Very Impressed.. its nice to see a Project rendering where its an immediate WOW.. instead of.. well it could be worse.. this is beautiful.

I'm trying to imagine what street-life business would be successful there…I want there to be street life there, but it also seems like a pedestrian dead-zone.

It's cool. But there is no street interaction at all. Put some ground floor retail, or even store front windows for offices at least.

Remember the fight about parking garages and blank ground floor walls. This is another one without the parking garage.

I could be down with a Pedestrian Through-way between the 2 buildings, but Pedestrians have nothing to walk to going East on 5th nor North on Walnut. You could maybe make a case for retail on Harrison, but if you put a Pedestrian Through way and some sort of store front between the 2 buildings, I think you'd accomplish the same thing.

But honestly, I think it would just end up being failed business after failed business until/unless the SE block of 5th and Walnut is developed in such a way that encourages lots of pedestrians.

This is the best development news for OKC I can remember in the last few months. Very cool.

Isn't it interesting that it seems most of the good development news comes from smaller scale projects where city leaders have the least amount of jurisdiction or influence? They could use some of their authority and influence to prevent bad development, but instead they seem to often be partly responsible for it.

The above observation from BDP is 100% spot on. The city gets what the city wants.


The article said that there MAY be changes to the design, due to the lack of "apparent street life"

No way... A Rand Elliott design that doesn't address the street?!?

Not that I don't like it. The place for that type of architectural statement that shuns the street level is here and NOT Walker & Sheridan or encircling any downtown park ever built...

No way... A Rand Elliott design that doesn't address the street?!?

Not that I don't like it. The place for that type of architectural statement that shuns the street level is here and NOT Walker & Sheridan or encircling any downtown park ever built...

I think I'd like to have seen a little bit of street level interaction, if nothing else, but just something of convenience for the tenants and the surrounding residential, but just the fact that it's not set back 50 feet from the street makes it a better urban site plan that some of the big projects in the core.

I think I'd like to have seen a little bit of street level interaction, if nothing else, but just something of convenience for the tenants and the surrounding residential, but just the fact that it's not set back 50 feet from the street makes it a better urban site plan that some of the big projects in the core.

Again…where is the traffic going to come from to make sure the business that goes in there is successful? It can't front 5th and it can't front Walnut, because traffic is not going to pass by those two fronts. Harrison is a stretch as well, because it's not like people are walking over to OUHSC

Again…where is the traffic going to come from to make sure the business that goes in there is successful? It can't front 5th and it can't front Walnut, because traffic is not going to pass by those two fronts. Harrison is a stretch as well, because it's not like people are walking over to OUHSC

I was thinking Maywood Park / Deep Deuce and the Metropolitan. Really this little area could be the hub for all the surrounding housing, but I don't think it's a tragedy if it's not.

isn't it interesting that it seems most of the good development news comes from smaller scale projects where city leaders have the least amount of jurisdiction or influence? They could use some of their authority and influence to prevent bad development, but instead they seem to often be partly responsible for it.

like

Again…where is the traffic going to come from to make sure the business that goes in there is successful? It can't front 5th and it can't front Walnut, because traffic is not going to pass by those two fronts. Harrison is a stretch as well, because it's not like people are walking over to OUHSC

There won't be foot traffic there if all the buildings in that area go with that assumption. The foot traffic will come as more buildings go in. Wait until the Metropolitan and some of the other apartments are finished.

No buildings are being built on I-235, that's the problem. This building will the Terminus of all 3 roads it touches. People general don't walk all the way to a terminus. Nearly all people will be on Oklahoma before 5th to walk North to AA. Walking South to DD, Oklahoma is the only option.

I think it's a big risk and I don't think someone opening an interactive business would select this location.

There won't be foot traffic there if all the buildings in that area go with that assumption. The foot traffic will come as more buildings go in. Wait until the Metropolitan and some of the other apartments are finished.

Yeah, there's no foot traffic now, because there's nothing there. I bet most from DD and Maywood walk down 2nd or 3rd to get to broadway just because that's where stuff is. If and when this little four block area is developed and the Metropolitan is finished, it will be the stepping stone to AA and I imagine most of the foot traffic between the districts will flow through it.

Yeah, there's no foot traffic now, because there's nothing there. I bet most from DD and Maywood walk down 2nd or 3rd to get to broadway just because that's where stuff is. If and when this little four block area is developed and the Metropolitan is finished, it will be the stepping stone to AA and I imagine most of the foot traffic between the districts will flow through it.

Yeah, I would much rather not walk along Gaylord if at all possible...

Don't expect that big parking lot on the south side to be a big parking lot for long.

Don't expect that big parking lot on the south side to be a big parking lot for long.

This.

That site is pretty prime. Deep Deuce is growing north, I wouldn't even be surprised to see some decent mid-rises soon. Pretty soon this area will dwarf Bricktown.

No way... A Rand Elliott design that doesn't address the street?!?

THIS.

I'm not impressed. I don't like the blank street walls. I also think the windows make it look like a prison. Something like the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Center,_Chicago)

10627 10628

THIS.

I'm not impressed. I don't like the blank street walls. I also think the windows make it look like a prison. Something like the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Center,_Chicago)

10627 10628

I was just in Chicago and that building is surprisingly attractive in person, especially in light of it being a correctional center.

THIS.

I'm not impressed. I don't like the blank street walls. I also think the windows make it look like a prison. Something like the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Center,_Chicago)

10627 10628

It seems as if we are in the minority but Im not impressed with Rand's design either. Too much of big, blank, bland walls. And obviously the street level space being unutilized is an issue.

As big as this design is, and knowing that it will definitely be expensive because its by Rand, they will have to get way more rent out of this than probably anything else downtown.

I'm not a fan of the design either...how can it have the best views of downtown when you can't see downtown out of the prison-style window slits?

Count me as not a fan either. I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to be negative but this puts me in mind of the bleak, brutalist architecture of government buildings built during the 1970s that I don't believe has much of a place in the 21st century. If they make the windows larger I would be happier with it. With such a great view of downtown this is a wasted opportunity.

Well hell, if were counting, count me as a fan.

Count me as not a fan either. I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to be negative but this puts me in mind of the bleak, brutalist architecture of government buildings built during the 1970s that I don't believe has much of a place in the 21st century. If they make the windows larger I would be happier with it. With such a great view of downtown this is a wasted opportunity.

Agree. If I was a company looking to move, say 150 people, I'd want to give them great views of the skyline. To me, this would offer very limited views.

I like the idea as being different but think they'll eventually regret not doing bigger windows.

Some changes are being made as per Steve's update.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5410664


As a result, the new renderings propose a spot for a coffee shop instead of parking on the building’s southeast corner at Walnut and NW 5, along with an outdoor cafe plaza protected by concrete planters.
Elliott said his firm also doubled the number of windows, but stayed with the 2-foot-wide, 15-foot-high openings, which he said allow for ample light to come into the new building.

Some changes are being made as per Steve's update.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5410664

If I worked in the building, I wouldn't much care about the amount light coming in, but rather what my view is. This will render the building difficult to retrofit as well - new occupants will be forced into specific space arrangements.

This is what happens when architects try to be artist.

This is what happens when architects try to be artist.

" 'This is intended to be a celebratory design,' Elliott said."

New designs for downtown flatiron building approved by Oklahoma City panel | Oklahoman.com (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5410664?access=20a6f6ce65c668398fff8a9e273893d5)

What OKC could use is a group of independent urban-minded individuals to review plans/proposals and issue a grade and short report with likes/ don't likes/suggested changes and take these issues to social media. Kind of like what happens now but more formally. Rover could even weigh in on building materials and mechanical systems.

That article and video from Steve are worth taking a look at. There are some images of how it will look lit up at night (more color changing elements) and some details about a coffee shops style location they added in the redesign.

Dang, everyone is a critic.

I think it looks slick. My only problem is the lack of windows and that seems like its being addressed. The article on NewsOK with the neon lighting is breathtaking. But we all know Rand likes his neon lights.

After considering many of the critiques posted, I'm still a fan of the design, but I think shawnw nailed it when he said they'll regret not doing wider windows.

After considering many of the critiques posted, I'm still a fan of the design, but I think shawnw nailed it when he said they'll regret not doing wider windows.

I agree. The window size is my biggest complaint. Other than that I think its pretty cool.

You want design by committee? What is wrong with hiring a legitimate architect to work with the owner to come up with their vision? Why does every Tom, Dick, and Harry get a say in a design? Did New Yorkers get to vote on the how the Chrysler building looked? It's one thing to pick apart every development that gets annouced; but it's another to have to be obligated not only to a design committe but also the comments of a blog.

When public space is at stake shouldn't the public get a say. We know 2 things for sure. 1) Some developers don't care about the public realm 2) We can't count on public officials/boards to defend the public realm.

Lots of cities have organized community activist.

Note, I am not singling this project out, I just happen to make the suggestion in this thread.

What is your definition of public space? Is this owned by the government or using governmental funding? If a public space is anything the public can see, then that captures almost everything. I don't have an issue with a city design review committee that applies standards across a region, but I really dislike the idea that everyone has a valid say in a private development. We all have an opinion on style, but I certainly don't have the insight to dictate to the owner what his tastes are, such as how wide the windows should be. Maybe he doesn't want his employees staring out the windows all day instead of working? Maybe the narrow windows are more climate friendly and will save a lot of heating/cooling costs. Maybe the narrow windows are echoing a similar look in nearby buildings, so he is establishing a repeating pattern for the area.

Who am I to tell the owner how wide a window he should use if it meets the design standards set forth in the written guideslines and meets his wants and needs for his building?

10637

The design wasn't that bad to begin with, although it is improved. Strange that we can force change here but not along Main Street or around our parks.

Rand likes pointy buildings.

What is your definition of public space? Is this owned by the government or using governmental funding? If a public space is anything the public can see, then that captures almost everything. I don't have an issue with a city design review committee that applies standards across a region, but I really dislike the idea that everyone has a valid say in a private development. We all have an opinion on style, but I certainly don't have the insight to dictate to the owner what his tastes are, such as how wide the windows should be. Maybe he doesn't want his employees staring out the windows all day instead of working? Maybe the narrow windows are more climate friendly and will save a lot of heating/cooling costs. Maybe the narrow windows are echoing a similar look in nearby buildings, so he is establishing a repeating pattern for the area.

Who am I to tell the owner how wide a window he should use if it meets the design standards set forth in the written guideslines and meets his wants and needs for his building?

Actually, yes it is owned by the city government. And this is a online forum, where people give their opinions. Its not as if we are throwing bricks through Rand's window with hate messages on them.

Has Rand ever designed anything with curves and square shapes? Or is pretty much everything narrow lines and angles? Not trolling, Im actually interested to know.

Actually, yes it is owned by the city government. And this is a online forum, where people give their opinions. Its not as if we are throwing bricks through Rand's window with hate messages on them.

Has Rand ever designed anything with curves and square shapes? Or is pretty much everything narrow lines and angles? Not trolling, Im actually interested to know.

The Chesapeake campus for starters...

The design wasn't that bad to begin with, although it is improved. Strange that we can force change here but not along Main Street or around our parks.

Did we force change or did Rand merely respond to RTKL's suggestions? Difference here is that Randy Elliott was considerate of the criticism offered and a better design was the result. However, there wasn't much that needed to be corrected really and as said, the design wasn't bad to begin with. Down on Main Street is a design and layout that started out bad, and they don't seem too keen to criticism or improving upon their project in anyway meaningful.

What is your definition of public space? Is this owned by the government or using governmental funding? If a public space is anything the public can see, then that captures almost everything. I don't have an issue with a city design review committee that applies standards across a region, but I really dislike the idea that everyone has a valid say in a private development. We all have an opinion on style, but I certainly don't have the insight to dictate to the owner what his tastes are, such as how wide the windows should be. Maybe he doesn't want his employees staring out the windows all day instead of working? Maybe the narrow windows are more climate friendly and will save a lot of heating/cooling costs. Maybe the narrow windows are echoing a similar look in nearby buildings, so he is establishing a repeating pattern for the area.

Who am I to tell the owner how wide a window he should use if it meets the design standards set forth in the written guideslines and meets his wants and needs for his building?

If the developer wants to build a 200 foot high concrete slab with no windows, and paint it purple, should the public have no say? We can't even complain about it now?

The only reason people want to be downtown at all is because other businesses have contributed to the public realm. By building something downtown you are able to take advantage of the good design decisions made by everyone else in the area. If you are going to build downtown you have a responsibility to make the area better, or at least to not screw it up.

Personally I like this design a lot, but I think people have had some very good suggestions to make improvements to it.

If this is government supported land, I have no issue with a governmental body having a say in the design. If the government subsides, it should be able to give input. I have no issue with a design review committee that has guidelines that all parties have to adhere to, be it choice of materials, height, whatever, even if they dictate window size for buildings in a region. I have no issue with people's right to be critics. What I don't like is a group of people overruling a development that meets the desgin committee requirements just because some people don't like elements of it. There are a lot of art and buildings that the average person doesn't get, but the artist/architect had a vision that was allowed to be made. I would not want a committee making aesthetic choices over the artist's vision. Many people don't "get" some of the buildings done by Frank Gehry. But I would rather see his vision made, than his vision after a committee got hold of the plans and added their two cents worth.

I applaud this developer in making changes based on outside input (was it from the bloggers or from the design committee?). I see that he did not change the windows as he feels they are important to his vision, so I accept that he had a reason to make them narrow and the owner agreed to that. I actually don't love it, but I apparently have different tastes than they do, and that is absolutely ok.

If this is government supported land, I have no issue with a governmental body having a say in the design. If the government subsides, it should be able to give input. I have no issue with a design review committee that has guidelines that all parties have to adhere to, be it choice of materials, height, whatever, even if they dictate window size for buildings in a region. I have no issue with people's right to be critics. What I don't like is a group of people overruling a development that meets the desgin committee requirements just because some people don't like elements of it. There are a lot of art and buildings that the average person doesn't get, but the artist/architect had a vision that was allowed to be made. I would not want a committee making aesthetic choices over the artist's vision. Many people don't "get" some of the buildings done by Frank Gehry. But I would rather see his vision made, than his vision after a committee got hold of the plans and added their two cents worth.

I applaud this developer in making changes based on outside input (was it from the bloggers or from the design committee?). I see that he did not change the windows as he feels they are important to his vision, so I accept that he had a reason to make them narrow and the owner agreed to that. I actually don't love it, but I apparently have different tastes than they do, and that is absolutely ok.

I think we're all probably on the same page, then. :)

If the developer wants to build a 200 foot high concrete slab with no windows, and paint it purple, should the public have no say? We can't even complain about it now?

The only reason people want to be downtown at all is because other businesses have contributed to the public realm. By building something downtown you are able to take advantage of the good design decisions made by everyone else in the area. If you are going to build downtown you have a responsibility to make the area better, or at least to not screw it up.

Personally I like this design a lot, but I think people have had some very good suggestions to make improvements to it.

Great post, hoyasooner.

I don't think we are too far apart. A big improvement in the process could be made by having a diverse group on the design committee so that urbanist, young, experienced, artist, business people all having a say in the design review. I'm all for a committee that has educated voices with a point of view implementing the guidelines. But I have worked with designers and architects in the past where I question their choices, but after learning of the reason behind the choice, I "get" it and see the vision. When I first saw the building I thought the windows were brutal, but I may not understand the purpose or appreciate the vision, so I defer to the architect until I know otherwise. BTW, the design for the Eiffel Tower was strongly panned in the press and by artists of the day, "a half-built factory pipe, a carcass waiting to be fleshed out with freestone or brick, a funnel-shaped grill, a hole-riddled suppository" (Joris-Karl Huysmans).

This is what happens when architects try to be artist.
Uh...you know that architecture is considered one of the fine arts don't you?

I share your concerns about how buildings relate to the public realm, and agree that too often the more "iconic" a structure is the more disconnected it is from its neighborhood. But I think Rand did a fine job of responding positively to good comments by the consultant, which is not always the first response of a prominent architect.

Regarding the windows, I think there might be more at work here. Number one, there might be some thought to avoiding morning/afternoon light and heat blasting inside, and in doing so through window size and orientation rather than blinds, which often stay closed during times when they should be open. The other thing to note is that they are floor to ceiling, and wide enough so that if a person stands in front of them they will get a sweeping panorama. It's possible (I say POSSIBLE...I don't have any insight here) that the design is focused on keeping people productive and happy at their desks, with plenty of light, without being distracted by too much time gazing out the window. And yet they have the OPTION at any time to go stand in front of a window and see the outside world, the great views, or even step out onto a balcony/rooftop and enjoy the outside and a totally unobstructed view.

Part of the nature of some architecture is to direct the behavior of the inhabitants. The windows could be a philosophical thing, desired by the client.

^Like

Rand did the very professional thing. He designed for his client's needs, added as much creativity as was allowed with all constraints, considered professional viewpoints which were aimed at making the project better, and made changes. The idea that anything was forced on him is silly. The idea that we can convene a committee to force changes that do not deal with legal restrictions is also silly. Unless some design offends the public sensibilities, the censoring of architectural design, no matter how well intentioned, is just a bad idea. The result of design by committee is usually the least common denominator...the design that everyone can agree on. That usually eliminates daring or different. And it still doesn't eliminate controversy. Who chooses the committee and what is the basis for their choices? Everyone thinks they know what everyone else (should) likes but few actually know what good design actually is...they just like what they like. Just not "liking" a building aesthetics isn't reason enough for forcing a change. There has to be other public interest needs.

If this is government supported land, I have no issue with a governmental body having a say in the design. If the government subsides, it should be able to give input. I have no issue with a design review committee that has guidelines that all parties have to adhere to, be it choice of materials, height, whatever, even if they dictate window size for buildings in a region. I have no issue with people's right to be critics. What I don't like is a group of people overruling a development that meets the desgin committee requirements just because some people don't like elements of it. There are a lot of art and buildings that the average person doesn't get, but the artist/architect had a vision that was allowed to be made. I would not want a committee making aesthetic choices over the artist's vision. Many people don't "get" some of the buildings done by Frank Gehry. But I would rather see his vision made, than his vision after a committee got hold of the plans and added their two cents worth.

I applaud this developer in making changes based on outside input (was it from the bloggers or from the design committee?). I see that he did not change the windows as he feels they are important to his vision, so I accept that he had a reason to make them narrow and the owner agreed to that. I actually don't love it, but I apparently have different tastes than they do, and that is absolutely ok.

Define government supported...

The entire downtown area IMHO is a government supported entity, and the land values of the entire core come wi investment-backed expectations that the city must protect. Taking a less involved role is highly irresponsible.

Are they receiving TIF money, urban renewal grants, low interest loans secured by the government, tax abatement, did they get the property for less than fair market value from a governmental body?

For instance, as I understand it, The Clayco development wants TIF money and may get access to the land at below market value. I would say the government has the right to ensure their design meets the city's objectives above and beyond the minimum design review committee approval, including for instance, asking that the design be changed to have larger windows on the top floor, etc.

However, I understand Preftakes is not asking for TIF and purchased the land at market rates. I would say the city should apply design committee guidelines but should not expect to approve or disapprove aesthetic tastes of the architect/owner unless they are willing to pay for those "improvements". BTW, I don't consider the number of parking garages to be out of the purview of the goverment, but if they have a city guideline that says the building needs to have windows, I wouldn't expect them to be able to dictate the dimensons of those windows. They can certainly suggest improvements that have a rational basis for the betterment of the public, but I don't want a governmental agency to have absolute control over private plans when the only issue is their tastes over those of the private owners).

Are there any studies on whether windows cut into productivity? I've always felt that windows helped me focus by providing a better aesthetic experience and a changing environment. Just curious...

Its pretty. But a bad design for people. Oh well. I bet the tenants will love it. Plus when Rand makes everything white on the inside, it will reflect light well.

Our company recently updated the floors in many of our sites (at least the 10 bigger sites with over 2000 people in them) and moved all offices off the outside walls. All windows are either in hallways or in conference rooms. Offices on the end can have glass walls that look out over the hall to the window, but no one has windows in the office, including the executives.

Urbanized - given your explination for the windows, how does any work get done in Devon Tower and what do they do with all the baked skeletons?

I worked in an all glass office building. Most people sit in cubicles that are well above eye level. You have to actually get up to look outside. And all of our offices were either on the north or south front of the building so no direct sun in your face. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that was done on purpose.

Urbanized - given your explination for the windows, how does any work get done in Devon Tower and what do they do with all the baked skeletons?

Haha funny post of the day. But please note that is not my explanation; it is only speculation. Many buildings/companies take many different approaches to dealing with controlling the building's climate. In the late nineteenth and early 20th century they used air chases, double-hung windows and canopies or awnings to battle the heat of the sun. In the mid-twentieth century they abandoned those approaches and just tried to overpower the outside climate by making the building airtight and throwing tons of HVAC at it. In the last half of the twentieth century they started moving more toward insulated glass, heavy window tinting and blinds. I think Devon mostly utilizes this approach, though I don't think blinds are a major part of their approach. Nowadays, many buildings are reverting a bit to some of the passive approaches from history, including overhangs, positioning windows so that light is indirect, etc.. I really don't know if that is what is it work here. I'm just suggesting that it could be.

Different companies have different approaches to management of employees. During the twentieth century many schools started placing windows high on the walls, or reducing their size, or facing them to interior courtyards to limit distractions for school kids. I suppose an employer might consider taking the same approach, especially considering how these days constant electronic distraction already puts them behind the productivity eight-ball. I suppose (but don't know) that by removing windows from the equation a company might be able to eliminate other distraction-reducers, such as the cubicles that Mike_M mentioned. I'd say some people might consider TRULY open workspace even at the cost of a window view might be a good trade-off.

In both instances, I'm just saying that there are different philosophies, and more than one way to skin a cat. But again, the whole thing is only speculation on my part.

I totally get the idea of designing the built environment to be functional in the physical environment (that is the root of vernacular architecture) , but since this building doesn't have a tennant I can only assume it looks the way it does because the architect wants it that way.

As for an earlier comment about light requirements, I am not sure what US laws are but in Europe they have a lot of design criteria gear towards the health of the employee. For example, people have to be so many meters from a window and a specific amount of natural light has to enter the building. This has resulted in buildings with much smaller floor plates and more windows.

I totally get the idea of designing the built environment to be functional in the physical environment (that is the root of vernacular architecture) , but since this building doesn't have a tennant I can only assume it looks the way it does because the architect wants it that way.

As for an earlier comment about light requirements, I am not sure what US laws are but in Europe they have a lot of design criteria gear towards the health of the employee. For example, people have to be so many meters from a window and a specific amount of natural light has to enter the building. This has resulted in buildings with much smaller floor plates and more windows.

Yes. The speculation of why there are few windows are pretty dumb because at this point, it is the way it is because Rand wants it to look that way. I cant believe that its because of the sun light (windows are very efficient these days) or that more windows might have employees constantly gazing out the window and ignoring work (is that really a concern?). IMO, Rand is more of a form over function guy (ie, Classen Curve).