With the new Devon Tower looking so spectacular, is it possible for other buildings to make some improvements to make our skyline look more modern? I hate to say this but I HATE looking at the Chase Tower with the dark ugly windows and its old and outdated look. Could any of these buildings also try some more lighting to frame the building at night perhaps? It is almost embarassing to see how great the Devon looks and how awful the others look in comparison. Until new buidlings are built to compliment the Devon Tower, some of these owners or the city needs to work something out with them to give them a discount on electricity to bring some life to these buildings. How can this get done and who can do it? I'd love to see a Hard Rock casino and high rise (20 plus story hotel) all lit up and glistening the skyline! The one in Tulsa is awesome and it would bring so much more traffic downtown which I am sure would also support other businesses in downtown. Thoughts?

I know it's not the most modern skyline out there, but it will be, soon enough. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Chase / Cotter Tower. It has a wonderful history that goes with it's somewhat dated looks, but so does the Skirvin. I think that the OKC skyline is eclectic enough. There's no need to change what's there, except to add more -- IMHO.

I like how eclectic is it. You see a variety of styles represented here. There's something for every movement.

I said this once before, but as more is added to the skyline, I think the Chase building will be a nice change of pace to what I imagine will be a lot of glass. Also, I would rather wait till more is added before some of the core buildings are modified. I'd like to know what they need to tie into.

If we do start modifying anything (particularly lighting wise at night), I would like it to start with First National, since it's the most iconic high-rise downtown. I also hope that as the skyline is built out First National is not shrouded (or worse, razed).

Soondoc, the Chase tower is NOT ugly, old or outdated, that description belongs to the sad First National Center

Soondoc, the Chase tower is NOT ugly, old or outdated, that description belongs to the sad First National Center

I'm sorry but the First National may be old and outdated but it is certainly NOT ugly.

I said this once before, but as more is added to the skyline, I think the Chase building will be a nice change of pace to what I imagine will be a lot of glass.

That's an interesting comment about a building which has a mainly glass exterior.

That's an interesting comment about a building which has a mainly glass exterior.

I am shocked anyone would say Chase/Cotter is better looking than FNC. To me it's not even close.

The white exterior portions of Chase could use a fresh coat of paint, and it would be great to have new thermal glass installed (which won't happen). The interior is fairly nice - management promotes tennant improvements. Also, the remaining un-remodeled restrooms/common areas are in line for an update over the next few years. For a 40 year old building, they do a nice of job of maintaining it. I would, however, love to see the exterior corner spotlights put back into service.

The Chase Tower doesn't look bad. It's just a product of its times. There are certainly worse architectural designs that came out of the 70s. People don't look at Chase and say "oh that's hideous!" They just don't really notice it. Look at pictures of any city and you'll see buildings like this, not standing out, just sort of adding filler. As long as it remains well-maintained, it will look fine.

I like having buildings from different eras in our city. It gives a sense of history. If you just had one architectural style, when that style went out of fashion you'd have a city that looked very dated. In 30 years, people might think the Devon building looks ugly, and reminisce about the "classic stylings" of Chase Tower. I think one of the reasons people tore down the Biltmore Hotel is because they got used to seeing buildings from that era in disrepair, and art deco became psychologically associated with poverty and high-crime areas. When buildings hit about 40 years old, they start showing their age and need serious investment to keep them in good repair. A lot of the decision makers aren't old enough to really remember the buildings in their glory days. So to them it just looks ugly. It's like how you go to grandma's house and she's got that ugly ass lime green couch from the 60s. Why would she ever buy something like that? Then you watch MadMen and think everything looks cool and retro.

The trick for these buildings is for them to survive long enough, and get enough money invested in them, that they go from being run-down to cool and retro. Everyone wants to save First National because 1) it looks like the Empire State Building, and 2) nostalgia has kicked in. When I walk in that building I feel like I should wear a fedora. Nostalgia didn't arrive in time to save the Biltmore.

The Chase building in Indianapolis had the same issue. Its exterior was updated with a reflective glasswall.

I also agree about keeping the architectural styles from different eras and showing history. That's why it's important to not lose what's left of the first 30 years of the city's past. It's so sparse, other than Bricktown, you would think this city is 60-70 years old.

I like what these guys are doing and wish they or people like them did work in our city.

New Beaux Arts term architect Richardson Robertson III applies to his work (http://www.robertsonpartners.net/newbeauxarts.htm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqqK8b_95Q
Nothing like this here unfortunately, but would be the costliest place to live if it was.

The closest you really get here in the city is this intersection.

Street View (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.470922,-97.517915&spn=0.001857,0.002937&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=35.470923,-97.517904&panoid=jcGBmWR6FWdvRp0p_8KWgw&cbp=12,330.05,,0,-12.51)

I agree we should keep the buildings how they are, instead of continually updating them to trends. Keep it refreshed, but keep the original style.

The glass curtain will go out of style one day and are we going to brick over the Devon tower just to keep it looking like all of the new construction?

Probably not, I hope not -- That will just be the style that was in "fashion" when it was built.

I took this yesterday in Chicago:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598359_460981970614507_451908885_n.jpg

Look at all of the different architectural styles represented, some are ugly now, but they still represent the time they were constructed.

The Chase Tower itself isn't horrible, it just needs some new, updated looking windows. They are very dark and multi colored and just looks strange. At night, it is extremely dark and it would be awe some if they could put lights framing the building or at least the top and maybe get creative with some colored lighting. I personally love the One Founders Square but wish they would have made it not quite as wide to make it about 15 stories taller. That would have been about a 37 foot building that would have stood out and made a presence in the syline instead of being hard to spot and hidden in the mix. It is a very nice building and would've have looked quite impressive at about 510-520 feet.