I'm with you JWil. I love the idea of a tall observation tower fashioned from the likes of an oil derrick. And I have no doubt that if it gets done, and most likely will not, it would not be the god awful montrosity many who post here claim it would be. It cracks me up that so many who live here wish we could be like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Austin and all the others cities that are so 'progressive'. All I can say is: MOVE THERE. Good luck finding a home that you can afford in any of those cities except for maybe Austin. Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and will always be. Our heritage is oil, horses, cowpokes and injuns. Things are 'progressing' here, but maybe not at the rate some would like. I meet people almost everyday in my furniture store who have recently moved here. The majority of them are from California, the east coast, and from up north. I always make a point to ask them how they are liking their new life in Oklahoma. The eight years I have been in business I can only recall one person who totally hated it here. He was a young man in the Air Force and had just arrived here in the middle of August during a 100+ degree spell and was from Colorado. Anyhoo, transplants tell me how great our housing market is, how almost everything is less expensive here, how easy it is to get around town, how much better our schools are, and most of all, how unbelievably friendly us dang Okies are! Go figure. Yeah, we got some real bonehead elected officials like that Kern person and others, but I've seen some real wackos from the other side of the spectrum who run these 'progressive' places, so it pretty much evens out when you play give and take. And with that my friends, I'm taking Oklahoma :tiphat:

Bring on Big Gush!

Why are we even talking about this? Thankfully, it will never get built outside of Frontier City and Kansas will always have a one-up on us with their "Worlds largest Prairie Dog."

Average American:

"Oh, you're from Oklahoma? Don't they have a huge oil thingy there?"

Average American:

"Oh, you're from Oklahoma? Don't they have a huge oil thingy there?"

And that's different from reality how?

I've literally heard this thrice before...

"Oh, you're from Oklahoma? Do you guys really live in teepees and ride on horses to get around?"

My point: No matter what we do, Oklahoma will ALWAYS be associated with oil, farming and cowboys and indians/western heritage.

Even if the giant derrick never happens Oklahoma would be thought of as above.

So lets blow the stereotype up to cliche proportions...

I guess I don't know what I want. I hate the constant cowboy and Indian stuff. I don't want to ignore it but I also don't want to make it front and center every single time. Having said that, I came up with the oil tower idea along with Patrick and Mr. Anderson. Personally, I just want a tall observation tower and I don't really care what it looks like. I think an observation platform spanning the river would be cool.

Oh, I love remembering how we were used to graze cattle, I love that part of history, don't forget being a cow super highway. Then we give it to indians, then we take it back. haha, does that make us indian givers? You're right, I do love this part of our heritage. [insert more sarcasm]

I don't know if it has anything to do with anything, but a GIANT, and I mean GIANT (it took one semi to bring one section) construction crane is currently being assembled on Main street between Walker, and Hudson.

Maybe it is a prototype to spark interest.

Work on the Devon Tower? Or fixing Myriad Gardens...

Work on the Devon Tower? Or fixing Myriad Gardens...
I don't think they will be reaching over the buildings on the south side of main to get to the Myriad Gardens.

Here is a picture of the crane as of 9pm Friday night.
http://www.roberthedrick.com/images/big_crane.jpg

Yeah I was wondering about that crane myself...


Here's something I was thinking about while reading this thread: Have our city leaders made a bad move with any of the urban renewal stuff in the past 15 years? I'm gonna say no. By and large, they've done a superb job of city planning and thinking ahead with their plans. Why do people on here suddenly think these guys are going to "get stupid."

This is NOT our city leaders. It's the idea of a junior legislator that's not even from OKC. You heard anything about this from our city leaders? No, because it's almost as silly as that "world's largest domed stadium" thing.

Maybe that crane is there to lift/replace an air conditioning unit, such as the ones on the roof of that building nearby.

Do you know that, or are you just being a sarcastic a** as usual?

I agree Bornhere. The first think that came to mind when I saw the picture was that it was to replace an air conditioner (no sarcasm). Those roof top unit weight several tons.

I agree Bornhere. The first think that came to mind when I saw the picture was that it was to replace an air conditioner (no sarcasm). Those roof top unit weight several tons.


It probably is, but it just seems that size of crane is a little excessive for an A/C unit, but I have discovered it must be something of that nature, it has now been here 2 saturdays in a row.

I agree Bornhere. The first think that came to mind when I saw the picture was that it was to replace an air conditioner (no sarcasm). Those roof top unit weight several tons.


It probably is, but it just seems that size of crane is a little excessive for an A/C unit, but I have discovered it must be something of that nature, it has now been here 2 saturdays in a row.

The building on the far right is the old Harbour Longmire building, which is nine or ten stories. I don't know if it has air conditioning units on its roof, but if it does, I think you'd need a crane about that height to replace them.

I know it's bad forum etiquette, but I didn't read every post in the last 8 pages before posting my thoughts....sorry.

Regarding the Energy Tower, I say a big, fat, emphatic NO. To an iconic structure that would bring tourism, I say a big, fat, emphatic YES.

Explanation: I have long thought that building an iconic structure would be a great way to put Oklahoma on the map, but an oil derrick? Are you kidding me? ANYTHING that looks like "a big version of something real" REEKS of bad design. Have you ever heard of the longaberger basket building? You should look it up, because that's what this reminds me of.

People will LAUGH at Oklahoma for building a ginormous version of an oil derrick that spurts water. To be quite blunt, I think it is a bad design idea, and would look stupid.

I would, however support building an iconic structure that doesn't resemble some "thing."


WTF? A monument to our future? Are you Walt Disney trying to build Epcot? What the hell do you suggest for a "monument to the future" anyway?

I get tired of Oklahomans shunning some great parts of our history (oil, western heritage) because they're embarrassed of it. WHY? I swear, Oklahomans have the biggest inferiority complex in the world when it comes to this stuff. PEOPLE THINK THIS ABOUT OKLAHOMA ANYWAY... why not embrace it?

I think Oklahoma has a great history; but why does it seem that every time we decide to do ANYTHING, we always seem to bring up this morbid fascination we have with our land-run/oil/homesteader history? It's a great history, but it doesn't have to permeate itself into every aspect of our design of things. You can embrace a past without constantly paying homage to it in every project you do.

While I can't speak for the person you quoted, I agree to a monument to the future and not to the past. By that, I mean, (and I've said this time and time again to people I know and work with; so much so it has practically become my mantra), Oklahoma needs to stop being the "(Insert cool thing of some other place here) of the prairie," or "______ of the plains." We need to stop copying other stuff (i.e. let's build an Eiffel-tower-esque thing but make it Oklahoman) and creating "copycats of the Plains." Instead, we should be focusing on breaking out and establishing Oklahoma as its OWN city that can even be ...<gasp!> modern.

Suggestions? A tower-pedestrian footbridge-combo over the Oklahoma river designed by Santiago Calatrava (google him). He is extremely well-known, and would design something ORIGINAL (not a copy for us to claim), something NOT CHEESY (unlike this oil thing), and something ICONIC (his works already attract tons of tourism and architectural acclaim).

Imagine if the Founders light east of 235 was like the batman beacon but had a cowboy silhouette. Or the canal was shaped like a lasso. Or all our streets were named after famous indians... There is a place for this stuff, it's called the Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum, and I think everything fits in fine there. Things are in museums because they are old and in the past. So lets leave them there.

Imagine if the Founders light east of 235 was like the batman beacon but had a cowboy silhouette. Or the canal was shaped like a lasso. Or all our streets were named after famous indians... There is a place for this stuff, it's called the Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum...

:congrats: :congrats: :congrats:

Passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, yesterday, I saw a tower at Kings Island amusement park that was very neat looking. It reminded me of a cross between an oil derrick and Eifel tower. Maybe something like that could work.

Passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, yesterday, I saw a tower at Kings Island amusement park that was very neat looking. It reminded me of a cross between an oil derrick and Eifel tower. Maybe something like that could work.

The key words, however, are "at an amusement park."

OKC Focus, Sorry the words "at an amusement park" did not set right with you. I was just trying to offer up some constructive information on a talk/message board.

Good poing Peter!

I think $100 million is relatively inexpensive for this type of tourist attraction.

Let's pass the collection plate.

OKC Focus, Sorry the words "at an amusement park" did not set right with you. I was just trying to offer up some constructive information on a talk/message board.

I was simply poking some lighthearted fun, since I am obviously against the idea; I was merely playing off the idea that amusement parks are often cheesy theme-type places. Don't read too much into it; there was nothing meant by it, I assure you.

I personally think that it would be great for Oklahoma. I don't think there's any way it would do us any harm. Oil may be on the way out, but there's no reason we can't commemorate our history. Oil is a very important part of Oklahoma's history.

Plus it would be a step closer to a more urban and modern Oklahoma :kicking:

Well hell, what looks good really tall and will compliment us, but is not too abstract to make us look like everyone else.... Ever been to Australia?

If oil is on its way out (which I seriously doubt), maybe we could have the world's largest wind generator. It would look like a giant pin wheel. Maybe we could paint it multi-colored. That would satisfy those who think we need to look to the future, and it plays to one of our most recognized state features - wind.
:)

Here is an example of a Santiago Calatrava work in Barcelona. It is iconic, abstract, as well as functional (it is a communications tower), and I know it attracts tourism (because I was there and there were tons of tourists there to see it).

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1294/1315896488_bce37948ea_b.jpg

Whether or not you specifically like this tower is irrelevant since obviously a tower in Oklahoma City would not be identical; I am merely providing an example of how a tower does not have to look like something to attract positive attention.

The problem I have with the oil tower is that it specifically looks like an oil tower. If any of you ever study architecture, one of the first things you learn in a design studio is that making a project look like something specific on a larger scale is a half-hearted (or half a--ed) attempt at making something significant, is considered a no-no, and almost always results in a project that is ridiculed and rejected by the architectural community. Examples include:
Grand Guitar building in Tennessee
Longaberger Basket building in Ohio
The Elephant building in New Jersey
The mortar and pestle pharmacy in Kentucky
Th book shaped library in Dubai
The peach shaped water tower in South Carolina
The coffee pot tower in Iowa

and tons and tons of other examples. In every case, the structures have attracted tourists...but is that really our number one concern? Lots of things can attract tourists and if it comes at the cost of having a giant oversized derrick that spits water out the top "just like a gushing derrick!" ::) I think we could come up with something different.

If incorporating our oil history is a necessity (which I still don't understand), instead of making it look like a derrick, we should follow good design principles and rather take inspiration from an oil derrick, and create a tower that does not look like an oil derrick, but rather evokes an oil derrick.

This is difficult to explain in the scope of a post, but it is called abstraction and is the primary tool used by architects to create good architecture instead of mimetic architecture. Many people who are not architects or architecturally-minded do not understand the process or think that it is weird but I assure you it is the best way to go about it.

Most people do not even realize that abstraction occurs. They think architects just design a building to meet needs and that's it. But that is not the case. For example, here are just 2 local instances of abstraction where an architectural piece has a specific reason for being the way that it is without literally mimicking whatever it is evoking:

--The chairs of the National Memorial are arranged in the concentration that they are to evoke the blast cavity left by the bomb.
--The Chesapeake boathouse is supposed to evoke the shape and form of a racing shell, but it does not literally look like a giant boat.

The process of creating this metaphorical connection is called creating the concept of the project, and is one of the most important steps in a project's development. Bad architecture results when you skip the concept and instead decide to make your project a facsimile of something. Just remember: the giant ball of twine is a tourist attraction, but at the end of the day, citizens still have to live next to a giant ball of twine.

I don't know if my statements have made enough sense; I wrote this in a rush. But I think people need to be aware of the abstraction process and just how much meaning goes into a lot of projects that the general public never even realizes, and the fact that a lot of these projects go on to be heralded as architectural successes, while mimetic architecture draws a lot of attention...but are viewed as aesthetic failures. The correlation is not a coincidence.

OKC Focus, I get it. I think you have explained very well what you are trying to get across. I am in total agreement with your point. Good job.

Great job, OKC Focus. In many ways, that's what I was trying to get across in my post #36 about what makes something "iconic."

The Memorial gates are much more iconic than any "x,000 foot" oil derrick could ever be. An icon comes about by meaning, not by forced ideas.

The oil derrick is NOT iconic, at least in its current incarnation per the video.

People don't need something "representative" shoved down their throats in order to derive meaning from it. In fact, often the opposite occurs.

I agree with your point completely. I hope others finally see the light. Thanks for your erudition.

Ok, so I noticed you've made your point. Now how about some suggestion that would work for Oklahoma. You talk about "meaning" in something, but you offer only pictures of an architect who has nothing "meaningful."

Ok, so I noticed you've made your point. Now how about some suggestion that would work for Oklahoma. You talk about "meaning" in something, but you offer only pictures of an architect who has nothing "meaningful."

Nothing meaningful????????????? Do you know of Calatrava and the reputation that precedes him? All his works have meaning and are meaningful. You should study about him before you make assumptions.
And as far as a suggestion; I already provided that in my first post in this thread, you just have to look. I again cited Calatrava (though it wouldn't have to be by him) and suggested that the pedestrian bridge over the river incorporate a tower that would be iconic, modern, and attractive...something that could come to represent Oklahoma City without paying unecessary homage to an archaic land-run past.

I'm still laughing at the fact that you said Calatrava's works have no meaning. FYI, the communications tower I posted a picture of was built for the Olympics when they were in Barcelona and evokes an athlete holding the Olympic torch.

Still think it has no meaning?

Meaning...

The way you spoke about our Bombing Memorial, that's the type of meaning i'm referencing. It has emotional significants.

Meaning...

The way you spoke about our Bombing Memorial, that's the type of meaning i'm referencing. It has emotional significants.

Not every site has an emotional tie to the people. It's a bit hard to create an emotional tie to a site out of nowhere, and it is equally tough to have every square foot of public land have some sort of emotional meaning.

The Memorial's emotional significance is a direct result of the magnitude and kind of event that transpired, not of the architectural result. The architectural result merely takes that emotional significance and attempts to give it it's due.

Creating a tower with the same sort of emotional tie as that would take some sort of corresponding emotional event to happen in order to spur an architectural response. That really only happens in cases such as the bombing and other catastrophic events.

In other cases, such as the examples I gave, the architect merely tries to incorporate significance of other kinds (whether it be regional, historical, or tribute) in order to add meaning.

But you bring up a good point. To perhaps add to the emotional (and overall) significance of a tower in downtown Oklahoma City, a tower could be designed which is a tribute to those lost and affected by 4/19. The Oklahoma City National Memorial is far from being the only memorial already in existence to the event, with small markers, plaques, tributes, and memorials all over Oklahoma City and the state paying homage to the tragedy. A tower could be seen as a monumental and significant tribute (perhaps with a perpetual flame?).

However the emotional significance which inhabits the Memorial and all bombing-related issues is a double-edged sword. An attempt to incorporate the bombing's significance into a proposed downtown tower could also spur an opposite effect, with the argument that the Oklahoma City National Memorial being the only necessary and appropriate memorial to the event.

It's a difficult issue.

But I still cannot see how else one would achieve the specific emotional magnitude you are looking for in a tower without an emotional event of equal magnitude. Perhaps you can explain better? It's possible I am simply misunderstanding you.

Misunderstandings come with the medium of communication.

I'm just trying to understand why with all of the ideas being thrown out and some the lack there of, are we trying to convey a message in an iconic structure memorizing either our past or future and the mode at which we attempt it.

I don't believe a "designer" structural architect would be able to convey something that has a significants to us as oklahomans. As you can tell by this thread, we're already picky.

I do like a perpetual flame, my Alma Mater has a Lamp of Learning that burns continuously. With nearby landfills, I believe we could have the fuel to do it.

OKC Focus...

Here, a peace offering...

About Calatrava (http://www.calatrava.info/About/Advocacy.asp)

That sounds great. I think it would be awesome if he would design something here (though it's probably a long shot).

As far as he goes though, I am merely pointing out that he is not a "designer" structural architect. His designs, indeed, are very engineering-oriented, but the great thing about "great" and well-known architects such as Calatrava is that they are "great" and well-known not because of the outlandishness of a design, but rather at their very-real ability to relate to the context of a project and of a community, whether they be Oklahomans or not.

I think the point you raise about whether we are memorializing/commemorating our past or looking to the future is valid. Indeed, the original oil derrick that brought up this thread seems to be almost exclusively directed at commemoration of a past, but are they mutually exclusive? Is it possible to design something that nods to our heritage while still looking to the refreshingly blank possibilities of our future? I think so; though it is nevertheless a daunting task.

However, my opinion regarding our past remains, and I think you may agree mmonroe, based on your post at the very top of this page: our past is a rich heritage and a mixture of many influences. It is to be remembered and celebrated. But as Oklahomans we seem to have this weird fascination with incorporating this land-run/oil/western settlement heritage in almost every public architectural manifestation...why? Why, I ask. Every place has history....and almost every place commemorates it in one way or another. But many locales have found it perfectly acceptable to appreciate their past while simultaneously being willing to embrace modernity.

There seems to be some sort of natural tendency to think that Oklahoma is somehow innately behind-the-times (to be fair, in some ways we are) and that we are somehow "unable" to be considered a modern city....why? Modern cities were not born with a sense of modernity.

I have a theory: and that theory is that people associate "modernity" and "moving toward the future" with the Urban Renewal movements of the 1960s and 70s which used similar language. We saw how those programs turned out and are somehow afraid that by using similar language in more contemporary revitalization/jump-start efforts we may just end up like them.

But I think we've learned from our mistakes, the architectural community (and to a bit lesser-degree the planning community) realize the blunders of said era, and that modernity can be achieved amongst heritage with success.

I've embraced being a "Lahoman" and not an "Okie".

I'm glad to be born in a state with such a rich western heritage, but I don't want to cling to the past and have it influence our future. No one here on this forum who really cares can say that they want to go back to riding a horse and buggy or living in TP's but that's how the world fairs us. I remember the days of chat rooms on AOL. You meet a lot of interesting characters from all over the world, when the question is posed ASL [Age, Sex, Location] and you mention OKlahoma, you get responses like "Oh, you live in TP's?" "Ever been attacked by an indian?" "You guys till hunt buffalo?" Just the most ridiculous responses, but that's how we are perceived. I believe we need to change this perception. I"m thankful for the national attention we've been getting. It shows we're not backwards inbred crackers who live in the woods hunting buffalo and warring off indian attacks. We're not the wild west anymore. I also feel that some people try to cling to this because it's what they are familiar with and you will find those are the people who hate and/or make fun of the newer generations coming up who want a modern city. Who don't know much about the western heritage. It's the newer generation who has to take the reins so to speak and be the future of our city.

Passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, yesterday, I saw a tower at Kings Island amusement park that was very neat looking. It reminded me of a cross between an oil derrick and Eifel tower. Maybe something like that could work.

The fact that there is something like this in Ohio should immediately tell you that (cheesy or not) it's not ICONIC or ORIGINAL.

Passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, yesterday, I saw a tower at Kings Island amusement park that was very neat looking. It reminded me of a cross between an oil derrick and Eifel tower. Maybe something like that could work.

It is a 1/3 scale replica of the Eifel Tower.

Kings Island | Family Rides - Eiffel Tower (http://www.pki.com/attractions/detail.cfm?ai_id=153)