I like a pointed skyscraper but I want to see something as unique as possible.

Can't get much more pointed than this

http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r620-2d7d96c1df9d5333e9b5335f0b6828c8.jpg

lol

I just wanted to drop in and say hi. I figured I owed it to you all after 139 pages on a thread I started. Good read. Interesting scenarios. Keep it up. I read it everyday.
If you look at the stats on the entire forum page, it lists the views of each thread. More than it being 139 pages long is that it's closing in on a quarter million views!

I actually like Turbonomic Tower but most here seem to hate it.

I agree with you, Sid

Although I drop in from time to time (mostly to check if there is any REAL news), I've avoided posting in this thread - because quite frankly it's all a little ridiculous. But I do really like that second Frankfurt tower. If there is to be a tower, I like the idea of something that blends our traditional skyline with the jarring majesty of the Devon Tower. Ideally, the best looking tower would be something - say - halfway between the height of Devon and Chase with glass and traditional elements.

I'm sure Steve L just laughs and hangs his head at everything written over lo these many pages. I'd still rather see ten five story buildings spread across MidTown in infill lots than any kind of tower but I suppose we'll all see whatever we shall see soon enough!

Although I drop in from time to time (mostly to check if there is any REAL news), I've avoided posting in this thread - because quite frankly it's all a little ridiculous. But I do really like that second Frankfurt tower. If there is to be a tower, I like the idea of something that blends our traditional skyline with the jarring majesty of the Devon Tower. Ideally, the best looking tower would be something - say - halfway between the height of Devon and Chase with glass and traditional elements.

I'm sure Steve L just laughs and hangs his head at everything written over lo these many pages. I'd still rather see ten five story buildings spread across MidTown in infill lots than any kind of tower but I suppose we'll all see whatever we shall see soon enough!

I want 5 more towers started/finished within the next 5 years. Height needs to be between Chase and Devon or all taller than Devon. Don"t need and any shorter than Chase till after these next 5 are built.

As long as we're at it, how about WANTING 5 towers to be started in calendar year 2013 - to hell with waiting 5 years! LOL. Not meaning to be flippant. I realize this thread is 90% about dreaming.

i want 5 more towers started/finished within the next 5 years. Height needs to be between chase and devon or all taller than devon. don"t need and any shorter than chase till after these next 5 are built.yes!!!!!!!!

Although I drop in from time to time (mostly to check if there is any REAL news), I've avoided posting in this thread - because quite frankly it's all a little ridiculous.


I want 5 more towers started/finished within the next 5 years. Height needs to be between Chase and Devon or all taller than Devon. Don"t need and any shorter than Chase till after these next 5 are built.

A little ridiculous... On cue.

Although I drop in from time to time (mostly to check if there is any REAL news), I've avoided posting in this thread - because quite frankly it's all a little ridiculous. But I do really like that second Frankfurt tower. If there is to be a tower, I like the idea of something that blends our traditional skyline with the jarring majesty of the Devon Tower. Ideally, the best looking tower would be something - say - halfway between the height of Devon and Chase with glass and traditional elements.

I'm sure Steve L just laughs and hangs his head at everything written over lo these many pages. I'd still rather see ten five story buildings spread across MidTown in infill lots than any kind of tower but I suppose we'll all see whatever we shall see soon enough!

I agree. I hope its something that compliments the existing skyline well, and bridges the gap between the Chase tower and the Devon tower.

I want 5 more towers started/finished within the next 5 years. Height needs to be between Chase and Devon or all taller than Devon. Don"t need and any shorter than Chase till after these next 5 are built.Winner, hands down.

Unfortunately, towers don't get built just because we 'want' them. Things are looking good that one is going to be built soon, but 5 towers over 500 ft within 5 years is pushing it a little. OKC would have to become a serious boom town ala Charlotte, Miami, or Las Vegas in the 2000s and I just don't see that happening.

Unfortunately, towers don't get built just because we 'want' them. Things are looking good that one is going to be built soon, but 5 towers over 500 ft within 5 years is pushing it a little. OKC would have to become a serious boom town ala Charlotte, Miami, or Las Vegas in the 2000s and I just don't see that happening.

So, why did you reply seriously to those posts?

Unfortunately, towers don't get built just because we 'want' them. Things are looking good that one is going to be built soon, but 5 towers over 500 ft within 5 years is pushing it a little. OKC would have to become a serious boom town ala Charlotte, Miami, or Las Vegas in the 2000s and I just don't see that happening.

Pushing it.....LOL

Pretty much no chance of happening. 10 years if we're lucky.

If we get to pick, I vote for something like this.

http://www.replicabuildings.com/images/terminal%20tower.jpg

If we get to pick, I vote for something like this.

http://www.replicabuildings.com/images/terminal%20tower.jpg

Is stuff like that still getting built?

Most recent stuff I know of are pretty much glass boxes.

If we get to pick, I want something like the NBC tower.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6659725849_75bf51381d_b.jpg

Pushing it.....LOL

Pretty much no chance of happening. 10 years if we're lucky.

Or 50.

If we get to pick, I vote for something like this.

http://www.replicabuildings.com/images/terminal%20tower.jpgJTF, this would be one of those rare moments I heavily agree with you. THIS WOULD SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!! One can only hope for such a building in OKC, but I don't of any place anywhere, besides the new hotel in Saudi Arabia which is kind of similar. What a beauty. I'm just not a big fan of cities that have their entire skyline filled with glass buildings.

China's WTC

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5344/7069403713_961c525e4b_z.jpg

Is stuff like that still getting built?

Most recent stuff I know of are pretty much glass boxes.

Let's just say the quality of architectural design has gone downhill.

I wish there was a way to move this building from Detroit to OKC. How cool would this be on the SC site, or better yet, on the new CC site.

http://www.rochestersubway.com/images/photos/mb-detroit-michigan-central-station.jpg

I'm thinking that there is no reason we necessarily have to look to the past for great design.

I'm thinking that there is no reason we necessarily have to look to the past for great design.I'm thinking you're right. Not to take away from the beauty of the building, but design transcends even ornamentation/articulation.

Center Point Energy has a workforce totaling in the neighborhood of 9,000. I could not determine how many of those are midstream operations. Enogex is right at 400. I could see this operation having in excess of 2000 employees.

Access Midstream (formerly Chesapeake) has an employee count of 1,235, with a market cap of 6.6 billion. The CNP/Enogex MLP will have a market cap in excess of 11 billion. Not sure if a size comparison ratio can be done at this point.

Center Point Energy has a workforce totaling in the neighborhood of 9,000. I could not determine how many of those are midstream operations. Enogex is right at 400. I could see this operation having in excess of 2000 employees.

Access Midstream (formerly Chesapeake) has an employee count of 1,235, with a market cap of 6.6 billion. The CNP/Enogex MLP will have a market cap in excess of 11 billion. Not sure if a size comparison ratio can be done at this point.

Just to clarify, Enogex has around 400 at its corporate headquarters at Leadership Square, but about 800 employees company-wide, most of which are in the field at various locations across Oklahoma. Also, according to CenterPoint Energy's latest 10-K report, its interstate pipeline and field services (gathering and processing) divisions employed a total of 1,084 people, so I would guess that would roughly be the number of employees that would be involved in this MLP. Overall it looks like there are about 2,000 employees total, and I would guess about half would be in the corporate setting, with half working in the field.

I just read the Houston Bizjournal and they claim that this will be the largest (or possibly the 2nd largest next to Phillips66 MLP) midstream MLP in the country. This is really big, and if we score the HQ, WOW.

CenterPoint plans $11B midstream joint-venture MLP - Houston Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2013/03/14/centerpoint-plans-11b-midstream.html)

This is the article I read -

CenterPoint MLP likely one of largest in the U.S. - Houston Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/blog/drilling-down/2013/03/centerpoint-mlp-likely-one-of-largest.html)

Since this thread is all about speculation, and with the MLP being a popular Federal tax free entity, I'm wondering when Sandridge bought the triangle property on EKG for an affiliate, if it was intended to be their midstream MLP Offices ?

Let's just say the quality of architectural design has gone downhill.

I wish there was a way to move this building from Detroit to OKC. How cool would this be on the SC site, or better yet, on the new CC site.

Like

There are beautiful buildings being built all over the world using modern materials, techniques and styles. It is narrow thinking that only appreciates a single style of architecture or thinks everything else is regression. Trying to make OKC look like Detroit is not a noble goal. We should just try to be our own city. Let's not be Disneyland. We didn't try to steal the Supersonic history...we shouldn't try to steal someone else's character. Let's be us.

I like the architecture part, not the Detroit part.

This one?

Trianon (Frankfurt am Main) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trianon_(Frankfurt_am_Main))

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Trianon_DEKA.JPG

...or this one?

Messeturm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messeturm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Frankfurter_Messeturm.jpg

I meant the first one, but the second one is pretty interesting as well.

It seems like a sleek glass tower is likely the kind that an energy company would build.

If we get to pick...

Yes, we do. CenterPoint and OGE have their architects reviewing this forum for ideas. So guys, choose carefully!
:wink:

I like the architecture part, not the Detroit part.

Nah we don't want these new towers to look like Old Detroit. We want glass and maybe brick combined with some nice shiny steel. 5 years 5 Towers. They need to start 2 this year.

I would like something like this, my fav tower, hands down:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/88/424219774_bb40c2070e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancramer/424219774/)
Frost Bank Tower, Austin, TX (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancramer/424219774/) by rcd (http://www.flickr.com/people/ryancramer/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/6995443455_2d01893607.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianaberle/6995443455/)
Frost Bank Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianaberle/6995443455/) by • ian (http://www.flickr.com/people/ianaberle/), on Flickr

I would like something like this, my fav tower, hands down:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/88/424219774_bb40c2070e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancramer/424219774/)
Frost Bank Tower, Austin, TX (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancramer/424219774/) by rcd (http://www.flickr.com/people/ryancramer/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/6995443455_2d01893607.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianaberle/6995443455/)
Frost Bank Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianaberle/6995443455/) by • ian (http://www.flickr.com/people/ianaberle/), on Flickr

I love this tower too! It and the one in Nashville with the two towers look like some evil headquarters that could launch Dr. Evil!

I always thought that the top of the Frost Tower looks like the inner leaves on an artichoke!

I've liked this building in Atlanta for a while. Something like it, both style and color, would look awesome in OKC. I guess I'm not smart enough to post the pic, but, here is a link.
Redirect Notice (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=SnAmPu31_lV-7M&tbnid=USdk1sjdbAKQLM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBank_of _America_Plaza_(Atlanta)&ei=KTpGUc_RHK-02AX7zYC4DA&psig=AFQjCNHPnapzVI62_5maSRnyA7yJot_jDw&ust=1363643305566760)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Plaza_(Atlanta)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Bankofamerica-atlanta-feb09.jpg

Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Plaza_(Atlanta))

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Bankofamerica-atlanta-feb09.jpg
Thank you.

That would be great here.

Once again I notice a trend with people focusing on the crowns of really tall buildings. I guess I am one of the few who focus on the part humans interact with - the first floor. The building in Atlanta is another one of those that look great from miles away but at the sidewalk level that building sucks. It sits back 200 feet from the street and isn't even visable from the sidewalk because it is hidden behind so many bushes and trees. The only part that does front a street has the portal for the parking garage and a 20 foot blank wall along the sidewalk. I hope that would never get approved in OKC in a million years.

Which Atlanta highrise would you rather have?

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/ATL1_zpsba0a7669.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/ATL2_zps29e3558a.jpg

I want the ground interaction of the second. I want the height of the first.

Which Atlanta highrise would you rather have?

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/ATL1_zpsba0a7669.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/ATL2_zps29e3558a.jpg
I believe you've selected the north side of red building. I've walked into that building from the east side and it looks nothing like that at all. But, whatever. I'm sorry now I even mentioned the building. At least it gave you someone/something else to attack since it obviously is not what YOU want.

I believe you've selected the north side of red building. I've walked into that building from the east side and it looks nothing like that at all. But, whatever. I'm sorry now I even mentioned the building. At least it gave you someone/something else to attack since it obviously is not what YOU want.

Sorry, I didn't mean for you take it personal, but if you walked into that building you know exacatly what I am talking about. You have to walk 200 feet through a garden that shields the building from the sidewalk and there is no reason for a member of the general public to have any interaction with it at all. There seems to be a continual focus on the top 200 feet of tall buildings. All I am saying is if people are going to pick buildings they 'like' they should try to pick while considering the whole package, and not what looks good from 10 miles away. Otherwise just say, "I like the top of this one." Of the buildings posted over the last 2 pages I like the tops of all of them, but it is impossible to build only the top. The General Lee was a cool car, but I wouldn't want it because the doors don't open.

Like I said though, I understand I am the odd man out. I see buildings as tools that are meant to be touched, used, handled, have multiple uses during different times of the day, and have some level of interaction with people across all social and economic ranges. However, the vast majority of people seem to see them as works of art, to be admired from a distance but only touched by the staff.

Sorry, I didn't mean for you take it personal, but if you walked into that building you know exacatly what I am talking about. You have to walk 200 feet through a garden that shields the building from the sidewalk and there is no reason for a member of the general public to have any interaction with it at all. There seems to be a continual focus on the top 200 feet of tall buildings. All I am saying is if people are going to pick buildings they 'like' they should try to pick while considering the whole package, and not what looks good from 10 miles away. Otherwise just say, "I like the top of this one." Of the buildings posted over the last 2 pages I like the tops of all of them, but it is impossible to build only the top. The General Lee was a cool car, but I wouldn't want it because the doors don't open.

Like I said though, I understand I am the odd man out. I see buildings as tools that are meant to be touched, used, handled, have multiple uses during different times of the day, and have some level of interaction with people across all social and economic ranges. However, the vast majority of people seem to see them as works of art, to be admired from a distance but only touched by the staff.



If it's an office building for a specific company and their employees then it really shouldn't matter at all how much it interacts with the public. The fact that places like Devon have made the decision to open their tower to the public is a LUXURY, not a requirement. But, you think even Devon is somehow fatally flawed because there's space with grass and trees near the tower. lol

Personally, as an employee of a company that has a downtown tower, I would greatly value a garden type area that leads to the front doors of the building. And, in case the point is somehow forgotten, the building is built for the employees of the company. Period

I'll just leave it at that then. I think the contrast in development preferences is pretty clear so there is no point left to be made.

If you only show the service entrances to any building it will look relatively bad to horrible. It is a technique to discredit any building not fitting a personal opinion. At least honest discussions should be honest.

If you only show the service entrances to any building it will look relatively bad to horrible. It is a technique to discredit any building not fitting a personal opinion. At least honest discussions should be honest.

From Google Streetview, it's hard to find a side of that building that doesn't look like a service entrance.

If it's an office building for a specific company and their employees then it really shouldn't matter at all how much it interacts with the public. The fact that places like Devon have made the decision to open their tower to the public is a LUXURY, not a requirement. But, you think even Devon is somehow fatally flawed because there's space with grass and trees near the tower. lol

Personally, as an employee of a company that has a downtown tower, I would greatly value a garden type area that leads to the front doors of the building. And, in case the point is somehow forgotten, the building is built for the employees of the company. Period

I disagree completely.

Any time you build, the public has an interest. That's why we have zoning laws and design standards. It's well within the city's rights to insist that the ground floor of a building, even one built by a private company, be accessible to the public. We aren't talking about a private residence, we're talking about a place of business downtown. If you're looking for a secure facility where you have to scan a key card for the front door to open, then downtown is the wrong place for you. Go build somewhere else.

Hoyasooner vs. WichitaSooner

Fight!

:)

Hoyasooner vs. WichitaSooner

Fight!

:)


Street Fighter OKCTalk edition

We could set up a march madness bracket to pit posters against one another for one true champion of skyscraper ideals!

A great tower and excellent street-level interaction are not mutually exclusive. See: Chrysler Building, Empire State Building. If you want an example of a tower with a setback for security purposes or whatever, check out the prototypical corporate plaza - before corporate plazas were designed as dead zones - Rockefeller Center. There's no reason to argue the issue of tower vs. human scale street level. It's possible to have both.

Sorry, I didn't mean for you take it personal, but if you walked into that building you know exacatly what I am talking about. You have to walk 200 feet through a garden that shields the building from the sidewalk and there is no reason for a member of the general public to have any interaction with it at all. There seems to be a continual focus on the top 200 feet of tall buildings. All I am saying is if people are going to pick buildings they 'like' they should try to pick while considering the whole package, and not what looks good from 10 miles away. Otherwise just say, "I like the top of this one." Of the buildings posted over the last 2 pages I like the tops of all of them, but it is impossible to build only the top. The General Lee was a cool car, but I wouldn't want it because the doors don't open.

Like I said though, I understand I am the odd man out. I see buildings as tools that are meant to be touched, used, handled, have multiple uses during different times of the day, and have some level of interaction with people across all social and economic ranges. However, the vast majority of people seem to see them as works of art, to be admired from a distance but only touched by the staff.

You are definitely NOT the odd man out here. What you're saying has particular resonance in OKC, where we have virtually zero street-level retail access in our highrise buildings. This is a legitimate concern.

Having visited Atlanta twice in the last three years, it is not a city that has much in the way of pedestrian activity in the downtown core. It is pretty to look at, however.

With new highrises, OKC has the ability to right this problem.

One only need to look at the excitement generated by that new women's clothing store downtown to see how important this issue is. If you're the odd man out, consider me a fellow traveler.

You are definitely NOT the odd man out here. What you're saying has particular resonance in OKC, where we have virtually zero street-level retail access in our highrise buildings. This is a legitimate concern.

Having visited Atlanta twice in the last three years, it is not a city that has much in the way of pedestrian activity in the downtown core. It is pretty to look at, however.

With new highrises, OKC has the ability to right this problem.

One only need to look at the excitement generated by that new women's clothing store downtown to see how important this issue is. If you're the odd man out, consider me a fellow traveler.

+1.

Like I said though, I understand I am the odd man out.

I agree with you as well. It is nice to have a downtown that is cool to look at from half a mile away, but it's even nicer to have a downtown you want to spend time in.

The reality is that many cities, even tier one cities, have long had a problem with their financial and business cores being very sterile and limited in use. Many have made great strides in this areas, but, you know, Oklahoma City is still very much a blank slate and there's nothing wrong with trying to maximize the positive impact of each new development in every way. At the very least it would be nice to have services that benefit the workers housed in that building, but are also beneficial and open to the whole community. It's not a bad idea for any tower development to do this anyway, as it takes what would be the least desirable real estate for offices and turns it into some cash flow, while enhancing the value and experience of the whole property.