development
|category1=
|category2=
|category3=
|category4=
|
|project=
|address=
|status=
|owner=
|cost=
|architect=
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height=
|sq. feet=
|acerage=
|other=
|
|image=http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/rivertowers1.jpg
|


Description
Enter description here.
Latest News
Enter latest news here.
Milestones







Links
Gallery

Just thought I would start a thread for this project, seen it many times in C2S documents and animations, also they have their own Emporis page, hopefully this project will come to fruition.

I have always wondered about these, I've seen them in a lot of drawings and I also would like to see these come to fruition. I wonder if they made the drawings expecting somebody to step up and build them.

This would be awesome, but I figure that north of I-40 is where we will see housing development in Core to Shore within our lifetimes.

They are slated to be in phase II of the C2S plan, therefore I say we could see construction start by 2020. I would suspect OCURA to gain ownership of the parcels of land for this project, and then accept proposals for potential development, like they did for the old Mercy site. So they can control what is developed at that site, hopefully sooner than later. Emporis has them listed as 20 stories each.

http://www.emporis.com/complex/river-towers-oklahoma-city-ok-usa

Wasn't that the same site that quickly came up with an advertisement for a mixed-use development on the old Ford dealer site before it was chosen for the convention center? I guess if nothing else at least they're on top of potential development and give the project publicity.

Let's hope there isn't that much open space. I would prefer that they be moved right to the waters edge instead of a big parking lot between them and the water. Why does everything new have to resemble a national park?

Normally I'd agree with you but I like it better with the distance between the buildings and the water. IMO it would probably feel a little too crammed together if they put it right on the water unless they managed to do it perfectly. And I don't think that's a parking lot, it looks more like a plaza to me, not that it really matters.

And for the record, these are more of fantasy drawings that they made with certain things in mind, it won't necessarily look like that when it's complete.

I think it's entirely too premature to expect them in 2020. Also quite premature to let them have an Emporis page. That's the problem with general renderings, people begin to expect the exact rendering to come true. It's a rendering of possibilities, not actualities.

And for the record, these are more of fantasy drawings that they made with certain things in mind, it won't necessarily look like that when it's complete.

I understand that, but why is the fantasy always some crappy design that makes everything so far apart that people can't enjoy the very things they want to live there for? How many people do you think would honestly walk over from one of these towers to walk along the river? Some might do it as part of their excercise routine or walking their dog but that would be about it. Don't believe me, how many times do you take a random walk down your street now? The answer is probably zero. However, if the building was right along the river people couldn't help but experience the reason they moved to the area because they live right on top of it.

I understand that, but why is the fantasy always some crappy design that makes everything so far apart that people can't enjoy the very things they want to live there for? How many people do you think would honestly walk over from one of these towers to walk along the river? Some might do it as part of their excercise routine or walking their dog but that would be about it. Don't believe me, how many times do you take a random walk down your street now? The answer is zero.

I like how you automatically assume that I don't walk down my street just because your trying to prove a point the way you see fit. I actually walk down my street about 5 times a week just so I can walk and get some fresh air. I live in a house in NW Oklahoma City close to Piedmont so there are no rivers, parks, basketball courts or anything to walk to, just down the street. I'm on the southside on weekends so I walk around even more there since there are actual places to go to. I get your point though, I just don't see the big problem that you're making it out to be. I mean honestly the problem you have is a difference of about 150-ft, surely people aren't that lazy, if they are then they wouldn't be walking along the river anyways. You seem to have a better grasp on urbanity than I do anyways though so your opinion is probably better based than mine and probably more correct than mine.

Emporis listing this project is utterly confusing. Obviously they're great experts when it comes to OKC development.

I doubt this is a "project", but rather a projection of what can be. Has ANYBODY here heard of any plans, business or architectural, or any effort to gain financing for such a project? If the only thing we have to go by is that drawing then it is yet an illusion.

The drawing is an illusion. My only problem is why is the illusion always 'suburban' in style. It is like it is the default setting or something. Why can't they 'dream' using an urban scene?

How about this instead.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/NeonRiverFront.jpg

I like that A LOT better because there's more than just 2 narrow towers, it makes it look more "urban" than "suburban."

I feel I should clear the air with this, I don't like the illusion drawing they did either, it's freakin' ugly, but it looks better than the in-my-mind drawing of it being on the water front with nothing around but trees, grass, and water. I'm sure that if they do do anything it will look light-years better than the drawings we go off now.

The drawing is an illusion. My only problem is why is the illusion always 'suburban' in style. It is like it is the default setting or something. Why can't they 'dream' using an urban scene?

How about this instead.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/NeonRiverFront.jpg

Kerry, that picture has a street between the buildings and the river. Surely you don't like an impediment to walking like that. They need to be directly next to the river with no separation. LOL

Development like JTF posted,would even make Spartan happy!Just kiddin' Nick.LOL

Kerry, that picture has a street between the buildings and the river. Surely you don't like an impediment to walking like that. They need to be directly next to the river with no separation. LOL

So long as it is a narrow street with on-street parking I am good with it. Where a lot of cities make mistakes is by putting 4 and 6 lane expressways with 55 mph traffic along their waterfront. The narrow street also provide access to retail/restaurants on the first floor fronting the river which allows sidewalk dining with views of the river. This part of the river needs to be urbanized.

anyone with an emporis acct can provide what are the 7 plan buildings, 5 unbuilt, 4 under construction?

You guys read too much into renderings without using a filter. You have to understand what are real projects and what is fantasy.

C2S is an entire fake drawing. There's absolutley no reason to expect anything you've seen in a rendering, be built. Why is that? Because the land will be open to private development and the only thin the city can control is the buildings the city builds itself. It's really just a massive bulldozer (sound familiar?) and an "opportunity" for private development to move in and HOPEFULLY buildg something. The city can zone things for certain types of things, but that doesn't mean it's going to look anything like what we've seen. All of that means just beacuse we see a drawing of two towers, doesn't mean they will be built...or even a tower at all.

But hey, it's a 50 year project folks. It's going to take decades for the thing to develop. No one is expecting it to happen overnight. It's something being done to help my grandchildren.

bombermwc, shhhhh don't tell the robots.....

I'm not sure who on here was reading into it too much other than G. Walker and Kerry (I don't mean to call you two out) so I'm not sure why you seem so upset metro, I know you're usually really fast to correct someone or shoot down someone's opinion that is off base but you seem more upset than anything else and I don't normally see that from you. Atleast that's what I'm getting out of your comments, maybe I'm wrong and you're just mocking us in your dry sense of humor manor (that's not an insult, it's a compliment). LOL

Anyways, I for one never look into drawings too much, especially when they've been proven fantasy and like I stated already, it would be nice to see these become more than fantasy one day but also as bombermwc mentioned this is a 50 year project so anything can come out of this. All I know is this is an exciting project that I will get to see form over mine, my children, and my grandchildrens lifetime so just because 2 fantasy towers aren't built doesn't make this a less quality project and I hope others understand that as well, this is a project that will improve the image of Oklahoma City and I'm sure all can agree on that wether they're in favor of C2S or not.

For the record, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between reality and renderings. My complaint is that in OKC the renderings are ALWAYS of a suburban design (buildings surrounded by a sea of open space) regardless of their location within the city. For once I would like to see an urban landscape depicted in the fantasy version.

I understand that, but why is the fantasy always some crappy design that makes everything so far apart that people can't enjoy the very things they want to live there for? How many people do you think would honestly walk over from one of these towers to walk along the river? Some might do it as part of their excercise routine or walking their dog but that would be about it. Don't believe me, how many times do you take a random walk down your street now? The answer is probably zero. However, if the building was right along the river people couldn't help but experience the reason they moved to the area because they live right on top of it.

The odds of me walking down the street are directly proportional to the number of interesting things located down the street.

Very true, and unfortunately Just the Facts, you live in a suburban city. OKC is about as urban as Enid. The number of folks we have in comparison to the square mileage of the city predisposes the city to be non-urban. There's too much open land to make it happen because there really isn't a NEED to go up rather than out. You have to have that NEED before it happens, and we just don't have it. There's still enough open/cheap to buy land even in the CBD and with C2S, honestly that is only going to increase. You'll now have what 10 square miles of open land ready to doze and nothing yet planned to shove on it. That much greenspace in a downtown area makes for a suburban plan.

To go further on that, if we really wanted to make this plan urban, we would have halfed the project to reduct the footprint to encourage the vertical rise. How many folks are going to be walking these streets? We continually hear the mayor talk about retail on the blvd....when was the last time you saw someone walk down a 4 land road to go shopping? The other concept of the lifestyle center is the best hope for reatil downtown because a mall isn't going to make it either. But it's the chicken and the egg to some extent. You need people to LIVE downtown (and not just upscale) before you can convince commercial business to move in to provide services/resources to the residents. But people don't want to move downtown without those services/resources. I , for one, say move in now and wait for it. I live at 240/Sooner and have to drive to everything. It's 15 minutes to a grocery store/restaurants/etc in any direction...more than what it would be for someone downtown.

Urbanism has nothing to do with population, building height, or geographic size. It is all about density. Healdton is more urban than most of the area around downtown OKC.

Development like JTF posted,would even make Spartan happy!Just kiddin' Nick.LOL

Ha, no kidding.

Ha, no kidding.

No it wouldn't, he'd still find fault somewhere, wrong color of light poles, font on street signs to bold, trash container to tall, parking in the back not far enough back, etc; etc;

No it wouldn't, he'd still find fault somewhere, wrong color of light poles, font on street signs to bold, trash container to tall, parking in the back not far enough back, etc; etc;

Tool.

Tool.

Correction, "a tool that's speaks the truth".

JTF - Urbanism also has to have a reason to start up. It doesn't happen in the middle of no where for a reason. And population and land availability DO have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Think about it - you dont' have an urban environment out in a rural town, now do you? Just as I mentioned, as long as land is plentiful and cheap, there's no reason to go UP. Why do you think we have so much of a commercial presense on Memorial Rd or NW Expressway? Look at somewhere like NYC or Tokyo. Land is at a huge premium, so where it makes sense, they go up. In NYC you'll see lowrises in the middle because of bedrock issues. And if you don't think land/population have something to do with it, then go back about 150 years and look at NYC....when there were farms on the land and the highrise hadn't been invented yet.

But anyway, back on topic about C2S....

JTF - Urbanism also has to have a reason to start up. It doesn't happen in the middle of no where for a reason. And population and land availability DO have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Think about it - you dont' have an urban environment out in a rural town, now do you?

Small towns are the most urban. You can walk everywhere you need to go. I lived in Healdton for two years and I could walk to everything.

Lol. I grew up on a farm. We could walk from the house to the barn, to the chicken house and all the way to the creek. Guess it was more urban than I thought.

Small towns are the most urban. You can walk everywhere you need to go. I lived in Healdton for two years and I could walk to everything.
Seriously? A town of 2500 with literally 88%
poor white only and single family houses. No diversity. No density. No development. And this is more urban development?

Healdton is the same size and population of my subdivision but they also have a post office, bank, restaurants, schools, retailers, etc. You tell me which is more urban. My subdivision has none of those things.

Healdton is the same size and population of my subdivision but they also have a post office, bank, restaurants, schools, retailers, etc. You tell me which is more urban. My subdivision has none of those things.

Interesting criteria for defining urban. Guess my neighborhood is uber urban afterall. Good perspective.

Interesting criteria for defining urban. Guess my neighborhood is uber urban afterall. Good perspective.

Other than race and income, how do you define urban?

Read! It isnt race and income. It is diversity. Would have the same comments if it were a wealthy Martian ghetto with yards and fences. You can argue class and race if you have no other view, but it is basic definitian of urban...dense, diverse and properly developedl. Hooterville, OK isn't urban. Sorry.

Perth is 94% white. Is it not urban? Tokyo is 99% Asian. Is it not urban?

So now that we have established diversity does not equal urban, what is left?

You've made the perfect argument. Urban is defined as walkability plus a Walgreens. LOL. Healdton, NYC. No difference. Edmond, Sydney. No difference.

Perth is 94% white. Is it not urban? Tokyo is 99% Asian. Is it not urban?

So now that we have established diversity does not equal urban, what is left?

There is an established expectation for a city in the U.S. or Europe to pull diversity from the entire world. This expectation does not apply to Japan, a country that has virtually zero multicultural policy to speak of.

There is an established expectation for a city in the U.S. or Europe to pull diversity from the entire world. This expectation does not apply to Japan, a country that has virtually zero multicultural policy to speak of.

You missed the point and the point is, diversity does not equal urban. Other than the US and Western Europe - every major city in the world is mono-cultural.

I just think that you're making an exaggerated point. Urban means intrinsic things, not any of these cut-and-dry things you've boiled it down to.

What exactly was/is the conceptual use for the River Towers? Residential, office, etc.?

You missed the point and the point is, diversity does not equal urban. Other than the US and Western Europe - every major city in the world is mono-cultural.

I am sorry. Thought we were discussing Urbanism expectations in the US. Specifically in OKC.

I felt a cold coming on today so I got in the elevator, went down to the first floor, crossed the street to Walgreens, bought some Wal-born and was back at my desk in under 10 minutes. For dinner I walked over to Giovani's on Chestnut and got two slices of pizza and some garlic bread knots. It was a little cold on the way back so I cut through Macy's. While it might not be for everyone - I loved it.

http://www.binghamtonago.org/img/Wanamaker-Macy.jpg

Huh?

Huh?

Kerry is explaining his adventures in the big city so us uncivilized people will know what we're missing.

Kerry is explaining his adventures in the big city so us uncivilized people will know what we're missing.

Well sort of. I was making a quality of life point.

I just think that you're making an exaggerated point. Urban means intrinsic things, not any of these cut-and-dry things you've boiled it down to.

You are confusing me with Rover. He is the one saying Urban is X, Y, and Z. I am saying urban can exist everywhere and takes many forms. It isn't population, diversity, and tall buildings. It exist in small towns, individual neighborhoods, medium cities, and large cities. In fact, the best large cities are actually just a conglomeration of individual neighborhoods.

Lol. Glad I have JTF to let everyone know what I think.

Actually, I have advocated more organic growth of our downtown neighborhoods. Am in our NYC apt now and I see no planned urban development around me and have been walking most of Manhatten.

Lol. Glad I have JTF to let everyone know what I think.

Actually, I have advocated more organic growth of our downtown neighborhoods. Am in our NYC apt now and I see no planned urban development around me and have been walking most of Manhatten.

You told us what you think - I don't have to make it up. As for NYC not being planned, you need to learn the history of NYC because that comment is crazy talk.

You know, scratch what I just wrote. If we both now agree that urbanism is more than population, tall buildings, and diversity then I am good with the debate has accomplished.

Except you still have missed the point. Why don't you start by checking the dictionary on urbanisn first.

ur·ban·ism   /ˈɜrbəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ur-buh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the way of life of people who live in a large city.
2. urbanization.
3. city planning.

Now, if you can define some little rural farm town as a large city, then fine. Otherwise, you're still wrong.

Try looking up New Urbanism.

Http://architecture.about.com/od/communitydesign/g/newurban.htm

The population of Seaside, FL is 2,000 (aka - a small town)

Perfect. It describes your vision of small town OK as being the urban model for OKC. So, under the definition you prefer, you shouldn't have any issues with say Edmond and it's downtown. Or Bethany. Etc.etc. Density, etc doesn't matter. Thanks for clarifying. That said, on the thread topic, I hope the river develops with more density and services than Healdton.

I hope it does too, which brings us full circle back to the renderings that show 80% open space in the area around the towers.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Image3.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Image2.jpg

You just made an arguement for us and against you with that image.

How do you figure? Structures surrounded by open space is suburban and open space surrounded by strucutres is urban. The open space surrounding suburban strucutres is land that must be traversed (aka - negative space). Open space surrounded by buildings is dwelling space (aka - positive space).

That also depends on the college quad, I have been to a couple where the quad was either ill conceived or so far from most of the active parts of the campus they were deserted unless their was scheduled activities that necessitated using the quad.