I'd count Sandridge out given their recent news in other business threads. We'll be lucky if they don't get sold.

Which, by the way, if Sandridge was sold, reolcated, went under, or downsized that could take 2 towers off the market as a possible tower could be scrapped and a company could move into the Sandridge Tower/campus.

41% of Oklahoma County voted for Obama so this county is actually reddish-purple. If every liberal or liberal leaning moderate in Oklahoma County would have voted in 2012, the county maybe could have been turned blue. Oklahoma voter turnout is pretty low since this state is pretty much guaranteed to the Republican candidate.

I'm sure the 2012 presidential election votes in Oklahoma County wouldn't be on the list for 95% of people looking to move to OKC. The idea that everyone in your demographic voted for Obama, or would have had they gone to the polls, is wrong. I know some to the left of Obama that were mad at him about drone hits and kill lists. Your comment here was off base in my opinion.

Let's not turn this political. Take the musings to the political forum, please.

Let's not turn this political. Take the musings to the political forum, please.

I agree completely. I felt his political shot deserved a response because it was wrong thinking relating to city growth.

I'm sure the 2012 presidential election votes in Oklahoma County wouldn't be on the list for 95% of people looking to move to OKC. The idea that everyone in your demographic voted for Obama, or would have had they gone to the polls, is wrong. I know some to the left of Obama that were mad at him about drone hits and kill lists. Your comment here was off base in my opinion.

I was simply stating that fact in response to a poster above who said some people think there isn't a single liberal in the 600k square miles of OKC. The fact is the county is more purple than a lot of people probably think. I agree with you that 95% of people looking to move to OKC aren't going to care what the election results were.

Not to mention why does every place in the nation have to be "liberal" to be "progressive"?

Not to mention why does every place in the nation have to be "liberal" to be "progressive"?

To clarify my original statement...It's not about shifting OKC's politics. I think we have a great balance in terms of who is actually leading the city.

I'm just saying that I think that demographic needs to "advertise" more to potential future residents. There is are plenty of people of the progressive/liberal persuasion in this city, but again, you would think the way many people talk, that the most liberal person in the city is Brad Henry. I get the sense that many people who firmly believe in their progressive/liberal politics feel like they don't belong here, and I think that has more to do with perception than reality.

Not to mention why does every place in the nation have to be "liberal" to be "progressive"?

To clarify my original statement...It's not about shifting OKC's politics. I think we have a great balance in terms of who is actually leading the city.

I'm just saying that I think that demographic needs to "advertise" more to potential future residents. There are plenty of people of the progressive/liberal persuasion in this city, but again, you would think the way many people talk, that the most liberal person in the city is Brad Henry. I get the sense that many people who firmly believe in their progressive/liberal politics feel like they don't belong here, and I think that has more to do with perception than reality.

I think it'd be really cool to wake up one day and not get on okctalk at all because I'm tired of reading about rumors and speculation and walk into work to hear my boss say, "I bet your website you go to has been abuzz today with that new announcement." To hear it from her first would be a breath of fresh air, lol.

This is a thread for speculation too. So, yeeaaaah. I want news on a tower too though. :/

Not to mention why does every place in the nation have to be "liberal" to be "progressive"?

They don't, but major cities often lean liberal because they're more accepting of diversity and change in many forms. Conservatives tend to be wary of change and diversity in general (not everyone). It's social issues that primarily result in urban areas leaning left.

To clarify my original statement...It's not about shifting OKC's politics. I think we have a great balance in terms of who is actually leading the city.

I'm just saying that I think that demographic needs to "advertise" more to potential future residents. There is are plenty of people of the progressive/liberal persuasion in this city, but again, you would think the way many people talk, that the most liberal person in the city is Brad Henry. I get the sense that many people who firmly believe in their progressive/liberal politics feel like they don't belong here, and I think that has more to do with perception than reality.

Completely agree. America, like it or not, is becoming more politically segregated. A lot of people, seemingly moreso on the liberal side of the spectrum but you also see it on the conservative side, place living around politically like-minded people very high on their priority list or at least being around people that will accept their views. This is because politics and culture is becoming more and more merged. Several people mentioned wanting more for the arts and music in OKC, but those things are generally associated with liberal politics. It shouldn't have to be that way, but it is. Simply look at the neighborhoods in this city and what I am talking about speaks for itself. The most diverse, vibrant areas of OKC like midtown, Plaza, 23rd St, Paseo etc are also the most liberal. 122nd and Council on the other hand is very conservative and its culture reflects that.

Man, this thread is really making me want to check out the political forum.....NOOOOOOOOOOT!!!

Wow. I know. Is there anything that can't be made into politics these days? >_<

The discussion really isn't political. People aren't arguing politics (yet...), but discussing demographics. A very pertinent topic in urban and changing communities. Anyway... back on topic.

They don't, but major cities often lean liberal because they're more accepting of diversity and change in many forms. Conservatives tend to be wary of change and diversity in general (not everyone). It's social issues that primarily result in urban areas leaning left.

Major cities lean left because of the 1949 Housing Act and the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act.

Major cities lean left because of the 1949 Housing Act and the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act.

It is not that simple.

It is not that simple.

Yes, it is just that simple. We have allowed ourselves to be sifted and located by income courtesy of the Federal Housing Authority and the interstate and US highway system. After 60 years America has just begun to undo that damage. I am happy to say that it is finally catching on in OKC.

*Sigh* Okay... ......... I think it will be best if we just rely on 4,5 and 9 about any new tower coming here.

I was told my Lego building will not due for the city so I must plan a k'nex tower that will be taller and more modern

Yes, it is just that simple. We have allowed ourselves to be sifted and located by income courtesy of the Federal Housing Authority and the interstate and US highway system. After 60 years America has just begun to undo that damage. I am happy to say that it is finally catching on in OKC.

Nevermind. Everything in our complex world fits within your simplistic explanations for everything. Wisdom does not come from being so sure of yourself.

Sounds good KilgoreTrout. Let's get back to talking about things that don't exist. :)

A friend of mine said he heard they were working on a tower that would be taller than Devon. Not sure how reliable of a source he has but it's interesting.

Just for reference, does your friend have any affiliation with OG&E? Sorry to be such a snoop, but it's relevant IMO.

http://www.levybeffort.com/Websites/gelb/images/Analytics/Forecast2013_Handout_OKC.pdf

Only 'a new...'? Come on Mark!

To add another name to the tower derby, in Steve's chat today someone said that Shell Oil is on the lips of a bunch of people in the commercial construction field.

So is that possibly the rumored HQ that's suppose to be coming in?

To add another name to the tower derby, in Steve's chat today someone said that Shell Oil is on the lips of a bunch of people in the commercial construction field.

That would be shocking, but great.

I have two family members that both work for Shell in Houston, one is an upper level analyist and the other is in the marketing arena. Both of them said Shell will never leave Houston for OKC. Shell occupies over 1.2 million sqft of office space in 2 towers in Houston and have over 6,500 employeed in downtown houston alone. They see no need to build and move employees to the midwest.

They have heard about the Cononco Phiilips rumors and would not be to surprised if they cam e back to Oklahoma.

I have two family members that both work for Shell in Houston, one is an upper level analyist and the other is in the marketing arena. Both of them said Shell will never leave Houston for OKC. Shell occupies multiple buildings in Houston and have thousands employeed there. They see no need to build and move employees to the midwest.

They have heard about the Cononco Phiilips rumors and would not be to surprised if they cam e back to Oklahoma.

1. OKC is not Midwest, it's Great Plains.
2. I too think it's unlikely, but maybe they're putting some sort of division office here if the rumor was true? That seems likely vs. moving HQ here.

Major cities lean left because of the 1949 Housing Act and the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act.

What a one dimensional view of the world and a complete and utter denial of the power of choice.

What a one dimensional view of the world and a complete and utter denial of the power of choice.

Rover, while I definitely tend to take whatever JTF says with a grain of salt, sometimes there's far less ability to choose than you like to proclaim in some of your posts.

What was the polititcal leaning of Detroit (or pick any city) prior to 1950?

List of mayors of Detroit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit)

From 1900 to 1950 Detroit had 15 Republican Mayors and only 6 Democrats. Then white people started moving to the suburbs using the Federal Housing Authority loans and the newley created interstate highways to get back into town for work. By 1961 the transformation was complete. The rest is history.

Rover, while I definitely tend to take whatever JTF says with a grain of salt, sometimes there's far less ability to choose than you like to proclaim in some of your posts.

Just saying that claiming that the evolution of our demographics and urban geography evolved the way it did because it was forced on us by some government road agenda is just a one dimensional look at it. Suburbs actually evolved because of railroads...yes railroads. People CHOSE to prefer to get away from the expensive, crowded urban centers and found they could trade some commute time for what they perceived to be a higher standard of living for less.

Some people romanticize all the facets of urban living. For some, particularly those with money, the urban life can be full of exciting and convenient opportunities. For many others it is much less glamerous. For centuries, those that could afford it had their city residences and their country homes outside the city.

The interstate and other highway systems were as much about moving goods as moving people. The transportation infrastructure is in great part responsible for the great expansionist economy we have enjoyed for decades. It wasn't an evil plot to kill cities or create a suburban hell.

And, if some people think that urbanization eliminates social stratification....well they haven't spent much time in cities. I can guarantee there are lines of social/economic differences in virtually all cities. In a dense urban setting it is divided by certain streets, and in suburbs by developments.

People with free-will will always make choices based on finances, opportunities, personal priorities, etc., and they will take advantage of the assets available to them. If a dense urban area offers the best alternatives for lifestyle, economics, opportunities, etc., people will choose it. But don't blame the roads if they don't.

What was the polititcal leaning of Detroit (or pick any city) prior to 1950?

List of mayors of Detroit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit)

From 1900 to 1950 Detroit had 15 Republican Mayors and only 6 Democrats. Then white people started moving to the suburbs using the Federal Housing Authority loans and the newley created interstate highways to get back into town for work. By 1961 the transformation was complete. The rest is history.

A lot of things have changed since the 1950s, including the Civil Rights Movement. The parties today aren't even that similar to what they were back then. You can't convince me that people's feelings about things like abortion and gay marriage are rooted in the foundation of the interstate highway system.

One of the biggest barriers to bringing in young educated people is the perception of OKC as a backwards place to be. Part of that perception, for some people, is OKC's conservative political slant. San Francisco has a similar problem, perceived as being too left wing for "normal" people. However, I do not believe that the political aspect is going to be a substantial factor for most people when they decide where to move. Obviously Bob the Atheist Pot-Smoking Hippy Who Hates Guns will probably not have OKC high on his list of destination cities. But most people will consider a lot of other, less philosophical factors before they ever get to politics.

So what we need to do is fight against the perception of being backwards. A prospering economy and the success of the Thunder help with that a lot. But the biggest thing that will do that is time. People who have visited OKC in the past and came away with a bad impression aren't going to be swayed by a handful of online top 10 lists. Right now there's a negative perception of this city, which we are slowly moving to be a neutral perception of the city. The biggest positive force for change, however, is a sense of civic pride that has started to develop. Too often, Oklahoma Citians have been poor ambassadors for our city. We have had a negative view of our home, and wasted no opportunities to cut it down. Others see this and it affects their view of this city. Now people are actually becoming proud of our town, and I think that will shine through as well.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled daydreams of tall buildings.

I think it is more unintended consequences that were facilitated by those policies Rover. I doubt many people really thought about the cost of extending infrastructure and the inherent inefficiency in doing so. Nothing evil or subversive going on - except for maybe the automobile manufacturers buying up and killing off urban rail systems, but I wouldn't say that was evil. Misguided is more like it; simply because short term perceived benefits were preferred overlonger term effects. 20/20 hindsight is nice.

Many people today are deciding they would rather get back the time spent commuting instead of some idyllic suburban life. Nothing wrong with either one, but one definitely has higher and different costs associated with it.

The highway system in OKC is overbuilt for the population we have. That enables fast commute times with little or no traffic. I favor maintaining what we have to a high level (and completing projects like the I44/235 interchange) but shifting transportation funds from highway construction to other forms of transportation over a period of several years.

The easy commute is an advantage for us in recruiting new businesses and enticing people to live here, but we should also recognize that most cities that are successful in luring young, educated professionals develop means of transportation other than the automobile and roads.

This is the only thread that I know of that is this long that is dedicated to a project that doesn't exist, wow.

I feel like we are in the Game Of Thrones Universe.... A Tower Is Coming....

1. OKC is not Midwest, it's Great Plains.
2. I too think it's unlikely, but maybe they're putting some sort of division office here if the rumor was true? That seems likely vs. moving HQ here. Actually OKC is the considered in the Upper South, SW. Google clearly spells it out. Also in many circles considered a Southwestern City or maybe "Southern" Plains. Would be great for OKC if they could land a huge HQ, the city needs high incomes to support luxury dept stores and upscale stores.

To add another name to the tower derby, in Steve's chat today someone said that Shell Oil is on the lips of a bunch of people in the commercial construction field.

That would make some sense based on their acquisitions up in Kansas. Shell picked up 1 million + acres in the Kansas Mississippian play and it appears that they making a strong push to get back into the domestic onshore exploration picture. OKC is the closest large city to their new position up there and is located somewhat in middle of many large domestic oil plays. Having said that I think it would more likely be an onshore regional office than their whole North American HQ, but who knows. It would be a significant developement either way.

Actually OKC is the considered in the Upper South, SW. Google clearly spells it out. Also in many circles considered a Southwestern City or maybe "Southern" Plains. Would be great for OKC if they could land a huge HQ, the city needs high incomes to support luxury dept stores and upscale stores.
I wasn't aware Google was the authority on history now. Oklahoma has historically been part of the great plains, although I could agree with Southwest. The poster said Midwest, in which OK is clearly not. Never read of an "Upper South" in the history books, bu then again, the "progressive" movement is rewriting history anyways.

Lets just say that Oklahoma is a mixture of different cultures and leave it at that. It doesn't matter that much anyway. Love both of you.

And fwiw, Oklahoma is more popularly known to be either a part of the South or SW.

My favorite regional description of Oklahoma is "Diet Texas". Not sure who penned the term.

My favorite regional description of Oklahoma is "Diet Texas". Not sure who penned the term.

A narcissistic Texan. ;)

I don't want to detract from this thread anymore than it has been so as a final follow-up to comments from Rover, Hoyasooner, CaptDave, and others - here you go.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library.html#post613076

I don't want to detract from this thread anymore than it has been so as a final follow-up to comments from Rover, Hoyasooner, CaptDave, and others - here you go.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library.html#post613076

This whole discussion needs moved to another, more appropriate thread. While this video shows A perspective, the presenter presents the occurrences and gives his opinion on WHY it happened. It fails to address all the reasons why people made and make the choices they do. It is still simplistic in its view. For instance, I think there are some flaws in such statements like where he states as fact that the real reason the Europeans defeated the native Americans and took the country because the Europeans became more healthy/resistant by sleeping with their pigs. And his claim that oil will be $170-$500 a barrel within 5 years of whenever he made this presentation.

Back to topic please -

I believe if we do see a large relocation, it will be oil and gas related. I remember Tom Ward making a statement that the Mississippi Lime formation in Northern Oklahoma would spur thousands of jobs for Oklahoma and Oklahoma City in particular. It wasn't long ago that Sandridge bought that parcel over on EKG for 1.9 million. What the intent is who knows, but I don't think it's just a speculative buy, since they already own land up and down Broadway.

Maybe ConocoPhillips or Shell is in play for some type of large office...?

A lot of things have changed since the 1950s, including the Civil Rights Movement. The parties today aren't even that similar to what they were back then. You can't convince me that people's feelings about things like abortion and gay marriage are rooted in the foundation of the interstate highway system.

One of the biggest barriers to bringing in young educated people is the perception of OKC as a backwards place to be. Part of that perception, for some people, is OKC's conservative political slant. San Francisco has a similar problem, perceived as being too left wing for "normal" people. However, I do not believe that the political aspect is going to be a substantial factor for most people when they decide where to move. Obviously Bob the Atheist Pot-Smoking Hippy Who Hates Guns will probably not have OKC high on his list of destination cities. But most people will consider a lot of other, less philosophical factors before they ever get to politics.

So what we need to do is fight against the perception of being backwards. A prospering economy and the success of the Thunder help with that a lot. But the biggest thing that will do that is time. People who have visited OKC in the past and came away with a bad impression aren't going to be swayed by a handful of online top 10 lists. Right now there's a negative perception of this city, which we are slowly moving to be a neutral perception of the city. The biggest positive force for change, however, is a sense of civic pride that has started to develop. Too often, Oklahoma Citians have been poor ambassadors for our city. We have had a negative view of our home, and wasted no opportunities to cut it down. Others see this and it affects their view of this city. Now people are actually becoming proud of our town, and I think that will shine through as well.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled daydreams of tall buildings.

Agree with this for the most part. Young professionals are usually very liberal especially on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. They are also a pretty political generation in comparison with Generation X. There is a perception among young, educated professionals that they don't belong here due to the extreme right wing culture. Sadly, there is some truth to that. I thought I was conservative prior to my move to OKC but in this city I am center-left. The conservative culture permeates aspects of life beyond politics. The quick-to-marriage syndrome is one example. This can be a lonely city for anyone educated and still single past age 22, especially if church isn't their thing. I think it's slowly starting to change as more young professionals are moving into OKC and fewer educated natives are leaving for DFW, but there is still a ways to go in my opinion.

Agree with this for the most part. Young professionals are usually very liberal especially on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. They are also a pretty political generation in comparison with Generation X. There is a perception among young, educated professionals that they don't belong here due to the extreme right wing culture. Sadly, there is some truth to that. I thought I was conservative prior to my move to OKC but in this city I am center-left. The conservative culture permeates aspects of life beyond politics. The quick-to-marriage syndrome is one example. This can be a lonely city for anyone educated and still single past age 22, especially if church isn't their thing. I think it's slowly starting to change as more young professionals are moving into OKC and fewer educated natives are leaving for DFW, but there is still a ways to go in my opinion.Thats a pretty weird mystery tower. lol jk :P

They don't, but major cities often lean liberal because they're more accepting of diversity and change in many forms. Conservatives tend to be wary of change and diversity in general (not everyone). It's social issues that primarily result in urban areas leaning left. I think it has more to do with it being easier to be anonymous and deviate from traditional morality in larger cities since people aren't all up in your business. Being extremely conservative, I invite change... I just don't believe that morality is relative. I know this has nothing to do with a mystery tower... sorry.

Agree with this for the most part. Young professionals are usually very liberal especially on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. They are also a pretty political generation in comparison with Generation X. There is a perception among young, educated professionals that they don't belong here due to the extreme right wing culture. Sadly, there is some truth to that. I thought I was conservative prior to my move to OKC but in this city I am center-left. The conservative culture permeates aspects of life beyond politics. The quick-to-marriage syndrome is one example. This can be a lonely city for anyone educated and still single past age 22, especially if church isn't their thing. I think it's slowly starting to change as more young professionals are moving into OKC and fewer educated natives are leaving for DFW, but there is still a ways to go in my opinion.

I was educated and single in OKC past the age of 22 and I wasn't lonely. AND church wasn't my thing. This was 13 years ago. Maybe I just got lucky.

Not sure why all of this correlates to a speculative tower other than the prospect of young professionals flocking to OKC in a company relocation. I believe OKC is changing more quickly than it is given credit.

I can also safely say that I am starting to here a lot of talk in my field regarding what is happening in Oklahoma City. I think a lot of you are underestimating the city's near future without realizing it. You will be quite surprised.

I'd like to hear what people say about this, how many towers 300 ft and over do you think will be built by the year 2023? A decade.

My guess is 3 - 5 tops.

My guess is 3 - 5 tops.

7, I think once we get a few more commercial skyscrapers, residential skyscrapers will start going up like everywhere else.

7, I think once we get a few more commercial skyscrapers, residential skyscrapers will start going up like everywhere else.

I am surprised they haven't already. Even Little Rock has had pretty substantial mid-rise residential development.

I'm just thinking all the jobs downtown, I think in the next 10 years there will be more residential built then commercial

I am surprised they haven't already. Even Little Rock has had pretty substantial mid-rise residential development.

The original question was about buildings that were 300 feet or higher. Little Rock has six of those and none are residential.

The original question was about buildings that were 300 feet or higher. Little Rock has six of those and none are residential.

River Market Tower and 300 Third come close, which is impressive for a city that small. Even projects on that scale in downtown OKC would be welcome, though I would prefer something more like this.

The VUE Charlotte on 5th | Luxury High-Rise Apartments in Uptown Charlotte, North Carolina (http://www.vuecharlotte.com/)

River Market Tower and 300 Third come close, which is impressive for a city that small. Even projects on that scale in downtown OKC would be welcome, though I would prefer something more like this.

The VUE Charlotte on 5th | Luxury High-Rise Apartments in Uptown Charlotte, North Carolina (http://www.vuecharlotte.com/)

I think we are getting close to seeing some projects like those come online. Just a hunch, no inside info.

River Market Tower and 300 Third come close, which is impressive for a city that small. Even projects on that scale in downtown OKC would be welcome, though I would prefer something more like this.

The VUE Charlotte on 5th | Luxury High-Rise Apartments in Uptown Charlotte, North Carolina (http://www.vuecharlotte.com/)

300 Third is 218 feet, River Market is close at 285 feet. Regency is OKC is 288 feet.