Tulsa has the best skyline among the three cities.

Acquired by a major? Yea right, Devon is a major, lol...they are the largest natural gas producer in the world!

They are not fully integrated, they are independent. They might be the largest independent natural gas producer.

I don't feel very comfortable with their many recent layoffs and divestitures. Specifically, their Gulf and International interests that they just sold to BP. I've also heard that Devon asked BP to make an offer for the whole company.

Acquired by a major? Yea right, Devon is a major, lol...they are the largest independent natural gas producer in the world!

fixed :tiphat:

Tulsa has the best skyline among the three cities.

I don't know about that? Tulsa is a cleaner city, and very well structured, but I think OKC and Tulsa skyline's are close.

They are not fully integrated, they are independent. They might be the largest independent natural gas producer.

I don't feel very comfortable with their many recent layoffs and divestitures. Specifically, their Gulf and International interests that they just sold to BP. I've also heard that Devon asked BP to make an offer for the whole company.

They are the largest independent natural gas producer.

Also, they sold off their Gulf assets to focus more on onshore drilling. Why would they ask BP to make an offer for the whole company after starting on a $750 million tower and extend its TIF money to improve downtown?

Use some common sense over the stuff you hear, people.

They are not fully integrated, they are independent.

What does this mean?

What does this mean?

Fully Integrated

These companies are engaged in all aspects of the oil and gas industry from exploration to marketing. The average consumer is well-acquainted with these companies by virtue of their branded gasoline stations. The fully-integrated companies or majors explore for and produce oil and gas around the world, own pipelines and tankers to transport this oil and gas, have refineries to process the crude oil into refined products, and sell these products through a global network of wholesale and retail outlets. Typical fully-integrated companies are ExxonMobil Corporation, BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips Company and Royal Dutch/Shell.

Independent Producers

Independent oil and gas producers are those companies that only explore and/or produce crude oil and natural gas. These companies focus on their core strengths to compete with the major companies. They may have global operations and can range in size from under 25 to thousands of employees. The Independent Petroleum Association of America which represents these companies has over 8,000 members. Typical independent oil and gas producers are Apache Corporation, Devon Energy Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources and XTO Energy Corporation.

http://www.petrostrategies.org/Learning_Center/industry_players.htm

They are the largest independent natural gas producer.

Also, they sold off their Gulf assets to focus more on onshore drilling. Why would they ask BP to make an offer for the whole company after starting on a $750 million tower and extend its TIF money to improve downtown?

Use some common sense over the stuff you hear, people.

Everyone has their price. Every publically traded company will do what is best for the shareholders over what is best for the city they are headquartered in. $750 million is nothing compared to the $30 BILLION that Devon is worth and the $189 BILLION that BP is worth.

Also, the price of natural gas was much higher and the economy was stronger when they announced plans for the tower. Back then they were growing and needed more space. Since then they have gotten smaller through divestiture and layoffs.

Another rumor is that the Houston-based employees may be moved to the new tower in OKC.

I don't KNOW anything, but I do know people that work there who are nervous about the future.

Everyone has their price. Every publically traded company will do what is best for the shareholders over what is best for the city they are headquartered in. $750 million is nothing compared to the $30 BILLION that Devon is worth and the $189 BILLION that BP is worth.

Also, the price of natural gas was much higher and the economy was stronger when they announced plans for the tower. Back then they were growing and needed more space. Since then they have gotten smaller through divestiture and layoffs.

I don't KNOW anything, but I do know people that work there who are nervous about the future.

Yeah, by shedding jobs in Houston. Devon was growing even when natural gas prices were stagnant before the boom.

EVERYONE is nervous about the future. It's what we're good at.

The tower is still under construction and you gave my question an indirect answer.

Devon's Houston offices are my company's next door neighbor. Many worked for those off-shore assets.

$750 million is nothing compared to the $30 BILLION that Devon is worth and the $189 BILLION that BP is worth.

Thanks for the info BFizzy - but $750 million is a big part of $30 billion. It is close to 1/30th of the entire companies value. That is a lot for one asset.

Yeah, by shedding jobs in Houston. Devon was growing even when natural gas prices were stagnant before the boom.

EVERYONE is nervous about the future. It's what we're good at.

The tower is still under construction and you gave my question an indirect answer.

Devon's Houston offices are my company's next door neighbor. Many worked for those off-shore assets.

I can't give you a direct answer as to why Devon would sell while currently building a new headquarters. I can only tell you I know that a VP at BP said Devon asked BP to make an offer for the whole company. I suppose he could have lied about that. Obviously, they didn't come to an agreement.

I know Larry Nichols wants what is best for OKC, but anything can happen.

Everyone has their price. Every publically traded company will do what is best for the shareholders over what is best for the city they are headquartered in. $750 million is nothing compared to the $30 BILLION that Devon is worth and the $189 BILLION that BP is worth.

Also, the price of natural gas was much higher and the economy was stronger when they announced plans for the tower. Back then they were growing and needed more space. Since then they have gotten smaller through divestiture and layoffs.

Another rumor is that the Houston-based employees may be moved to the new tower in OKC.

I don't KNOW anything, but I do know people that work there who are nervous about the future.

In addition to the tower being approximately 1/30th of it's net worth, Larry Nichols has made public statements when the tower was announced and after it was announced that this decision would be firm regardless of the current market conditions and that they have already outgrown their existing space in 5 buildings DT and the desire to locate their employees into 1 building.

yep, Bellevue really sprouted up in the last 5 years and it is solely due to Microsoft. I think Bellevue is a little bit smaller than Norman, though - depends upon where you draw the line.

According to the Census bureau, 2008 estimates:

Norman: 106,957 (95,964 in 2000)
Bellevue: 123,771 (109,569 in 2000)

I suppose it could be smaller than Norman if you "draw the line" inside the city limits--sort of like how Atlanta could be larger than L.A. if you just "draw the line" large enough...

In addition to the tower being approximately 1/30th of it's net worth, Larry Nichols has made public statements when the tower was announced and after it was announced that this decision would be firm regardless of the current market conditions and that they have already outgrown their existing space in 5 buildings DT and the desire to locate their employees into 1 building.

The tower hasn't been built yet. It is not currently worth $750 million. I guarantee there are clauses for getting out of the construction contracts. If a major bought Devon they would most likely layoff or relocate the OKC employees so space wouldn't matter.

I want the tower to be built. I'm just pointing out that it's not a done deal until it's 51 stories tall.

I was kind of teetering on the line with this debate until BFizzy's recent comment that I think rings very true. There is not yet even close to $750 million in value invested into the Devon Tower site. By 2012 there should be, barring a disaster. Disasters don't happen that often, and MAPS 3 does provide us some insulation from economic disasters in my opinion, but they do happen.

Well there goes my enthusiasm. Lately I get depressed everytime I come on this board. May as well quit collecting daily shots of the construction for my time lapse. What's the point, right?

Everybody is talking about Nichols as if he is the sole owner of the company. When you're the CEO of a publicly traded corporation, your interests must go deeper than civic pride, responsibility, etc. Especially with that in mind, anything could happen. Oh, and daily business can't stop, you must proceed as planned, no matter what might be in the pipeline (pardon the pun).

Oh my gosh, stop the presses... an anonymous poster named bfizzy says Devon is trying to get bought out by BP and that the tower won't be fully built ...
Gotta love the internet...
I could get on here as an anonymous poster and tell you that I talked to an unnamed executive at Devon about this and can tell you what he said ...
BUT...
Anonymous doesn't cut it for it me. So here it is: I'm Steve Lackmeyer, and I've talked to Larry Nichols about these questions, and I reported everything he said.
Ah, but who cares. So, bfizzy, what about Chesapeake? Which company is going to buy it out and move it to Houston?
OKC Pulse, take this from an online friend - please consider the source before letting some words typed on a keyboard affect your outlook and mood.
(Steve now leaves this discussion, knowing that the insertion of common sense will only anger others in the thread and get everyone mad at him).

Oh my gosh, stop the presses... an anonymous poster named bfizzy says Devon is trying to get bought out by BP and that the tower won't be fully built ...
Gotta love the internet...
I could get on here as an anonymous poster and tell you that I talked to an unnamed executive at Devon about this and can tell you what he said ...
BUT...
Anonymous doesn't cut it for it me. So here it is: I'm Steve Lackmeyer, and I've talked to Larry Nichols about these questions, and I reported everything he said.
Ah, but who cares. So, bfizzy, what about Chesapeake? Which company is going to buy it out and move it to Houston?
OKC Pulse, take this from an online friend - please consider the source before letting some words typed on a keyboard affect your outlook and mood.
(Steve now leaves this discussion, knowing that the insertion of common sense will only anger others in the thread and get everyone mad at him).

Just so you know, I agree with you. My point (which I should have made more clear) is that when you're CEO of a publicly traded company, you go about your business and anything could happen. They could merge with McDonald's next month. It isn't Larry Nichol's company, so we could speculate all day long because, really, anything could happen!

And pulse, while I agree with you so often, you always seem to complain about anything that isn't all peaches and cream. OKC isn't the center of the universe, all news will not always be good news, and some things about are city are worth being critical about and critical opinion is okay. Don't let it get you down!

I'm in Calgary right now. I've always been impressed with its skyline.

http://www.cdicinspections.com/images/skyline4bordered.jpg

I'm in Calgary right now. I've always been impressed with its skyline.

http://www.cdicinspections.com/images/skyline4bordered.jpgNice!!

^^^ that looks old,imagine it with The BOW! nice pic BTW!

And pulse, while I agree with you so often, you always seem to complain about anything that isn't all peaches and cream. OKC isn't the center of the universe, all news will not always be good news, and some things about are city are worth being critical about and critical opinion is okay. Don't let it get you down!

There are things about OKC that I would like to see changed. Not everything will ever be peaches and cream. But I do get irked when people keep beating a dead horse.

Besides, why are we being critical about something we don't even know is true?

I'm in Calgary right now. I've always been impressed with its skyline.

http://www.cdicinspections.com/images/skyline4bordered.jpg

Calgary is beautiful and the metro population is about what OKC's is...

All I said is that I hope Devon doesn't get bought out because I've heard rumors from Devon employees. This is a message board not a news outlet. People come to this site to get possible information before it is factual news. I believe the tower will get built, but there is reason to believe it may not.

Steve, you're supposed to be a journalist. Stop the spin.

Calgary is beautiful and the metro population is about what OKC's is...

Except Calgary has a population of 1.1 million people in a country of 33 million. The 5th largest city in their country.
Oklahoma City has a population of 1.2 million in a country of 305 million.

Calgary is far more important to the economy of Canada than OKC is to the economy of the USA - as evidenced by that beautiful (and enormous) skyline.

All I said is that I hope Devon doesn't get bought out because I've heard rumors from Devon employees. This is a message board not a news outlet. People come to this site to get possible information before it is factual news. I believe the tower will get built, but there is reason to believe it may not.

Steve, you're supposed to be a journalist. Stop the spin.

OMG, remember OneOK Tulsa............................:omg:


Originally designed to be 52 stories, and then reduced to 37, the plans were modified to the present height of 17 floors after the building was sold during construction.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/ONEOK_Office_Tulsa-1.jpg

All I said is that I hope Devon doesn't get bought out because I've heard rumors from Devon employees. This is a message board not a news outlet. People come to this site to get possible information before it is factual news. I believe the tower will get built, but there is reason to believe it may not.

Steve, you're supposed to be a journalist. Stop the spin.

Not doing any spin. I'm noting the obvious - and you're not alone on this - all sorts of unsubstantiated rumors get started online by people with nothing at stake. I find it interesting this idea that people come to this site to "get information before it is factual news."
That's an intriguing concept. The problem here, and yeah this is a bit blunt, but I'm calling shenanigans on this one. I don't know you, so I can't say if you're telling the truth or making this up yourself. That wouldn't be fair. But I'm suggesting I've heard the total opposite of what you're hearing. Folks, before you start taking all this seriously, do a search on this site for Exxon and Devon, and let's see how many "friends" and/or "Devon employees" have sworn the company was about to bought by Exxon.
Could Devon be bought out and moved? Yeah. Same odds exist for everything ranging from Pre-paid Legal to Walmart.

Architect5311, it's interesting how Tulsans were quick to note Oneok before construction of Devon tower ever began.

bfizzy, let me apologize if my tone was a bit hostile. But I've been on this board for a while, and I've seen this thing pop up at least once a year, with various folks upset by the rumors only for them not to come true.
Even the major newspapers have engaged in this sort of thing, so you're in good company.
Here's an oldie but a goodie...
9/29/07
Devon on the market?

By Adam Wilmoth
Business Writer
Devon Energy Corp.'s stock price jumped 1.6 percent Thursday as a familiar rumor again circulated throughout Wall Street.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the stock rally was fueled by speculation that ExxonMobil is targeting the Oklahoma City oil and natural gas producer for takeover.

"It is Devon's practice not to comment on rumors or speculation,” Devon spokesman Brian Engle said Friday.

Devon often is mentioned as a takeover target. Speculation in recent years has said energy giants BP, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell were eyeing the company.

"That somebody is thinking of buying Devon is just an endorsement that Devon is a great company,” said Fadel Gheit, an industry analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. in New York.

Devon's property base in the Gulf of Mexico, the Barnett Shale of north Texas and the Canadian oil sands makes it a good fit for nearly all of the major fully-integrated oil companies, Gheit said.

"They have a presence in the three most attractive areas not only to Exxon, but for any company,” he said.

With a market capitalization of about $35 billion, Devon is large enough that few companies could digest it. But even Devon may be too small for ExxonMobil, which has a market capitalization of about $520 billion, Gheit said.

"Any action Exxon takes must be large enough to really move the needle,” he said. "Obviously Devon is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in North America, but to Exxon, it may not be large enough.”

Larry Nichols, Devon's chairman and chief executive officer, has said repeatedly that he and the rest of the company's management team want the company to remain in Oklahoma City.

"The real protection (from a takeover) is to never get in a position to where you're vulnerable to a raider,” Nichols said in May. "We try to keep our balance sheet clean. We try to make sure we continue to grow the business. We bristle when someone says, ‘Do you want to be bought out?' As long as the growth is there and the enthusiasm is there both in our company and on our board, we think we're more protected by that than by anything else.”

Devon stock gained $1.30 on Thursday and closed at $83.52 on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares slipped Friday, dropping 42 cents to close at $83.20.

For the year, Devon stock is up 26 percent, from $66.03 on Jan 3.

Not doing any spin. I'm noting the obvious - and you're not alone on this - all sorts of unsubstantiated rumors get started online by people with nothing at stake. I find it interesting this idea that people come to this site to "get information before it is factual news."
That's an intriguing concept. The problem here, and yeah this is a bit blunt, but I'm calling shenanigans on this one. I don't know you, so I can't say if you're telling the truth or making this up yourself. That wouldn't be fair. But I'm suggesting I've heard the total opposite of what you're hearing. Folks, before you start taking all this seriously, do a search on this site for Exxon and Devon, and let's see how many "friends" and/or "Devon employees" have sworn the company was about to bought by Exxon.
Could Devon be bought out and moved? Yeah. Same odds exist for everything ranging from Pre-paid Legal to Walmart.

I agree that there has been speculation about Devon selling for years. I haven't been concerned about it until recently. In an effort to establish credibility, feel free to read my post about Devon tower before it was confirmed:

BFizzy
Participating Member

Join Date: Jul 2005
Total Posts: 200
Re: Devon ?
There will be a new Devon tower downtown. Larry Nichols said that "it will not only be an iconic building for the city, but for the entire region." He said that there will be a press release soon, but they are waiting to get all the building permits first. He also said that even though there is speculation that Devon will be acquired, he doesn't think it will happen.

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/12201-devon.html

bfizzy, I know you're not a troll. I've looked back at my first post on this and again, I apologize if my tone suggested otherwise. But what I'm hearing doesn't match up with what you're hearing. As for the tower... well, read that entire thread you've linked.

I'm in Calgary right now. I've always been impressed with its skyline.

http://www.cdicinspections.com/images/skyline4bordered.jpg

No way man. I live in Calgary. And by the way, that's an awful skyline view. From the west is much better.

http://members.shaw.ca/d_fault/images/ssp/citypan_s.jpg

bfizzy, I know you're not a troll. I've looked back at my first post on this and again, I apologize if my tone suggested otherwise. But what I'm hearing doesn't match up with what you're hearing.

Well, I hope you're right.

And just to clarify, I'm not concerned about something being in the works right now, but I am concerned about Devon being open to offers. Larry Nichols was against divesting the gulf and international assets, but the board didn't agree with him. Which goes to show that a CEO doesn't always have the last word.

Oh my gosh, stop the presses... an anonymous poster named bfizzy says Devon is trying to get bought out by BP and that the tower won't be fully built ...
Gotta love the internet...
I could get on here as an anonymous poster and tell you that I talked to an unnamed executive at Devon about this and can tell you what he said ...
BUT...
Anonymous doesn't cut it for it me. So here it is: I'm Steve Lackmeyer, and I've talked to Larry Nichols about these questions, and I reported everything he said.
Ah, but who cares. So, bfizzy, what about Chesapeake? Which company is going to buy it out and move it to Houston?
OKC Pulse, take this from an online friend - please consider the source before letting some words typed on a keyboard affect your outlook and mood.
(Steve now leaves this discussion, knowing that the insertion of common sense will only anger others in the thread and get everyone mad at him).

I make up 72% of everything I post and log in under 43 different ids. I have entire threads where I am the only posting - including this one. I got so mad at one of my ids I put it on ignore and filed enough complaints I got two of my other ids banned. -jk

BTW - I always admired Canadian city’s downtowns. I guess if it is cold enough 9 months out of the year you have to build up - not out.

Anything could happen, but the momentum in Oklahoma City is too strong for Devon Tower not to be built, its the backbone for the central business district development.

Not to mention Reuters' article on Devon's development plans after its $7 billion Gulf assets sale to BP. As I mentioned before, they are going to focus on developing their North American assets and pay down debt. Looks good for the books.

BP to pay Devon $7 bln for fields | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6295AL20100311)

BFizzy is not wrong to be concerned, but stirring a debate over rumors is pointless. Pretty much every public company is "open" to options. They're public companies for crying out loud.

Not doing any spin. I'm noting the obvious - and you're not alone on this - all sorts of unsubstantiated rumors get started online by people with nothing at stake. I find it interesting this idea that people come to this site to "get information before it is factual news."
That's an intriguing concept. The problem here, and yeah this is a bit blunt, but I'm calling shenanigans on this one. I don't know you, so I can't say if you're telling the truth or making this up yourself. That wouldn't be fair. But I'm suggesting I've heard the total opposite of what you're hearing. Folks, before you start taking all this seriously, do a search on this site for Exxon and Devon, and let's see how many "friends" and/or "Devon employees" have sworn the company was about to bought by Exxon.
Could Devon be bought out and moved? Yeah. Same odds exist for everything ranging from Pre-paid Legal to Walmart.

Architect5311, it's interesting how Tulsans were quick to note Oneok before construction of Devon tower ever began.

In all fairness to bfizzy, anonymous posters do have some importance to journalists such as yourself, in that they do provide leads worth following, so journalists can factually or opinionatedly (is that a word) report. Many times some of us hear things from reputable sources, but if we posted our real names, we would no longer be in on the "inside" of information leaks. Like it or not, but I think the anonymous nature of the internet is here to stay indefinitely and in the end the truth will come out whether it be from anonymous bloggers or journalists or a combination of both.

I like the Calgary skyline that has the cool bridge.

Downtown OKC needs more modern high rises to support the new Devon Tower, once the new Devon Tower is built, it will look out of place next to outdated skyscrapers that we have, the only one that will compliment Devon Tower is the Oklahoma Tower.

I'm in Calgary right now. I've always been impressed with its skyline.

http://www.cdicinspections.com/images/skyline4bordered.jpg

That is really pretty.

No way man. I live in Calgary. And by the way, that's an awful skyline view. From the west is much better.

http://members.shaw.ca/d_fault/images/ssp/citypan_s.jpg

What makes it awful? It looks beautiful to me. It's a good angle. What your meaning is more of a bragging right of oh, look at the skyline of the city I'm living in, it's actually 3 times bigger than that picture. Yes the picture you posted is more impressive as far as the length of the skyline, but there was nothing "awful" about the other posters picture. Heck, other posters commented on how impressive it was and how pretty, based upon that posters picture. Heck, even Steve our beloved journalist says he thinks the one with the bridge is nice, so do you think Steve has awful taste? Do you think every NYC, Philly, San Fran, etc. postcard has a picture of the entire skyline?

Hey, don't make me the standard for good taste!
I suspect Calgary's got the beauty thing going no matter where the photo is taken. It's one of those cities I'd love to visit one day.

What makes it awful? It looks beautiful to me. It's a good angle. What your meaning is more of a bragging right of oh, look at the skyline of the city I'm living in, it's actually 3 times bigger than that picture. Yes the picture you posted is more impressive as far as the length of the skyline, but there was nothing "awful" about the other posters picture. Heck, other posters commented on how impressive it was and how pretty, based upon that posters picture. Heck, even Steve our beloved journalist says he thinks the one with the bridge is nice, so do you think Steve has awful taste? Do you think every NYC, Philly, San Fran, etc. postcard has a picture of the entire skyline?

I thought the first picture was much nicer, personally.

Hey, don't make me the standard for good taste!
I suspect Calgary's got the beauty thing going no matter where the photo is taken. It's one of those cities I'd love to visit one day.


I thought the first picture was much nicer, personally.

Don't worry apparently Spartan is the critic on what constitutes "awful" angles versus "nice" angles in photography. Apparently the old saying "one mans trash is another man's treasure" doesn't apply anymore, at least not with our mountie friend Spartan.

Calgary is an urban area we can aspire to. It is Canada's Oklahoma City, or maybe more fairly, its Denver. Where we have Houston, Dallas, OKC, Tulsa and Denver competing for location of oil company offices, etc., in Canada it is really Calgary. Therefore all the companies have local offices or their Canadian ops are located there. That creates more building downtown and the much sought after density of people, wherein lies the secret of building density. Calgary has significant topographical influences too which helps influence building downtown.

Calgary is a cool city. Not as cool as its neighbor Vancouver, but cool nonetheless.

Tulsa is pretty great:

Flickr user Fiveholer
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/1362728482_9569486b2f_o.jpg



It's not really fair to use that picture unless you are going to use a panoramic of OKC that includes St. Anthony, the Aberdeen, St. Luke's, and the Classen.

In all fairness, Vancouver is 3 times bigger than Calgary - but yes, point very well taken.

It is somewhat surprising that more of those oil company hq aren't in Vancouver actually, since it is a much more desirable and liveable city (even on the world scale, it's always #1). Or even Edmonton, since that city is closer to the actual Oil Sands and is the capital of Alberta.

But yes, Calgary is a nice city for OKC to aspire to (downtown wise). It's funny saying that, since Oklahoma City is actually bigger than Calgary. [OKC 1.3M, Calgary 1M]

both cities are 'former' cowtowns, now successful in Energy (with OKC being more diversified). ...

In all fairness, Vancouver is 3 times bigger than Calgary - but yes, point very well taken.

It is somewhat surprising that more of those oil company hq aren't in Vancouver actually, since it is a much more desirable and liveable city (even on the world scale, it's always #1). Or even Edmonton, since that city is closer to the actual Oil Sands and is the capital of Alberta.

But yes, Calgary is a nice city for OKC to aspire to (downtown wise). It's funny saying that, since Oklahoma City is actually bigger than Calgary. [OKC 1.3M, Calgary 1M]

both cities are 'former' cowtowns, now successful in Energy (with OKC being more diversified). ...

The comparisons to Calgary and OKC aren't quite right when you consider (and I'm repeating this again): Calgary is a city of 1.3 million in a country of only 30 million. Oklahoma City is a city of 1.3 million in a country of 305 million. Calgary has a much bigger impact economic on Canada than OKC has on the United States.

Calgary only has 1million (almost 1.08M). Canada now has 35 million.

Also, I wasn't comparing OKC to Calgary; I was saying OKC could take some downtown development aspirations from the wonderful work Calgary has done, despite it's low population (compared to MUCH BIGGER, SUCCESSFUL nearby Vancouver).

They have a somewhat similar case that OKC has with Dallas, in Calgary vs much bigger Vancouver. But Calgary has held it's own and even taken the lead with regard to head offices in one particular sector.

My only question was, 'why Calgary?' Especially when Vancouver is much bigger, more worldly and cosmopolitan, liveable and desireable, easily should control all sectors of the economy in Western Canada; but it doesn't for Energy. Add to that, Edmonton is actually closer to the actual oil that Calgary controls - so what did Calgary do to be successful?

This is maybe what OKC might want to ask (and adopt).

I was also making a pun fun of the fact that it's weird OKC looking to a smaller Calgary for downtown development ideas. ...

I don't think you can over look the fact that Canadian cites spend about 9 months of the year on the cold side. They don't have large city centers due to some magical planning work, they have large city centers because half their population would freeze to death 6 months out of the year if they had to drive 10, 15, 20 miles to get to work everyday.

I think it safe to say that Calgary (and other Canadian cities) had to develop good planning strategies to accommodate a nature-driven high density urban environment. The good planning didn't create the high density - high density created good planning.

Austin also has a great skyline, especially with their new skyscraper The Austonian, which is their tallest in the city.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=461&stc=1&d=1272027242

Austin also has a great skyline, especially with their new skyscraper The Austonian, which is their tallest in the city.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=461&stc=1&d=1272027242

Amazing what a few towers can do for a skyline. Austin had a weak skyline for a city its size up until the 2000's when Frost Bank Tower, 360, Monarch, Spring, and now the Austonian and W were all built. It's been quite the transformation.

(compared to MUCH BIGGER, SUCCESSFUL nearby Vancouver).



Nearby? The two cities are almost 1000 miles apart.

And you can't discount the impact of the lack of massive urban expressway systems in Canada in how healthy Canadian city centers are. They don't have all our highways to draw people out into the suburbs.

Amazing what a few towers can do for a skyline. Austin had a weak skyline for a city its size up until the 2000's when Frost Bank Tower, 360, Monarch, Spring, and now the Austonian and W were all built. It's been quite the transformation.

Yes, they built 5 major skyscrapers in the last 6 years, very impressive. Austin grabbed an opportunity, and just didn't stop at one skyscraper, they kept the momentum, good work Austin! Its good to see another city in Texas grow, besides Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

The Austonian

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=462&stc=1&d=1272032903

We need a condo high rise like The Austonian

I don't know about Vancouver. It's changing so fast and its reputation took a hit with the Olympics. I think with all the top rankings and so forth, journalists were expecting so much more. The homeless, crime, immigration battles, it turned off a lot of people to Vancouver. I'd pick Calgary any day. Of course, it's all in what you want from a city. Vancouver has too much of what I don't like.

Austin is a great city and that skyline has changed dramatically! I agree with G. Walker about a highrise condo downtown. One day. One day.

all of those aformentioned is just a fact of life for the warmest canadian mega city. And yes, while Vancouver has the poorest postal code in the country, it also has the richest and funny thing, they're about 4 km apart.

Im not sure what you are talking about, the Vancouver Olympics was a very big success. I've NEVER seen that much life in a Winter Olympics (especially). The whole downtown was jam packed with millions of people, and 1.6 million people riding their subways each day. Very impressive for the largest city ever to host a winter olympics.

Sure, it didn't snow in the beginning and activists acted a fool in the beginning; but those things could have happened anywhere and Vancouver is in a mild climate zone which happened to be El Nino this year. But Canada received 14 gold medals, most ever on Canadian soil and most gold of any country in this games.

I think you had to BE THERE and not rely solely on the American media (NBC) to get the full scope of the 2010 Games. But you can't tell me those skyline shots of the city of Vancouver didn't have you awestruck. ....

With that said, Vancouver is WAY out of OKC's league - let's stick to Calgary and Austin.

FWIW, Austin planners went to Vancouver and hired Vancouver architects to 'modernize' their downtown, as did Seattle, San Diego, Calgary, and a number of other cities. You can see some very striking similarities in Austin's new highrises with the residential stock of Vancouver.

all of those aformentioned is just a fact of life for the warmest canadian mega city. And yes, while Vancouver has the poorest postal code in the country, it also has the richest and funny thing, they're about 4 km apart.

Im not sure what you are talking about, the Vancouver Olympics was a very big success. I've NEVER seen that much life in a Winter Olympics (especially). The whole downtown was jam packed with millions of people, and 1.6 million people riding their subways each day. Very impressive for the largest city ever to host a winter olympics.

Sure, it didn't snow in the beginning and activists acted a fool in the beginning; but those things could have happened anywhere and Vancouver is in a mild climate zone which happened to be El Nino this year. But Canada received 14 gold medals, most ever on Canadian soil and most gold of any country in this games.

I think you had to BE THERE and not rely solely on the American media (NBC) to get the full scope of the 2010 Games. But you can't tell me those skyline shots of the city of Vancouver didn't have you awestruck. ....

With that said, Vancouver is WAY out of OKC's league - let's stick to Calgary and Austin.

FWIW, Austin planners went to Vancouver and hired Vancouver architects to 'modernize' their downtown, as did Seattle, San Diego, Calgary, and a number of other cities. You can see some very striking similarities in Austin's new highrises with the residential stock of Vancouver.

:congrats: Well Put...