Interesting article:

okcBIZ: News: Tower Talk (http://okc.biz/oklahoma/article-7049-tower-talk.html)

Sounds like it will end up being 20 stories after all...

I saw the words 'world class building' and 'tenant information' to be announced in November.

I've previously read where it will have a wide footprint, which would make more sense for it to be around 20 stories.

Interesting article:

okcBIZ: News: Tower Talk (http://okc.biz/oklahoma/article-7049-tower-talk.html)

Sounds like it will end up being 20 stories after all...That will suck. Steve said it should at least be 27 stories, so that would be better. I am not forming any opinions though until we have an actual press release from the developer with extensive stats and detailed renderings.

Not bad, if each world-class floor is 25 ft high. :(

"an office tower of at least 20 stories"--the actual quote.

Does not mean the tower will be 20 stories. Back off the ledge, people.

"an office tower of at least 20 stories"--the actual quote.

Does not mean the tower will be 20 stories. Back off the ledge, people.

Actually the quote in the story is:


“We’re going to stick with something in the neighborhood of 20 stories,” Williams says. “Certainly our goal is to build an absolutely world-class tower that will complement what has already gone on in the area and something Oklahoma City will be proud to have.”

Not to get hung up on semantics, but "in the neighborhood of 20 stories" =/= 20 stories.

In business school, we learned that it was always best to underpromise and overdeliver. That may not sit well with the spazzes on this forum, but I don't doubt that's what Mr. Rainey is doing. I guess I am irritated how many people seem to be throwing this project under the bus before it has even been revealed (plus this weather is not helping my mood lol).

FWIW I am really happy the building will have a wide footprint. It will add a nice streetwall, even if the tower is not as tall as some hoped.

When he says that, does he mean 20 stories strictly or 20-30 stories?

Interesting article:

okcBIZ: News: Tower Talk (http://okc.biz/oklahoma/article-7049-tower-talk.html)

Sounds like it will end up being 20 stories after all...

Also note that he's posting a story from almost 20 days ago. A lot will change by the time a real story by the developer is released.

When he says that, does he mean 20 stories strictly or 20-30 stories?

In the neighborhood of 20 in essence means (just an opinion, please don't rail on for pages about it) 20 stories, give or take a couple, e.g., 17-23 or 18-22, 19-21, pick one, take some aspirin and wait for the final word.

Even if it does end up being 20 stories, I mostly care about it looking good and having good street-level interaction.

Even if it does end up being 20 stories, I mostly care about it looking good and having good street-level interaction.

Perty much. 20 stories is way short of the 35-40 stories we heard about months ago, but I'm not gonna bust a cap if it's designed well & interacts with the street & isn't a barrier of sorts due to it's poor design overall.

Honestly a 20 story tower with a wide footprint facing MBG will do wonders for making the MBG enclosed and much more urban. I'd almost rather the wide 20 floors than a relatively narrow 35-40 on that site.

Honestly a 20 story tower with a wide footprint facing MBG will do wonders for making the MBG enclosed and much more urban. I'd almost rather the wide 20 floors than a relatively narrow 35-40 on that site.

Needs to be at least 30 stories or sell it to someone that can build a real skyscraper. 20 stories is not going to be very tall any way you look at it. Regency tower tall

Perty much. 20 stories is way short of the 35-40 stories we heard about months ago, but I'm not gonna bust a cap if it's designed well & interacts with the street & isn't a barrier of sorts due to it's poor design overall.

There's no like button :o

Needs to be at least 30 stories or sell it to someone that can build a real skyscraper. 20 stories is not going to be very tall any way you look at it. Regency tower tall

With modern floor heights it would be taller than the regency. Even then, I wouldn't mind a building as tall as the regency butting up next to the park. It would be insignificant on the skyline, but from the park it would still be a good addition.

What are modern floor heights these days? I know the ground floor with differ than the rest of them but are we talking 17' each on a normal floor?

With modern floor heights it would be taller than the regency. Even then, I wouldn't mind a building as tall as the regency butting up next to the park. It would be insignificant on the skyline, but from the park it would still be a good addition.

Nothing over 10 stories will be insignificant to the skyline on that lot. The Colcord would stick out on that lot.

What are modern floor heights these days? I know the ground floor with differ than the rest of them but are we talking 17' each on a normal floor?

Devon's average is right at 17 ft.

Devon's average is right at 17 ft.

So, if it were even and each floor was 17' and it was 20 stories, it would be 340' tall. That would be 20' taller than the Valliance Tower on Expressway and 30' taller than the BOK Plaza. Both of those and pretty good size and the infill at a wider foot print would be good.

If it does turn out to be only 20 stories high, then yes, that would definitely be a disappointment.

It doesn't mean it still wouldn't bring lots of positives to the CBD. It would look great from the Myriad Gardens and could have great street level interaction if done properly. Nevertheless, a 350 ft building on that prime location downtown is a let down and far from ideal. I mean, if this city is going to put up tall buldings then that's exactly where they should go -- you're not going to have 600 ft towers in Midtown or Deep Deuce.

I'm hoping that Rainey Williams is playing a game of under-promise and over-deliver.

Let us just get half the height of Devon...MINIMUM...that's 422 ft.

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...

Agreed. But I'd still rather lose the Stage Center...

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...

Wait. You'd rather have a closed down, non functional, dead to the world inside with no viable hope for recovery building/ One that even when enthusiastic folks were trying to drum up financing to save it, they failed. One that even after the failure, no one with any sense of its place as an admitted well known and held in esteem structure would step forward to do more than let it sit and rot? that's the better plan? Please understand, I liked the building enough that if I had been blessed to be some mega mega million lotto winner, I woulda ticked many folks off and salvaged the building just because I wouldn't really miss the money at that point. But absent some white knight, it is no longer a tribute but is instead an obstacle to moving forward.

Declare the block off limits unless and until there is a 30,40,60 story complex to be built there and one all but assures it becomes the next urban camper hilton since the others are being torn down.

I'll miss it. I regret there was not interest in restoring it. But there wasn't, and it is time to accept that, at least in my opinion. I'd feel different if it was going to become the biggest cafe de cocoa hade hole drive through in the state, but for a good complex, yeah, I'm over it. I hope others will be soon enough.

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...

I thought it was all about street level density and interaction with little emphasis on height.

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...

Give me a break.

Wait. You'd rather have a closed down, non functional, dead to the world inside with no viable hope for recovery building

So what happens when this above phrase describes our new small tower?

Back in urban renewal's first wave practically nobody stood up for the Criterion. 40 years from now, we will probably regret replacing Johansen's masterpiece with a small tower.

I am parting with urbanists on this. I believe OKC deserves a little architectural panache, and what better way to do that than dust off what we already have. Anyone who thinks Stage Center was ever given a chance to shine or even be a part of OKC's urban fabric is wrong, and that's separate from the larger debate here.

As for the reaction to my post, I absolutely am viewing THIS small tower within the context of whether it would be better than a revitalized Stage Center, and i think others should view it within that context, also.

So far nothing to do with the development of this small tower has followed the pattern we'd expect with a quality, legitimate skyscraper. Instead of seeing anything tangible we've had big deadlines followed by multiple rounds of underwhelming news, delays, and a developer who isn't talking.

The phrase "world class" is bandied around OKC so much that it's actually more cause for alarm than anything else.

Negative ghostrider ^^^ Replace stage center with an urban Target and I'm happy. It's not a Frank Lloyd Wright...

What is a negative ghost rider?

So what happens when this above phrase describes our new small tower?

Back in urban renewal's first wave practically nobody stood up for the Criterion. 40 years from now, we will probably regret replacing Johansen's masterpiece with a small tower.

I am parting with urbanists on this. I believe OKC deserves a little architectural panache, and what better way to do that than dust off what we already have. Anyone who thinks Stage Center was ever given a chance to shine or even be a part of OKC's urban fabric is wrong, and that's separate from the larger debate here.

As for the reaction to my post, I absolutely am viewing THIS small tower within the context of whether it would be better than a revitalized Stage Center, and i think others should view it within that context, also.

So far nothing to do with the development of this small tower has followed the pattern we'd expect with a quality, legitimate skyscraper. Instead of seeing anything tangible we've had big deadlines followed by multiple rounds of underwhelming news, delays, and a developer who isn't talking.

The phrase "world class" is bandied around OKC so much that it's actually more cause for alarm than anything else.

Exactly!

I'm not sure that we need to lose the Stage Center for a small tower...yup

So what happens when this above phrase describes our new small tower?

Back in urban renewal's first wave practically nobody stood up for the Criterion. 40 years from now, we will probably regret replacing Johansen's masterpiece with a small tower.

I am parting with urbanists on this. I believe OKC deserves a little architectural panache, and what better way to do that than dust off what we already have. Anyone who thinks Stage Center was ever given a chance to shine or even be a part of OKC's urban fabric is wrong, and that's separate from the larger debate here.

As for the reaction to my post, I absolutely am viewing THIS small tower within the context of whether it would be better than a revitalized Stage Center, and i think others should view it within that context, also.

So far nothing to do with the development of this small tower has followed the pattern we'd expect with a quality, legitimate skyscraper. Instead of seeing anything tangible we've had big deadlines followed by multiple rounds of underwhelming news, delays, and a developer who isn't talking.

The phrase "world class" is bandied around OKC so much that it's actually more cause for alarm than anything else.

+1

Replace stage center with an urban Target and I'm happy. It's not a Frank Lloyd Wright...

Or even a two story McDonald's. I'm not a fan of SC.

So what happens when this above phrase describes our new small tower?

Back in urban renewal's first wave practically nobody stood up for the Criterion. 40 years from now, we will probably regret replacing Johansen's masterpiece with a small tower.

I am parting with urbanists on this. I believe OKC deserves a little architectural panache, and what better way to do that than dust off what we already have. Anyone who thinks Stage Center was ever given a chance to shine or even be a part of OKC's urban fabric is wrong, and that's separate from the larger debate here.

As for the reaction to my post, I absolutely am viewing THIS small tower within the context of whether it would be better than a revitalized Stage Center, and i think others should view it within that context, also.

So far nothing to do with the development of this small tower has followed the pattern we'd expect with a quality, legitimate skyscraper. Instead of seeing anything tangible we've had big deadlines followed by multiple rounds of underwhelming news, delays, and a developer who isn't talking.

The phrase "world class" is bandied around OKC so much that it's actually more cause for alarm than anything else.

Count me in as agreeing 100% with Spartan here.

Everyone keeps saying how disappointing this tower is going to be and it's a "small tower." We know nothing right now so making blanket statements of how this building will effect the downtown community are totally irrelevant at this time. Give it time, I still think there is a good chance this will be OKC's 2nd tallest. All we know is it will be at least 20 stories. Developer says it will be in the neighborhood of 20 stories... What do we know from that? Nothing! 30 is not out of the realm of possibilities and with today's floor heights there is a good chance a 28-30 storie tower makes it taller than Cotter Ranch Tower. What I think is more important is the footprint which they have confirmed to be large.

I just want everybody to calm down the small tower and pessimistic talk and what till a design comes out.

I'm not worried about the loss of Stage Center. A new 20 story office tower is a fantastically better use of the site than a defunct and unfixable old relic.

What bothers me is blowing a golden opportunity. You can put a 20 story tower almost anywhere in the metro. Ok, granted no one is proposing that, but it's not ridiculous in any event. And in any other part of the city, a 300-400 foot building would be the most amazing thing around. But NOT in the CBD. And not right next to the Devon Tower, which is the new iconic masterpiece of downtown.

OKC may be geographically gigantic, but the area where you put tall skyscrapers is but a few blocks in radius. That area around the Stage Center is precisely where you're going to construct the 500+ foot towers of our future. It's not that this is our only chance, but then again, skyscrapers in the CBD don't come along every day. There aren't scads of them being proposed. We want to make the downtown business core look like it should for a city on the rise.

And no, nobody will have to coax me off a ledge if it turns out that a 20 story building is all we're going to get. I'll still be happy for the most part. But dang it, why not put a 600 foot tower where a 600 foot tower belongs? Let's put in 350 foot buildings elsewhere (and Rainey Williams, you can construct as many of those as you like -- that would be great).

Negative ghostrider ^^^ Replace stage center with an urban Target and I'm happy. It's not a Frank Lloyd Wright...What is a negative ghost rider?

That is a phrase from the movie Top Gun. It simply means - no.

To create a proper street enclosure anything around 80' to 100' tall at the sidewalk would be perfect.

Thank you Kerry. I'm surprised that anyone would have to be schooled on such a thing...no bueno.

So what happens when this above phrase describes our new small tower?
If it has so much as one tenant that pays the rent, if the new construction admits so much as one worker every day, if this new building permits ANY street level interaction, it will be an improvement over a "closed down, non functional, dead to the world inside with no viable hope for recovery building." Further, if this minimal prosperity only lasts for 5 years, then that's 5 more years of prosperity than we will EVER get out of the once Mummer's Theater in this decade -- maybe this century.

Back in urban renewal's first wave practically nobody stood up for the Criterion. 40 years from now, we will probably regret replacing Johansen's masterpiece with a small tower.
I get you. We could certainly aspire to more. Further, what we will get will probably never be in a competition on skyscraper city (or wherever it was the Devon Energy Center was in competition this year). I get angry every time I drive past the Biltmore (M)otel on I-40. It's damned near criminal that a structure so uninteresting should be even allowed to use the Biltmore name. I'm sure there are many who participate on this forum that will be distressed (maybe not visibly) from the first post on THIS thread, but the reality of the situation is that, without kevin's white knight mega millions lotto winner with a penchant for stand-out architecture, the building died in 2010.

From an economic standpoint, the case for demolition is a strong one. Both performing arts centers have been shuttered for some time: the Mummers suffered damage from a flood in 2010, which forced the center to close its doors. Though emptied and no longer equipped with functional heating, ventilation, and cooling systems, the building reportedly still costs more than $100,000 a year to maintain. Situated directly across the street from Oklahoma’s tallest office building, the vacant Mummers Theater is sitting pretty on prime real estate for development.
Brutalizing Brutalism: Why John M. Johansen's Crumbling Concrete Theaters Should be Saved | BLOUIN ARTINFO (http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/805003/brutalizing-brutalism-why-john-m-johansens-crumbling-concrete-theaters-should-be-saved)
[emphasis added]

I am parting with urbanists on this. I believe OKC deserves a little architectural panache, and what better way to do that than dust off what we already have. Anyone who thinks Stage Center was ever given a chance to shine or even be a part of OKC's urban fabric is wrong, and that's separate from the larger debate here.
... and do what with it (what we already have)? What can you do with it? Who would do it? What can you do to make it at least stop costing money? Let's ignore the opportunity costs that we're losing / spending. Pretend you could put it some sort of cryo-stasis and it would no longer cost just to be there, then what? I agree that CBD real estate is not so rare that this architectural gem has to go today, but then what? Wait until CBD real estate IS rare enough?

As for the reaction to my post, I absolutely am viewing THIS small tower within the context of whether it would be better than a revitalized Stage Center, and i think others should view it within that context, also.
THIS small tower will never be better than a revitalized Stage Center, but then again THIS small tower will never be better than ...
.....SPOILER ALERT: If you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Leprechauns, skip the next paragraph.....
will never be better than a relocated North Pole Headquarters for Santa Claus, a major American Operations Center for the Easter Bunny, or an anchor for the rainbows where leprechauns store their pots of gold. A revitalized Stage Center is just as fictitious.

So far nothing to do with the development of this small tower has followed the pattern we'd expect with a quality, legitimate skyscraper. Instead of seeing anything tangible we've had big deadlines followed by multiple rounds of underwhelming news, delays, and a developer who isn't talking.

The phrase "world class" is bandied around OKC so much that it's actually more cause for alarm than anything else.
Hear ya, feel your pain, love your dedication and passion. It's time to embrace the (maybe not so) suck that will at least be better than a rotting shell with no potential.

Thank you Kerry. I'm surprised that anyone would have to be schooled on such a thing...no bueno.

To be fair - Top Gun came out in 1986. That was 27 years ago. Around 40% of the US population is younger than that. You might as well sing "Road to Morocco" (note - the Under 25 crowd thinks Family Guy is all original material).

V_w3UG6C_Mo

V_w3UG6C_Mo

And people say that America isn't accepting of homosexuals.

To be fair - Top Gun came out in 1986. That was 27 years ago. Around 40% of the US population is younger than that. You might as well sing "Road to Morocco" (note - the Under 25 crowd thinks Family Guy is all original material).

Damn it Kerry, you just made me realize 35 is OLD...no bueno.

In all sincerity though, the 80s decade is like one of the best. Look at the radtacular bodacious hang out spot going into The Rise. Top Gun is more of a novelty, primarily due to Tom Cruise before he turned into a religious whack than that silly black and white tidbit you posted above! lol

Steve mentioned in his chat on Friday that we are less than 60 days from hearing and seeing more on this site..... So maybe before Christmas....

But dang it, why not put a 600 foot tower where a 600 foot tower belongs? Let's put in 350 foot buildings elsewhere.

Maybe another 600+ foot tower doesn't belong in OKC, just like a one-of-a-kind community theater doesn't belong in OKC either.

THIS small tower will never be better than a revitalized Stage Center, but then again THIS small tower will never be better than ...
.....SPOILER ALERT: If you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Leprechauns, skip the next paragraph.....
will never be better than a relocated North Pole Headquarters for Santa Claus, a major American Operations Center for the Easter Bunny, or an anchor for the rainbows where leprechauns store their pots of gold. A revitalized Stage Center is just as fictitious.

That would be inaccurate, I think. I was talking about Oklahoma City to the head of a CDC here in Cleveland and showed him the Stage Center that we are tearing down. He saw the model of it in a New York museum.

The Children's Museum idea was one example of reuse produced by an RFP that community institutions were discouraged to consider.

There are a LOT of prime development sites. The best one we have, where this small tower should be going, is being taken up by a convention center, so talk about a useless building with no street interaction (as you wisely articulate below). This development pressure is what happens when we waste the best development sites with ill-conceived public facilities.


it will be an improvement over a "closed down, non functional, dead to the world inside with no viable hope for recovery building."

There are a LOT of prime development sites. The best one we have, where this small tower should be going, is being taken up by a convention center, so talk about a useless building with no street interaction (as you wisely articulate below). This development pressure is what happens when we waste the best development sites with ill-conceived public facilities.
Are you referring to the existing Cox Convention Center or the site for the new convention center?

That would be inaccurate, I think. I was talking about Oklahoma City to the head of a CDC here in Cleveland and showed him the Stage Center that we are tearing down. He saw the model of it in a New York museum.

The Children's Museum idea was one example of reuse produced by an RFP that community institutions were discouraged to consider.

There are a LOT of prime development sites. The best one we have, where this small tower should be going, is being taken up by a convention center, so talk about a useless building with no street interaction (as you wisely articulate below). This development pressure is what happens when we waste the best development sites with ill-conceived public facilities.

I was unaware that anyone was discouraged from taking on the Stage Center. I'm not challenging your credibility. Just curious. How do you know this to be so?

Are you referring to the existing Cox Convention Center or the site for the new convention center?

Both. The problem is that OKC hasn't changed its thinking since urban renewal.

For what it's worth, today marks the end of the 90 day period since the initial announcement back in July.

Obviously, I'm not expecting anything to come out today. Just hoping we find out something before the end of the year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jRNJluKik2s

Both. The problem is that OKC hasn't changed its thinking since urban renewal.

I think you are right. If this city had learned, there wouldn't be so much support for demolishing a one-of-a-kind piece of art for a mediocre 20-story tower that really won't even change the skyline. If this was a 600 ft tower I would be more supportive but this seems like it's going to be demolishing the Stage Center to build the Valiance Bank tower.

So, let's ask the MOA if the SC is a work of art. Let's find an art collector to invest in it, preserve it, and loan it to the city art community.

I think you are right. If this city had learned, there wouldn't be so much support for demolishing a one-of-a-kind piece of art for a mediocre 20-story tower that really won't even change the skyline. If this was a 600 ft tower I would be more supportive but this seems like it's going to be demolishing the Stage Center to build the Valiance Bank tower.

No one knows what the height will be yet or what it will look like. This comment is extremely premature.

But, is never too early to panic and be negative. Why hope for the best when you can complain about what it MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be like. Lol.

I gave up on asking for a little patience a while back. The DOOM squad has been out in full force on this board lately. It's much easier to be against something than to be for it.

Williams is getting his demo permit in December, meaning preliminary designs for this would need to be in by next month. So it shouldn't be much longer.

No one knows what the height will be yet or what it will look like. This comment is extremely premature.

Most of his comments on developments are premature in assumption. He also tends to agree with people when they say something generally negative about OKC, whether it's true or not. I think he just has an overall bad taste in his mouth about OKC & it tends to show in a lot of his comments.

Nevertheless, Spartan has a point, but it's still too early to say much else since we know nothing much about the tower.

I think you are right. If this city had learned, there wouldn't be so much support for demolishing a one-of-a-kind piece of art for a mediocre 20-story tower that really won't even change the skyline. If this was a 600 ft tower I would be more supportive but this seems like it's going to be demolishing the Stage Center to build the Valiance Bank tower.
One-of-a-kind doesn't always equate to something worth keeping. Stage Center is a perfect example.

One-of-a-kind doesn't always equate to something worth keeping. Stage Center is a perfect example.

... like all that Garage Sale "inventory". If it sells, then it's Merchandise, if it doesn't it's Inventory. Trash or treasure.

Either way, the Stage Center is moving on and a new chapter begins.

Most of his comments on developments are premature in assumption. He also tends to agree with people when they say something generally negative about OKC, whether it's true or not. I think he just has an overall bad taste in his mouth about OKC & it tends to show in a lot of his comments.


I really don't like to call out other posters, but I have read some of the things he's said about OKC on city-data as I am a very infrequent poster on there. Safe to say he despises this place.