Having another tower that close to our current tallest tower would be very awkward, IMO.

Until the rest of the skyline starts filling up, putting a bunch of tall modern buildings side-by-side is not my cup of tea.

I wouldn't expect devon to build anything even close to the size of their current tower. I'd compare it to what Sandridge is doing with the new tower they are going to build which will be about half as tall as the current main building.

I'm just saying that the lawn is big enough to get a new tower (of any height) on. Devon might have lots of reason not to build one there, but none of those reason have anything to do with "can't".

I heard they actually let a lot of people go in Houston. Not sure what to believe at this point.

Here's what to believe:

Of the 600 Devon jobs in Houston, about 100 will be relocated to OKC. Many more were offered the opportunity to move but declined.

Another 200 will be hired in OKC to cover these responsibilities.

Absolutely ZERO chance Devon is going to build on their existing lawn. The whole complex was designed around keeping that space open. The garden wing in particular relies on natural light from the south and has light wells that go from top to bottom. The auditorium has a glass wall that specifically looks out upon the lawn area. I could go on and on.

They also own almost a full block immediately west.

I agree, I think the lawn would be the perfect place. It just seems very calculated, even to the point that the atrium's SW corner is somewhat jolting out that appears to be for a connection to something else. I just walked by the Devon Center and there is plenty of space on the lawn for another tower without creating a cramped environment and without it creating an awkward skyline. This just seems way more logical than having employees walk across the street to another tower when there is plenty of space available right next to everything else a part of the Devon Center.

They've got the green square they could build on, or the light blue square. Either one could easily fit a tower. They're not going to cram it into their lawn when they own both these spaces.

They've got the green square they could build on, or the light blue square. Either one could easily fit a tower. They're not going to cram it into their lawn when they own both these spaces.I'd agree this may be the solution. No need to walk across the street when you can walk over it...or under it.

They already have skybridges connecting the Garden Wing to the auditorium and the rotunda to the City Center Garage and then Oklahoma Tower.

You can bet they are going to build west of Hudson and have another skybridge into the Garden Wing and/or parking garage.

Nichols has stressed them importance of inter-connecting all their buildings and making sure they were all part of the Underground / Skybridge system.

They've got the green square they could build on, or the light blue square. Either one could easily fit a tower. They're not going to cram it into their lawn when they own both these spaces.

I think we all agree on that. However, a very small minority of us think they should. There is a big difference between what they want to do, can do, will do, and should do.

And of course, LN wants skybridges. He is in love with Le Corbusier. You can see it in everything he touches. Sadly, Le Corbusier destroyed more cities than godzilla.

I'm sorry, but the idea of Devon putting their next skyscraper on the lawn out in front of their current tower just seems horrible to me. Why in the hell would they do that? That's a very nice green space.

I'm sorry, but the idea of Devon putting their next skyscraper on the lawn out in front of their current tower just seems horrible to me. Why in the hell would they do that? That's a very nice green space.

Do you want a serious answer or will "for the same reason Sandridge is planning to put their new tower 20 feet from their current one" suffice?

Do you want a serious answer or will "for the same reason Sandridge is planning to put their new tower 20 feet from their current one" suffice?

I'll take a serious answer, if you have one. It would look terrible.

Devon's lawn is a world-class public space and an extension of the Myriad Gardens, not a vacant lot. JTF doesn't understand that there's room for urban design 101 rules to be broken even in the highest quality urban design.

Devon should build on their current open space because it will promote urban density, push their development out to the sidewalk like City code requires, preserve other available space for additional development, keep their employees closer together, push their current open space users over in to MBG so a future food operator (if they can ever find one) will have a customer base, define a positive space within their complex ... and those are just off the top of my head. As far as ugly, that would be up to Devon but I don't think most people find the Colcord ugly even though it is the same distance away from the main tower as the grass is. In fact, I think a lot people like the old and new so close.

Don't get me wrong though, I know Devon isn't going to do it.

The Devon lawn is mid-block. It's a good place for a green space. Le Corbusier would have inverted the green space and the auditorium, so as to retreat from the intersection. Instead Devon wanted to frame Sheridan & Hudson and does so nicely. The edge along Sheridan is also nicely reinforced. It creates a very beneficial definition of space.

It's not that the rules of urbanism were meant to be broken, it's just that they're much more nuanced than people realize.

The skybridge on the other hand is something I'm inclined to be against, but there are just some things that you concede. Are you going to hope to get Devon to work with you on preserving Hudson's viewshed, or actual buildings that have aged elegantly and should be preserved? You can only do so much and make so many demands, especially when whatever Devon does is still a huge win for OKC.

A skybridge is going to be very complicated however. It will involve some negotiations for the air rights over the city's ROW, or at least it should. That gives the city leverage to request Devon to preserve some stuff on the Preftakes block.

Devon's lawn is a world-class public space and an extension of the Myriad Gardens, not a vacant lot. JTF doesn't understand that there's room for urban design 101 rules to be broken even in the highest quality urban design.

I often - heck, usually - agree with JTF on urban design and the reasons new urbanism are good ideas, but not on this one. Once you walk the streets around the Devon complex, it makes sense. The lawn is an integral part of the streetscape and the Devon building and it connects the Myriad and the office tower very well. I would like to see more streetwalls in our CBD too, but this complex has been designed and constructed at such a high level, it works very well.

New urbanism provides very good guidelines for urban design and is a well thought out group of principles, but it is not an inviolable rule.

Well, no point in really dwelling on it. I understand mine isn't a popular position. I look at activism like a coal mine. Anyone can shovel coal out of the mine, but someone has to be down at the mine face drilling holes and putting the dynamite in. Rock has a lot of resistance so it is dangerous work. And of course, there are people who turn on their lights and don’t even know why it works.

If they build a new tower, will it be a duplicate of their existing one or will they have a completely different design?

If they build a new tower, will it be a duplicate of their existing one or will they have a completely different design?

I have no clue, but I would think that they would use the same architectural firm (Pickard-Chilton) so they would at least have the same look, as in glass and steel finish. But I'd be surprised if they were identical in design.

So will their new tower be taller than the one they have now? Or will they go for a twin towers look?

So will their new tower be taller than the one they have now? Or will they go for a twin towers look?

Everyone is guessing 30 - 40 floors, where as their HQ is 50 floors.

I think anyone guessing 30-40 should not be disappointed to see around 20-25. I'm not so sure we'll see them do another massive skyscraper.

I did have a thought though... I wonder if we could possibly do a second tower TIF to finish the rest of P180...

I think anyone guessing 30-40 should not be disappointed to see around 20-25. I'm not so sure we'll see them do another massive skyscraper.

I did have a thought though... I wonder if we could possibly do a second tower TIF to finish the rest of P180...

I think they should use part of that to clean up the city building on Main Street so it looks better.

The City really may want to look at selling their property to Preftakes in exchange for assurances that it and others will be preserved and build a new city office building.

I feel as though the 420 building could use another renovation NOW in order to be viable for another 100 years that it won't get under the city's ownership.

I did have a thought though... I wonder if we could possibly do a second tower TIF to finish the rest of P180...

I think that's a very real possibility and wouldn't be surprised if Continental does something similar.

The height of next tower needs to be between the Chase and Devon IMO to balance out the skyline. Devon looks out of place with it being so massive and makes the others look small. We need several in the 40 story range to make the city skyline look right IMO.

I agree, I think the lawn would be the perfect place. It just seems very calculated, even to the point that the atrium's SW corner is somewhat jolting out that appears to be for a connection to something else. I just walked by the Devon Center and there is plenty of space on the lawn for another tower without creating a cramped environment and without it creating an awkward skyline. This just seems way more logical than having employees walk across the street to another tower when there is plenty of space available right next to everything else a part of the Devon Center.

Maybe medical marijuana needs to be approved in OK so you can go get a toke lol. They're not going to build in the lawn space. It was designed that way for a purpose.

One thing to keep in mind is that new buildings are taller now because of increased floor heights, so even a 25 story building may end up being almost as tall as Chase Tower (36 floors) and a 30-story one would almost certainly exceed it in height.

2 or 3 in the 30 to 40 floor range would slot right in between Chase and Devon.

Sid, I'm sure no one actually paying for these buildings will care about balancing the skyline, but remember that Pickard Chilton took cues from First National and also considered the surrounding building stock for their design of Devon Tower.

Although it's not a prime consideration, companies and developers do care about how their building is going to fit into the surroundings and/or how it can be distinctive without being completely out of place.

Yes, I agree with that!

And also, I think we sometimes care too much about how something looks from a distance, where how the buildings actually interact with the street and people are factors often overlooked.

That's why something like the Braniff Building is so exciting... That building is fantastic from street level.

I think anyone guessing 30-40 should not be disappointed to see around 20-25. I'm not so sure we'll see them do another massive skyscraper.

I did have a thought though... I wonder if we could possibly do a second tower TIF to finish the rest of P180...

Maybe they should use the TIF to pay for the convention center Larry Nichols obviously wants.

I love the speculation but I certainly hope that no one picks the size of their tower based on how to balance our skyline. I'm more interested in seeing sound, business decisions that will drive them to build towers that will stay full.

I know that is what everyone wants but I guess I've always found the "balance the skyline" discussions purely aesthetic and shouldn't have any bearing on actual building height. Or am I missing something?

Buzzkill.

Can someone link me to the producers coop thread I'm having a hard time locating it

Maybe they should use the TIF to pay for the convention center Larry Nichols obviously wants.

Don't give them any ideas because they might actually try to do that one.

Don't give them any ideas because they might actually try to do that one.

Better than using all of MAPS3 money.

I'm just worried that we might get another big company to move here, hire lots of people, build expensive buildings and then actually exert influence with their activist executives who might want to bring some business accumen to the city and to get involved. Imagine the horror if we got another Larry Nichols to contend with.

OKC isn't big enough for two Larry's. There aren't enough fawners to go around.

OKC isn't big enough for two Larry's. There aren't enough fawners to go around.

I really fail to understand the bitterness towards LN. If it weren't for him and his company, downtown would not be anywhere near what we see today. Continental would be in Houston and a lot of civic pride would not exist. Just because he is on the convention center committee is not enough to outweigh every other positive thing he has done for this city.

I really fail to understand the bitterness towards LN. If it weren't for him and his company, downtown would not be anywhere near what we see today. Continental would be in Houston and a lot of civic pride would not exist. Just because he is on the convention center committee is not enough to outweigh every other positive thing he has done for this city.

I don't have any issue with Larry (although I don't like it when a person has political power/influence because he is rich). My biggest issue is with the fawners and apologist. Anyhow, once again I realize I am in the minority and that is okay with me.

7-Op7Jcg1dU

I don't have any issue with Larry (although I don't like it when a person has political power/influence because he is rich). My biggest issue is with the fawners and apologist. Anyhow, once again I realize I am in the minority and that is okay with me.



After seeing the positives LN has done for our city, I guess i'm a fawner then......He could very easily not care and we'd have more of a ghost town to praise.

[QUOTE=Just the facts;599503]I don't have any issue with Larry (although I don't like it when a person has political power/influence because he is rich). My biggest issue is with the fawners and apologist. Anyhow, once again I realize I am in the minority and that is okay with me.

7-Op7Jcg1dU[/QUO The facts are that Larry is a winner and most of the Chamber of Commerce are winners because they risked their money to start their companys and became successful in doing so. They didn't sit at a keyboard posting their complaints on an OKC message board. To simplify it, I say the first group referenced are winners and the second group are losers. I would love to see some posters clamoring for retail downtown put their money up to invest in what they want to see in downtown and the success they would achieve. The credibility of the winners is hardly a bad choice to get behind most of the time.

No, there was a time when things were built for the benefit of the public realm as well as the property owner. Then companies start selling public stock and acquired a bunch of shareholders who would rather have 25 extra cents in their pocket than a .... ah, never mind.

No, there was a time when things were built for the benefit of the public realm as well as the property owner.

And when was this time? had to have been before Medieval Europe, correction... had to have been before the expansion of Rome... This entire continent was built so that the rich of Europe could get more rich...

have there been particular times in a particular place in which what you say took place did? yes. but this was never the norm, it was the exception. and that exception can occur again, if the right people with the right vision are allowed to be heard

Did I say otherwise?

Sorry, I went back and read your post again and it had a different meaning the second time around :)

Does LN do great things for OKC? Yes he does. Probably 95% of the time I agree with or like the things he does. But when that other 5% comes up I don't weigh that againt the 95%, I look at it with regard to the subject at hand. My wife and I don't agree on everything but when the differences come up I blow it off and chalk it up to the 'better or worse' clause. But I'm not married to LN so when we disagree on something he doesn't get a pass from me (not that he cares). I have my own agenda. When LN helps with that agenda great, we he doesn't, that is great also but I'm not going to defer everything to him.

And when was this time? had to have been before Medieval Europe, correction... had to have been before the expansion of Rome... This entire continent was built so that the rich of Europe could get more rich...

have there been particular times in a particular place in which what you say took place did? yes. but this was never the norm, it was the exception. and that exception can occur again, if the right people with the right vision are allowed to be heard

I would say for the most part that era ended in 1949. Look at the old Penn Station as an example. It wasn't built with profit and loss in mind. It was built as a monument to the railroad owners, the people it served, and the people who worked for the railroad.

The new Penn Station was built soley for profit and loss considerations.

'm a longtime lurker, this is not my normal account because I don't want to get anyone in trouble.

To fuel the wild speculation, someone close to me that works at continental resources was told by someone who would know, that seemed excited, that they would be building a new building because they do not have enough room in the current one for their growth goals for 2015. They said "you'll hear more about it soon trust me" and that that was all they could say. No mention of location/size/etc or when "soon" would be.

I can't go into details, but I will say that it is my opinion that it is highly likely that the source is both reliable and in the know, and unless something changes clr will announce something relatively soon.

I would say for the most part that era ended in 1949. Look at the old Penn Station as an example. It wasn't built with profit and loss in mind. It was built as a monument to the railroad owners, the people it served, and the people who worked for the railroad.

The new Penn Station was built soley for profit and loss considerations.

A lot of the grand architecture you love was built when construction costs were very low. You had a lot of poor people working for little money to build those large impressive buildings. I love all that old stuff, but when costs went up you stopped seeing it.

I truely believe that OKC is Darn lunck to Have Larry Nichols here. He had done a lot for this city and continues to do so. after all he could have built his tower in another cith and received tax incentives for doing so. I especiallly like (and use) the improvements at the Myriad Gardens. I personally wish we had more like him.

I truely believe that OKC is Darn lunck to Have Larry Nichols here. He had done a lot for this city and continues to do so. after all he could have built his tower in another cith and received tax incentives for doing so. I especiallly like (and use) the improvements at the Myriad Gardens. I personally wish we had more like him.

Yes,OKC would welcome many Larry Nichols types.

I believe that Harold Hamm is much richer than LN. Lets hope he has some of the same visions for OKC as LN does. OKC will be much better off if he does.

I don't have any issue with Larry (although I don't like it when a person has political power/influence because he is rich). My biggest issue is with the fawners and apologist. Anyhow, once again I realize I am in the minority and that is okay with me.



Maybe he and the others you resent actually got rich BECAUSE they learned to succeed and to get productivity out of those around them, EARNING them power and influence. You happen to think that respecting someone and not being jealous of their success is fawning. Tells us more about you than him. Don't understand the resentment.

No, there was a time when things were built for the benefit of the public realm as well as the property owner. Then companies start selling public stock and acquired a bunch of shareholders who would rather have 25 extra cents in their pocket than a .... ah, never mind.

You aren't naive enough to think that profit wasn't always the motive, are you? You seem smarter than that.

Just curious...do you work for a non-profit company? Would you go to your boss and propose building a billion dollar building just for the benefit of the public? Let me know their reaction when you do.

No, there was a time when things were built for the benefit of the public realm as well as the property owner. Then companies start selling public stock and acquired a bunch of shareholders who would rather have 25 extra cents in their pocket than a .... ah, never mind.

And 40 years later was hemorrhaging money and is no longer there. Grand edifices in the corporate domain are not sustainable. And the public has no stomach for them. Heck, we can't approve of a measly $250 million convention center that is modest.

I believe that Harold Hamm is much richer than LN. Lets hope he has some of the same visions for OKC as LN does. OKC will be much better off if he does.

This is my thought. I really hope this is the case.

Maybe they should use the TIF to pay for the convention center Larry Nichols obviously wants.

Already got "Project280" :/

@Rover - I'm done talking about it.

@Rover - I'm done talking about it.

Good.

I still have the SketchUp model of downtown OKC I did a while ago with the conceptual, new towers. Shall I do an update? For example, a tower at the Stage Center site? Where else?

I still have the SketchUp model of downtown OKC I did a while ago with the conceptual, new towers. Shall I do an update? For example, a tower at the Stage Center site? Where else?

Stage Center, Preftakes, 4th/EKG (even though that site has recently been cooled off by some reports, it's still possible something could happen there).

I still have the SketchUp model of downtown OKC I did a while ago with the conceptual, new towers. Shall I do an update? For example, a tower at the Stage Center site? Where else?

Can you throw about a 250 footer on the Sandridge lawn just to see what it looks like?