and their plans based on the rigidity of what they see as a timeline when they HAVE to get the park finished, all based around the I-40 Crosstown Expressway relocation.

Well here's news for you, Mayor Mick: The Crosstown relocation has been a project more than ten years in the making, so no matter what, it is likely going to beat any MAPS 3 project to completion. The Core to Shore area will be an utter construction zone mess, much like downtown is fixing to become. Currently you can't even get across the Oklahoma River on hardly any N/S thoroughfare that crosses the I-40 relocation route, and it's not like the area serves a vital function that we need to minimize the construction impact at all costs. That's what Mayor Mick's timeline strives to do, is minimize construction impact. Downtown DOES however serve a vital function and it is hardly being spared construction impact. Just something to consider.

I think that the ULI also just wants us to start considering the technical ramifications of the convention hotel, in order for it to work. In a lot of cities, such as Indy, Dallas, San Antonio, and elsewhere--the convention hotel has been THE most-talked about downtown project in these cities. Obviously a convention hotel on the level of these cities in downtown OKC will hardly be "THE" downtown project, with such an abundance currently of headline projects going on right now. But this is just the perspective of the ULI panel, and in all honesty, a lot of these cities have made mistakes on the convention hotel..they see OKC joining the pack in this regard and they want OKC to avoid the same mistakes. Indy got several bids and ended up choosing the least aesthetically impressive out of 3, a mistake I hope OKC doesn't make (although just get ready for anything if OCURA has any say).

So all in all, just some things to consider. I certainly don't think that the convention center needs to be reprioritized and moved up to the top of the list, but I agree it needs to be considered more. It is the largest project of MAPS 3, and it likely will have the broadest impact, and I agree with the ULI that the project with the most economic impact should be done first. MAPS 3's timeline should be about maximizing its potential economic impact. I happen to believe that the streetcar system, with the potential to catalyze much more impressive downtown development along its route, will by far have the most economic impact.

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.

OCURA: What a stellar track record

Gotta love gub'ment interference in downtown development, Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority (OCURA) especially, the folks who brought you Lower Bricktown, Bass Pro, The Hill at Bricktown, Overholser Green, and countless other downtown success stories. Pat yourself on the back, OCURA, because if not for you and your contributions toward expediting quality private development, OKC would still be a vibrant downtown. Wait, I meant a dead downtown.

So in this post we'll examine OCURA's stellar track record in advancing "quality" urban development in OKC.

I think we can all appreciate the corrupt bidding process in which we ended up with Bass Pro, over other potentially more urban projects that had been pitched. The good news is that Bass Pro is virtually the extent of retail in Bricktown, and the rest of downtown. It also added something Bricktown was in desperate need of: surface parking. So all in all, a win-win. Plus the adjacent Lower Bricktown development was absolutely fool-proof. Even though The Centennial is the only remotely urban component of Lower Bricktown, even it is loosing retail tenants. (LiT went out of business.) LB's other clothing retailer, Firefly Clothing, also closed recently. So one bright spot for Lower Bricktown, the fact that it did at least have leasing, is now just one of many sore spots for the much-maligned project. Add to the fact that LB has never been finished, and likely won't ever be finished until the Crosstown comes tumbling down and replaced by an at-grade boulevard behind Lower Bricktown. As it happens, developers Stonegate Hogan were given a TIMELINE on the project, and the TIMELINE has since lapsed. Will OCURA ever close on the remaining canal-front land and take it back, and try and get some other developers to bid on it? Nah, never. This is not about good development, the City of OKC, protecting a public investment like the canal, or ANYTHING like that. This is about the good ol' boy system and pushing the interests of the developer, Stonegate Hogan.

One of the few bright spots, if you're one of them out-of-touch urban advocates, is the Deep Deuce Apartments--but even Deep Deuce has one glaring downfall: it was NEVER completed, and won't EVER be completed as planned. So it's another example of where a developer proposes one thing, gets the bid, then does the ole switcharoo or doesn't even come close to finishing the development that they said they would do. Never mind the fact that the reason they were given the bid was to do the development they proposed, and nothing else. Integrity is not an important factor here, because OCURA doesn't actually care about "urban renewal."

Funny thing about the Overholser Green project is that I actually defended OCURA here. I supported the Overholser Green project because it was a good project, and at the time, I didn't realize how it was financially unfeasible. The high-end nature of the project, especially the condominium aspect. In contract to Marva Ellard's competing proposal, a mixed-use project with rental residential and financing in place. Well it's obvious that OCURA couldn't have picked that project, because it actually had a relatively good chance of success. That would just completely throw OCURA's track record all out of whack. Now where we are is (3/4 years or so after the bid was awarded) Chuck Wiggin has stalled on the project. In fact he scaled it way down so that it was a much less significant project, and he still couldn't get it off. So basically after he was awarded the contract, he pulled the old switcharoo as so many of them do, and instead of pulling the contract AS OCURA SHOULD HAVE DONE, OCURA approved it again because they already awarded the contract. At that point and thereafter Wiggin could have done whatever the hell he wants, or doesn't want; he could have put a 7/11 on that land for all OCURA cared. The story more or less has been marked by what he doesn't want to do, and that is develop the land which has absolutely sat there and won't be developed any time soon. Thanks to everyone's favorite gub'ment agency.

No downtown project exemplifies "FAILURE" like The Hill does, and that's bragging rights nobody can even come close to. This is the kind of project that OCURA really hangs its hat on, the bread and butter of what OCURA is all about as a corrupt government agency. I guess first you gotta begin with the corrupt bidding process, against two other more financially feasible projects, including a great mixed-use proposal from Anthony McDermid. Within the last 12 hours before the bid was awarded, Bill Canfield and Marva Ellard (developers of The Hill) notify OCURA that they're dropping their request for a TIF district as a part of the development. OCURA was legally required to notify McDermid and others of the change in the competing proposal, but failed to do so because it was late at night. McDermid later said that had he been notified, he also would have dropped his request for the TIF--but never got such a notice. Now that The Hill is what we're stuck with, as it's already under construction, it's become even more of a quagmire. The suburban design of the over-priced units have scared away any potential buyers, so the project has sold only 2 or 3 units, total. Without selling ANY units, Canfield couldn't pay contractors, so they stopped construction and probably hold liens on the project. The project can't even be closed on and reclaimed by OCURA at this point, because the few dozen townhomes that were built (out of 160 or so proposed) use up ALL of the street frontage that this project has. The only way thing that could be put on that site now is a big box retailer that needs highway visibility more than frontage (like BASS PRO, hint hint), or a commuter parking lot. That's it.

We got LUCKY with this project. Here's another one where a developer (Mike Henderson) gets awarded a bid, based on a great proposal with snazzy architectural elevations..then he pulls the old switcharoo and we get Plainville. This project in no way resembles the high-design development that was anticipated during the bidding process. But the bright side is this: the project actually is URBAN, it's not necessarily UGLY, and it works. It also has 300 or so upscale rental units, and that's GREAT for downtown. OCURA accidentally stumbled upon a success here..but they should have held Henderson to his original design proposal, especially considering he got TIF funding for this. That's a public investment that OCURA should have been looking out for.

I could go on. The funny thing, as you read through the annals of downtown history and come across a chapter on Sycamore Square, is how we have literally repeated the Sycamore Square fiasco over and over and over and over in the last 5 years. Yes, it's true that downtown development has been booming, very successfully, in the last 5 years. There is a HUGE exception to that however, and that is any time OCURA is involved. OCURA stands for Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, but I would seriously question, based on their track record, what the hell their problem is. I think here is a great example of where a government agency with a long acronym no longer comes even close to representing what its acronym stands for. So next time someone asks, "What does OCURA stand for?" The answer of course must be, "OCURA stands for O-C-U-R-A," not anything relating to urban or downtown or the community or anything like that.

Sadly, I think I could raise some very critical questions of Downtown Design Review these days, as well.

Wow, it's a big world..

Guess what city this is. Hint: Quickly becoming Europe's "urban boom" city. And by the way, this isn't even this city's "downtown" -- but even though none of its tallest scrapers are in this pic, it probably is the densest "skyline" developing in this World City.

Wouldn't it be cool to just backpack around Europe for a few months?

It's baaaaaack...

Urban renewal. It's back, and it's in full force. Examine the "main" blunders that OKC made during urban renewal:

-Reconfiguration of the city grid. By removing several streets, making way for superblocks (city blocks that are made up of combined blocks, such as the Cox Center site), and filling them up with single structures we accomplished one thing: We cut off flow from the north side of downtown to the south side of downtown, and as a result, the south side withered away. We cut out large swaths of city and replaced it with dull superblock structures like a convention center, an arena, etc.. and what's even worse, we put them all together. If they were spread around, the edge of the Myriad Gardens would have vitality, the convention center wouldn't be so bad, the Ford Center would be surrounded by retail and restaurants, etc.

-Demolition of existing urban fabric. Here's a shocking concept to most people: A dense city is something that happens naturally, believe it or not. So at the end of the day, after all of these crappy incentives and urban renewal projects, what have we really accomplished? You get more of a downtown that's suited for events and special occasions than for any kind of lifestyle at all, and that's detrimental. Now the incentives are needed because it was unnatural forces that killed most downtowns in the first place (i.e., government subsidizing freeways, roads, cars, white school districts, etc). But when you remove that urban fabric, not only do you remove something that was built specifically for a city to grow into it, but you've severely diminished your ability to bounce back economically.

-Wiping out the architectural and cultural jewels of our city. What's probably the #1 thing that downtown used to be full of that no longer exists in any comparable form or fashion? MOVIES. Vaudeville. Film houses. The only performing arts that exists in downtown anymore are that at the Civic Center Music Hall, which has become a major league performing arts center. The Stage Center hosts a theatrical production once in a blue moon, too, but that's it. There were literally dozens of cultural jewels we have lost. We also lost a lot of our downtown's architectural significance. The result, once you lose all of those things that add intrinsic value to the built environment, is an environment that is not worth caring about to most people.

-Loss of defined space. Believe it or not, well-defined space is another absolutely essential aspect of city development. When people think of the great cities they don't think of one building, but usually it's a street lined with special buildings that build off each other. When people think of these great cities they think of entire environments, not isolated buildings. Defined space, such as a street lined with uniform buildings, also creates natural safety. There is clear definition of the space intended for pedestrians, and you see pedestrians and news stands and more there; there is clear definition of the space intended for cars, and you see cars and bicycles there. When you lose definition you get a downtown environment that behaves more like a stretch of the Northwest Expressway, where there is space for cars, and then the buildings randomly placed, and that's it. You also lose the natural ability to navigate a downtown without a map, which would be possible with a downtown grid that makes SENSE. Today's downtown resembles a space rover trekking through Mars, past unnatural developments like the Century Center and the parking garages along E.K. Gaylord, one-way streets, blocked off streets, streets that dead-end such as Broadway and Harvey and every other street, and so on. It's a nightmare to get around Downtown OKC if you aren't from there!! It just doesn't make sense, there is no defined space, it has not been allowed to develop naturally, and we still don't get that.

-Loss of traditional community uses. Believe it or not the traditional community use of a downtown is not 95% office. Downtowns of olden days were dominated by retail, the thing that is most absent from downtown today! They also had abundant residential units, civic amenities, recreational space, and then there was also a lot of offices. It used to be the beating heart of the city. When we took out the retail districts of downtown, and expected it to relocate to new space that was yet-to-be-built (the planned "Downtown Galleria") we were expecting something unnatural and heavily subsidized to work just as well as the naturally-developing retail district had for decades. That didn't cut it. The result from that blunder was that downtown lost all personal relevance and for a small handful of people that have lived in OKC for a long time, they're still skeptical of going downtown after 5.

So I have gone over some reasons why, specifically, urban renewal was bad. However it obviously doesn't take a rocket scientist or complex explanations for the average pedestrian to tell that urban renewal is bad, all you have to do is experience Downtown OKC today for yourself and you can tell it was not good.

Well looks like we're at it again! And because we have not learned from our own history, we are absolutely doomed to keep repeating the mistakes over and over. Let's go over the main blunders I outlined above, again..



-Reconfiguration of the city grid? Yup, we're definitely at it again. Just look at Core to Shore, particularly the enormous cluster of superblocks beginning at the Cox Center and Myriad Gardens and going all the way down to the new Crosstown. That is a TON of wasted frontage that could be taken up instead by cafes, townhomes, retail storefronts, and other delightful things a downtown SHOULD have. And if the vitality of a city is in the movement of life from one block to another, what is this? There are no blocks here. The Myriad Gardens is an underutilized park surrounded by no significant development that takes advantage of the park front real estate. Likewise, the new Core to Shore park is doomed to the exact same fate, minimized to the point of serving as nothing more than a pretty front yard for the convention center. Instead, why don't we immerse the convention center in the city and surround it on all sides by neighborhoods? It would seem to me that would ensure the success of the park more than anything else!

-Demolition of existing urban fabric? Yeah, we've got tons of that, too! As I wrote the other month in "The problem with an otherwise excellent SandRidge proposal," and in "Building demolition rampant," and countless other posts from before the recent SandRidge proposal, there is a very disturbing trend of tearing down buildings that has come up over the last 5 years. It started with the Brewers who weaseled a demolition proposal through downtown design review mechanisms without anyone ever getting notice of it. Then one day people on their way to work noticed that there was no longer a building standing on East Sheridan, across from the new Hampton Inn. People scratched their heads and wondered, "Wow, how did that happen?" The bottom line is that downtown design review mechanisms have lost any of their effectiveness. The Brewers and others are getting everything from demolition proposals to inflatable dragons in, against "the rules," without ever getting approval from the design review mechanisms intended to prevent that very thing. Sometimes it's because the person filing the permit at City Hall doesn't realize that a signature is missing, other times it's sheer corruption, other times it's sheer incompetence, but most of the time it's a lethal combination of all three things. Today we are witnessing an era in downtown OKC where demolition is championed as "substantial development." How did we get this low?

-Wiping out the architectural and cultural jewels of our city? Yessir, we've got plenty of that going on as well. Just look at the grand historic KerMac building, a solid building with developers clamoring to renovate it into apartments, with unique architectural detail. It's going to be replaced with a windswept plaza, similar to what already exists all the way around the periphery of the SandRidge Tower. We're also looking at buildings disappearing from Bricktown and MidTown and Automobile Alley. We're also fixing to tear down the India Temple, a building covered by a hideous bland EIFS facade, underneath which is a beautifully detailed and intricate structure. In fact the India Temple was also once home to the State Government during the period after the State Government fled Guthrie and was waiting on the new Capitol Building to be built. That's something we're about to recklessly tear down.

-Loss of defined space? Oh yeah. This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the "New Urban Renewal" that OKC has set out on, particularly with tearing down one of the last remaining streetwalls in Oklahoma. Out with the old, in with the new, as they say. Downtowns used to be lined uniformly with complimentary buildings. Now all Tulsa has left is Boston Avenue and Main Street. Tulsa's Boston Avenue is by far Oklahoma's greatest street, lined with complimentary highly detailed high-rises as it is, bounded on one end by Oklahoma's tallest skyscraper (for now) and on the other by one of the world's tallest cathedrals, the towering Art-Deco symbol of Tulsa (The Boston Avenue Methodist Church), you could literally drop the unknowing off on Boston Avenue and convince them they are in New York City. OKC really only has three such streetwalls remaining from its once-great downtown: Park Avenue, Harvey Avenue, and Robinson Avenue. Broadway would count too, if its buildings weren't all surrounded by plazas. It is however Robinson Avenue, the least-intact corridor that still resembles some kind of streetwall, that is most endanger due to its proximity to energy giant SandRidge.

Which of these do you like better? Which of the below pictures shows a more defined, urban space? Yeah, tearing down the KerMac bldg will be GREAT for making SandRidge Tower perfectly visible all across downtown--but is that a good thing? Should we be able to look from one block and see straight through to other blocks, and should we HAVE to look at SandRidge Tower everywhere we go in downtown? Those are things worth considering. That's what this is about, is tearing down parts of downtown to make their building more visible. At what cost to the rest of us is that worth it?











-Loss of traditional community uses? Well, you be the judge of that. For what it's worth, we still haven't hardly gotten any meaningful retail going on anywhere in downtown. And all the restaurants are in MidTown or Bricktown. So I would have to say that not only have traditional community uses failed to materialize throughout this "renaissance" of downtown, but in the end we are actually getting ourselves further and further from that ever being realized downtown.

So after all, let me be the first to welcome you to the year 1975. Our mayor is Mick Cornett, our cause is Core to Shore, this message was brought to you by SandRidge Energy, and everywhere else it is the year 2010.

Cityshot XXXVIII

Hudson Avenue in the Arts District, across from the Devon Tower construction site. Downtown developer Nicholas Preftakes bought up this whole block.

First wave of MidTown Renaissance residential..finished!

Here's a story that just came up last week. For those who don't know, Bob Howard and Mickey Clagg have finished with their first round of residential properties in their MidTown Renaissance portfolio. For some background info, their MidTown Renaissance projects is a series of 30+ buildings in the Midtown area (bounded by NW 13th/NW 6th and Classen/Broadway)..the first wave of restaurants and retail was opened 2-3 years ago, with the restaurant row around the new Walker Circle. This includes Irma's, McNellie's, new bakery, Midtown Y, 1492 Latin Fusion, Midtown Deli, a new Italian restaurant being developed, and many other great places.

Now, 2-3 years later, and after the portfolio has switched hands, the first wave of residential is finished, but it's nowhere near where we all expected. While it's true that lots of preliminary renovation work has been done on some of the more prominent buildings, like the Traveler's Life Bldg, the Osler Bldg, the Heritage Bldg (redubbed 1212 Walker), Pat's Lounge (redubbed The Packard), and others. But the first three residential renovations, totaling 16 units total, are up by Francis and NW 12th (north of St. Anthony = NoSA maybe?, i.e. "SoSA").

909 NW 12th, 905 NW 12th, and 1217 N Francis, to be exact. These are the links to the information I'm getting for this post..


1217 Francis


3 story - 2 units on each story (6 units), each unit 800-850 sf, 1 bed/1 bath, and starting at $950.









909 NW 12th


2 story - 4 units on each story (8 units), each unit 800-870 sf, 1 bed/1 bath, starting at $950.









905 NW 12th


2 story - 1 unit on each story (2 units), each unit 1250 sf, 2 bed/2 bath/2 living room (or study), and going for around $1500.

Back in OKC..

Had to come back to OKC for an important occasion, as much as it breaks my heart to be missing out on the Canadian Olympics. My 88 year old great-grandfather, who I was really close with, passed away last Monday. He was a true leader on the south side of OKC, where he lived his entire life. Also a true history archive..whether it be WWII history, south side history, Masonic history, or automotive history. And a great man.

Me and my father went to have coffee afterwards..at Coffee Slingers on Broadway. I saw Steve Mason busily walking back and forth. Also saw Andrew Rice and, I think, Skirvin G.M. John Williams there..they were going over what appeared to be building documents, and not Skirvin building documents. My dad says he overheard Rice saying, "So should we keep this quiet?" but I suspect that was just imagined by his right-wing mind (as we know, Rice is as liberal as they come).

So was it something other than building documents? Quite possibly. Who knows, but they were up to something. My hopeful guess? Maybe John Williams has something interesting in mind for the future of the Skirvin, that would require historic tax rebates or something, or perhaps a different project altogether?

Also saw Steve Mason there, who caught my eye as he waved at me. Mason is an awesome guy whose a real "can-do" kind of person. He sees a vision for 9th and Broadway and went and achieved it, and he's not done yet--and he won't be slowed down by non-local indicators. Mason is also a big believe in casual Fridays at the office, I believe, but he was dressed up today.

So here's some more idle speculation, because this post is indeed in need of more, (hopeful speculation, as it's really true that I very much wish the best for 9th and Broadway): What if Steve missed out on casual Friday because he had a big deal go down today, signed a prospective tenant or met with a bank or something, for a project on the south side of 9th? That would be great. Remember, he was hoping to add another restaurant and a traditional furniture store (as opposed to the interior design shop). What if there was also a residential component? Not that I have ANY inkling of an idear.

Also as two final items, just wanted to suggest that posting will probably get even more intermittent--I was already incredibly swamped with school work, now after having to leave for a few days for the funeral, that's gotten worse. Also, I don't want to fuel any speculation with this or gossip, that's not my intent..I was just noticing that some "big players" in OKC were most definitely at it again today.

And isn't it great that we have these places in OKC where city leaders constantly converge? I don't know if Coffee Slingers has become such a place, such as Nonna's or the Art Museum's Tuesdays on the roof, but today it certainly seemed like it. Definitely a sign of a city that is developing well.

Why architecture is important

I don't want to come off as smug and overly self-appreciative, I know a lot of architects come off that way to a lot of people. The only recorded architect who was actually a "god" was Imhotep, who the Egyptians made a "god" for his design of the Egyptian pyramids..this despite what many architects undoubtedly think of themselves.

But this is the reality: architecture is of utmost importance, and it is by all means, a matter of life and death. The proof: The 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti, where the death toll is now reported to be up to 180,000, and will likely exceed 200,000--making it the deadliest "instant disaster" in modern Western history.

So how is it that a 7.0 magnitude quake in Haiti can cause over 15,000 times the casualties that a 9.6 magnitude quake outside of Anchorage can cause (1964)? The answer is architecture. The same as the how the deadliest earthquake in history, the 1556 Shaanxi, China earthquake, which killed over 860,000 people. In Shaanxi, a region with landforms nearly identical to the Upper Missouri River area (Loess Hills in Iowa/Nebraska), the inhabitants live in dugouts (and still do today) carved into the side of incredibly fertile hills. The loess hills don't have rigid bedrock inside of them providing structure, so when an earthquake hit it, the hills basically turned into jello, along with the people living in them. The same will happen if an earthquake hit it today.

In Haiti, a country that surprisingly actually does have building codes, the problem was enforcement of building codes--to the point that it made enforcement of Downtown OKC urban design guidelines look pretty solid. The result in Haiti was everybody living in shacks with absolutely no support columns. Sometimes a family would build a shack, and then build a shack on top (a sort of rudimentary "loft" if you will) because they could get rent for it, and then another shack on top of that if it would bring in rent, and so on. And Haiti is a known earthquake zone as well.

In Alaska there are building codes that are actually enforced, and the result when an earthquake hits, is very few casualties (comparatively). Charleston was hit by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake which leveled the city, and today there is subsiding earthquake threat along the South Carolina coast, believe it or not (not nearly as imminent as the Memphis area though, a disaster waiting to happen). The result is that the city of Charleston has building codes that are very, very similar to those of San Francisco--in fact that's why you see so few tall buildings in a city of 644,000 people (metro).

So yes, architecture is important. And yes, it is a matter of life and death. It is also a matter of commercial output, as we know environment is a major factor in productivity. It's also a matter of security and crime deterrence, as we know that good architecture can reduce the chance of a crime occurring..and ample lighting at night should of course be a no-brainer. I could go on and on, listing everything impacted by architecture. There are 3 things that make up architecture: Firmitas (form, or structural support), Utilitas (utility, or how a building will be useful), and Venustas (an architect's attempt to create a pleasing building). All three of these aspects are integral and in my opinion, you can't do without. Without Firmitas, you have a situation like Haiti or Shaanxi. Without Utilitas, you have buildings that are either inefficient or have a short lifespan. Without Venustas, you have an environment people won't rationally care about.

Cityshot XXXVII

Who says a single infill project can't lend tremendously towards sense of place, if surrounded by the right environs?

Stay tuned..

I don't typically do this, but due to how busy I've suddenly become in my life and my tendency to start something and forget about it, I thought I would share with you all everything I have planned for this blog for the next 2 weeks or so. This way, not only will I have a place to come back and see my plans, but you guys can hold me to completing these posts. And yes, this blog is important to me. Before it was not, but now that I have seen how many people actually do read it, and who some of those people are, and how I have the ability to actually advocate on issues, yes--this blog is important to me.

With that said, here's what I hope to get to:

1. A post that is already partly written, I just need to finish it. It's a study on how cities occasionally balkanize, for lack of a better term, and split into two separate distinct cities. North and South OKC are a great example, and obviously this is just yet another post that is mainly examining the N/S split in OKC. Some interesting conclusions, one of the better posts I have planned..

2. I really need to get around to providing a full analysis of the Sandridge Commons proposal now that it's been revealed in its entirety, but I'm not too worried about this right now.. obviously I'll have a while to push the issue, and just like I focused on MAPS 3 for a while, after the interim I plan on this blog sort of shifting to focus on that issue for a while leading up to the decision.

3. I have a post on E.K. Gaylord and the possible intermodal transit hub, which I understand ACOG is in the midst of studying. My research on EKG is complete, now I'm just waiting till I have time to contact someone from ACOG to see where they stand on the hub. That way I can also subtly let them know about my blog so they see the post as well.

4. I also plan to compare some fairly shocking aerial images of incredibly dense mid-tier cities such as Louisville ("Loovul"), Birmingham, Memphis, Nashville, etc.. to OKC. Hopefully with this I can demonstrate the need for critical mass density, which is achieved one streetwall at a time.

5. And of course, I have hundreds of OKC photos to sort through..lots of Cityshots interspersed in there.

Bob Stoops don't need no stinkin development

Bob Stoops is a big deal, everybody knows that. For those who don't know, Bob Stoops has coached in 4 national championship games of the last decade, numerous other BCS bowls, and despite an abysmal record, no other coach is as consistently at the top echelon of college football. And also for those who didn't know, Bob Stoops is selling his home in NW Norman's ultra-posh Ashton Grove addition at NW 48th and building a new estate on 20 acres he owns off of NW 36th between Franklin Rd and Indian Hill Rd in Norman. That's called development.

But what he opposes is additional development of the stretch of NW 36th between Norman and Moore. He filed a legal protest with the Norman City Council against the development of 350 acres adjacent to the home he is developing in a rapidly-growing corridor between the built-up areas of Cleveland County's two largest cities. The 350 acre development, proposed by JJ Properties, will include a huge number of tract housing, as well as an assisted-living center, townhomes, and an elementary school. The elementary school, not yet funded, would be in the Moore Public School district (which is everything in Cleveland County north of Franklin Rd).

So I think this interesting story poses a wide array of questions. The first obviously shows us the undesirable nature of sprawl, but what's most notable is that each party involved is guilty of sprawl. Bob Stoops is guilty of sprawl in the first place because he's the one who CHOSE to purchase land in a rapidly growing area, develop a $3.3 million home (that's called development), and then squawk when other development occurs nearby. Does Stoops honestly have the right to be surprised that development is going to happen on land adjacent to his new home along NW 36th? He can't be serious. That's like going being seated at a restaurant and then storming out mad because the waiter tried to get you to buy an appetizer and a drink. Then the developer is obviously guilty of sprawl, and yeah I don't blame Stoops, I wouldn't want to build a $3.3 million estate and then have it surrounded by tract housing. Then the Norman City Council is guilty of sprawl because they have done nothing but encourage the sprawl of NW Norman, even with Cindy Rosenthal as mayor. Here, sprawl has led to conflicts between all three entities, and it will be up to the City Council and Rosenthal to resolve it. That will likely be a very contentious Council meeting.

Then I think it poses other questions. Is Stoops saying that only people who can afford a $3.3 million mansion have the right to build a home near him? Obviously that isn't right. Look at it this way, I consider everyone to be on equal footing before the law. So therefor everyone should have an equal right to participate in the sprawl of places like Norman and especially Edmond. But I won't even go into the socioeconomic limitations of sprawl in Edmond because that's opening a whole different can of worms. But suppose that if we're going to have sprawl and we're going to have major development, do we discriminate between $3.3 million mansions and tract homes that sell for $120,000? I think so. The only way out of this debate were if sprawl were verboten, but it's not. That way you could make the argument that the only thing that's being protested here is a high-density development, not the starting price of tract houses. And for all I'm concerned, the development sounds interesting..I'd like to hear more about these "townhomes" being proposed.

But when Stoops knowingly builds in a high-growth area and when the Norman City Council has already opened the floodgates for sprawl, that argument goes out the window. This now becomes socioeconomic, strictly. For Stoops this is about protecting the value of a $3.3 million investment. You have to wonder, why endanger such a huge investment like that in the first place? Why even build a $3.3 million investment in an area where the expectation HAS to be that tract housing will surround you within a matter of a few years. In fact if the development is at all, in anyway, above average, then you have already exceeded what I think the expectation has to be..where the bar is set, which is pretty low.

So in short, this is one way that sprawl can be ugly. And this isn't even looking 30 years down the road, this is looking at the short-term. It's incredible that if sprawl can even be ugly in the short-term in some instances, how we're still all gung-ho and excited to fill in those pastures!

Hard to argue

Well, I guess it's going to be an uphill battle for any of us now that SandRidge has brought in the glowing CNBC national spotlight to their plans. Obviously the plans are interesting, and mostly good. I am still very, very concerned over the loss of the KerMac building. Time will tell if it is able to be saved.

Cityshot XXXVI

And a bonus..


Both of the streetwall in danger along Robinson Ave.