Now come on, Sparty. You know that you and I are like-minded on almost all of that. This is of course bleeding over from another thread (on San Antonio of all things), but just so that everyone knows what we are talking about, you and PluPan were talking about something, and he asked (more or less) whether OKCTalk was a place for all OKC-minded people to chat about their city or whether it was only a place for the urban-minded, and you indicated (more or less) that OKCTalk was strictly a place for urbanists, with the logical extension being that the suburban-minded should GTFO. That is the only thing I take issue with.

I applaud you and JTF and Sid and others who fearlessly carry the urbanist flag, and who nearly always do a great job of showing why the economies of scale favor urban over suburban development from a public financing and from a quality-of-life standpoint. If we can slowly convince the rest of the city to allow, encourage (or even - gasp - REQUIRE) higher-quality, more-dense development to take hold, our city will be the better (and the richer) for it. Where we part ways is that I don't feel the need to castigate those who like it in the 'burbs. We need them and their support, both as users and as fellow taxpayers, to make our own vision happen. And hopefully we can convert a few along the way. Which is already happening, of course, because of the several thousand now living downtown almost all of them by definition originated in the 'burbs (myself included, though it was decades ago).

I'm certain Praedura would do what you have requested but he has not posted since the first week of December. I hope he's alright.

Wow....

Excuse me? I was referring to quality. I still stand by what I said. He did a great job with his previous work downtown, and so far, his modeling seems to meet urban design expectations.

What previous work, Steve?

He's owned Bank of Oklahoma Plaza since 2007 and has done very little with it -- a very modest plaza makeover is all I am aware of.

Is there something else?

I don't think we should expect Steve to throw a developer under the bus when he COULD probably pull this off. This development will probably happen considering RW has family money that I don't (and OG+E connects) and it's great that OKC's old money is now getting more involved downtown. Considering that we need Steve to maintain as good a relationship as possible w RW so that the public can get more details, unless anyone thinks we already know enough here.

But this is no Bob Howard or Fred Hall or even McKown/Humphrey/Pitman/Bradshaw/etc. Those guys have track records and deeper pockets than just their $20 million mixed-use projects and it is reasonable to expect them to build up to larger projects. Even Rick Dowell is on tower watch. This guy has not been a part of downtown development unless he was a shadow investor which would be interesting.

I'm NOT blaming the developer. I blame the tower design for being small. If he can't pull off a higher tower then fine, but this low height building really belongs somewhere else. Some don't care about height at all, I really do.

As far as I know, Rainey Williams bought Bank of Oklahoma Plaza in 2007 for $15 million, did a very minor and unimpressive spruce up of the outdoor space, and not much else. (BTW, the Holiday Inn Express in Bricktown is an $18 million project, to provide some perspective).

I'm sure he's intelligent, motivated and well-connected but there is very little in his past that would have everyone just assume he's an accomplished developer of huge urban projects. In fact, it seems he's only been an investor/owner, which is very different than from-the-ground-up development.

Blind Boosterism is one of the things I like least about Oklahoma City... Because Williams is known and liked in the community somehow seems to imply that any skepticism towards his plans is tantamount to being anti-OKC.

It feels similar to when citizens criticize a war and then get called unpatriotic.



I respect Steve's position here and not saying HE should openly question this project, just that others are entitled to do so without becoming some sort of pariah.

Why is everybody dumping on Rainey Williams? Because he isn't building a second Devon Tower? Because he isn't building 20+ stories? Because he isn't living up to everyone's expectation on this board? Everbody sure seems to be underwhelmed with his proposal, but unless I'm wrong, it's the first CBD office building built with spec space in 30 years (Leadership Square). That he's building ANYTHING is to be commended. We need the space, and he's bringing it to the market. Kudos.

Furthermore, he has chosen a site where an emotional city landmark has stood for 40 years. Some say that it's a building with architectural significance that should be preserved, others call it an unaffordable eyesore that should be torn down, but all must admit that anyone could have purchased and preserved Stage Center, but no-one came forward. As a pragmatist I see that we must move ahead, while recognizing that this infuriates preservationists, many of whom are close friends.

Stage Center will be replaced. If not by Rainey Williams then by someone else. If not now then at some time in the near future. If not 20 stories, then 20 +/- a few. If not with OG+E then with another anchor tenant. If not X then Y. But it will be replaced.

So discuss why >20 or <20, or why OG+E versus another company, or why single-use versus mixed-use, or whatever you'd like to discuss. Just stop throwing under the bus a guy who has the ba**s to do what is going to be done, mostly with his own money, according to his own plan, for which he'll be vilified and might even lose his investment. If you don't like what he's doing, then make your check payable to Rainey Williams, take him out, and take his place in the furnace.

Absolutely nobody is dumping on Rainey Williams.

See my post immediately above.

Pete, I think your perception and my perception of what Williams did at BOK and the nearby garage are far different. I saw what BOK Plaza was looking like before Williams bought it, and it was in serious danger of becoming a class C building and losing BOK as an anchor. The garage was an embarrassment. The renovations I saw were extensive on the inside. The tile crumbling tile plaza on the outside was fixed up, the outside received some cosmetic improvements as you pointed out.
My understanding is the renovations exceeded $4 million.
Again, perception.
I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of my being classified as a booster simply because I questioned whether people are focusing too much on height. Notice what else I said - there are other questions to also look at - most notably will DDRC approve demo of Stage Center without having the actual architectural designs for the new buildings to look at? I wouldn't call that question one that is friendly to Williams.
I promise you, height will not play a role in whether Stage Center gets torn down and replaced with this development, regardless of who might be upset at OKC Talk. The question is whether the design will be up to snuff - and some of the same folks upset over the height in this thread were among those first saying they liked the initial renderings. But again, those showed how the block will be built up and designed, not the actual facade architecture.

I'm blaming the developer. I blame the tower design for being small. If he can't pull off a higher tower then fine, but this low height building really belongs somewhere else. Some don't care about height at all, I really do.

I disagree give me a break dude. What this site does NOT need is a 40 story tower with an imposing sole sign and a corporate moat/plaza. This project is way better and it compliments Devon which is cool.

Why is everybody dumping on Rainey Williams? Because he isn't building a second Devon Tower? Because he isn't building 20+ stories? Because he isn't living up to everyone's expectation on this board? Everbody sure seems to be underwhelmed with his proposal, but unless I'm wrong, it's the first CBD office building built with spec space in 30 years (Leadership Square). That he's building ANYTHING is to be commended. We need the space, and he's bringing it to the market. Kudos.

Furthermore, he has chosen a site where an emotional city landmark has stood for 40 years. Some say that it's a building with architectural significance that should be preserved, others call it an unaffordable eyesore that should be torn down, but all must admit that anyone could have purchased and preserved Stage Center, but no-one came forward. As a pragmatist I see that we must move ahead, while recognizing that this infuriates preservationists, many of whom are close friends.

Stage Center will be replaced. If not by Rainey Williams then by someone else. If not now then at some time in the near future. If not 20 stories, then 20 +/- a few. If not with OG+E then with another anchor tenant. If not X then Y. But it will be replaced.

So discuss why >20 or <20, or why OG+E versus another company, or why single-use versus mixed-use, or whatever you'd like to discuss. Just stop throwing under the bus a guy who has the ba**s to do what is going to be done, mostly with his own money, according to his own plan, for which he'll be vilified and might even lose his investment. If you don't like what he's doing, then make your check payable to Rainey Williams, take him out, and take his place in the furnace.

You had me until you said we need anything lol...

Steve, didn't mean that you were being a booster -- just that it's a growing and pervasive syndrome and one that can often squelch needed public feedback.

A community is made stronger by discussion, and I don't see anyone here being disrespectful or unreasonable.


I'm sure we all hope this turns into an amazing development... But from what we know now, it's far from amazing.

And I still haven't seen anything other than opinion as to why we should all just assume this is going to turn out great. Therefore, the opinion and concern that it might not turn out great seems to be equally valid and worthy of discussion.

Pete, I think your perception and my perception of what Williams did at BOK and the nearby garage are far different. I saw what BOK Plaza was looking like before Williams bought it, and it was in serious danger of becoming a class C building and losing BOK as an anchor. The garage was an embarrassment. The renovations I saw were extensive on the inside. The tile crumbling tile plaza on the outside was fixed up, the outside received some cosmetic improvements as you pointed out.
My understanding is the renovations exceeded $4 million.
Again, perception.
I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of my being classified as a booster simply because I questioned whether people are focusing too much on height. Notice what else I said - there are other questions to also look at - most notably will DDRC approve demo of Stage Center without having the actual architectural designs for the new buildings to look at? I wouldn't call that question one that is friendly to Williams.
I promise you, height will not play a role in whether Stage Center gets torn down and replaced with this development, regardless of who might be upset at OKC Talk. The question is whether the design will be up to snuff - and some of the same folks upset over the height in this thread were among those first saying they liked the initial renderings. But again, those showed how the block will be built up and designed, not the actual facade architecture.

I'm with Steve. I don't read these comments and hear a blind defense of RW but rather an informed argument trying to hone real concerns with this project. We do need to put the height issue behind is bc t obscures the real debate that needs to be had. It's a tower and it's significant enough.

Steve, didn't mean that you were being a booster -- just that it's a growing and pervasive syndrome and one that can often squelch needed public feedback.

A community is made stronger by discussion, and I don't see anyone here being disrespectful or unreasonable.


I'm sure we all hope this turns into an amazing development... But from what we know now, it's far from amazing.

And I still haven't seen anything other than opinion as to why we should all just assume this is going to turn out great. Therefore, the opinion and concern that it might not turn out great seems to be equally valid and worthy of discussion.

Cool. And I agree - this whole proposition should be subject to a thorough discussion of what is gained and lost, of what expectations should be set, etc.
I've asked this before, I'll ask it again: if folks on this board had their choice, would they prefer one 60-story building or would they prefer a 16-story tower, a 12-story building, a 20-story tower and another 20-story tower?

At the risk of being labeled a Philistine, given where OKC is right now, I'd take the 60-story building in a heartbeat.

We are trying to build our national image and another Devon Tower would be amazing -- just like the first one was.

There will be plenty of mid-rises in the future.

I would take the density every time, Pete. Is there something you're seeing around here that indicates we don't need more density still?

Tbh, just driving and walking around a lot in the last few days, and though I'm very excited to be back home, it hits me how badly blighted and underdeveloped OKC still is. Even downtown. We need horizontal density more than we need vertical erections.

It's not that Rainey isn't living up to the expectations of OKCTalk members. It's the fact that he isn't living up to what he said he was going to do when the tower was announced back in July. If he's scaled it down this much between then and now, how much more is he going to scale it down AFTER the demolition of the Stage Center?

It's not that Rainey isn't living up to the expectations of OKCTalk members. It's the fact that he isn't living up to what he said he was going to do when the tower was announced back in July. If he's scaled it down this much between then and now, how much more is he going to scale it down AFTER the demolition of the Stage Center?

I'm not here to fault a developer for changing slightly between rhetoric stage and concept. I'd fault someone for changes between demolition and construction, or as we quite often see, between permitting and completion. This isn't that. Yet.

I would take the density every time, Pete. Is there something you're seeing around here that indicates we don't need more density still?

Tbh, just driving and walking around a lot in the last few days, and though I'm very excited to be back home, it hits me how badly blighted and underdeveloped OKC still is. Even downtown. We need horizontal density more than we need vertical erections.

Yes, but no matter the height, we are still just talking about one block here.

You could also argue that the excitement and enthusiasm around something super-obvious and impressive like Devon Tower drives a lot of in-fill development.

I disagree give me a break dude. What this site does NOT need is a 40 story tower with an imposing sole sign and a corporate moat/plaza. This project is way better and it compliments Devon which is cool.Spartan, I corrected my post to say I am NOT blaming the developer here-excuse me for that. It is just a matter of opinion and I respect your opinion and understand some people don't care about height. I do care about height and to me, this tower is small in that regard. I am sure this building will be bigger and make a bigger impact than most expect, but come on man, 14 stories!? I would be just fine with this development if it were 35 stories and anything above that would be an added bonus. I don't expect it to be bigger than the Devon Tower(which I would love to see a building or two bigger than 900ft here but I'm not getting my hopes up).

As someone who wants to participate in developing in the urban core one day and building great urban projects, let me say I wish the best of luck to Williams and hope he is successful in building this tower. All I can say is if it were me, I would build it in Midtown or somewhere in Film Row, not in the CBD.

We have too much in flux right now to quantify what Devon has led to so if anything it has led more to speculation IMO. There isn't a trade off with organic growth, it really is what we need.

Case in point: Our years-long of waiting for anything on the Preftakes block. I'm just at the point of collapsing from holding my breath so long on all of this.

Rainey will forever be known as "the guy who tore down Stage Center," no matter what he replaces it with, how high it is built, who occupies it, or how successful a project it is. It's a sure bet that other serious developers took a pass on this location because THEY would earn that moniker and forever be known as "the guy who..."

Steve & Pete debate an interesting point about Williams' most visible urban office project, BOK Tower. Was he successful? By what measure? Was he an active developer, passive investor or something else? Did this BOK experience prepare him for this new project, or are they mostly incomparable? All good questions. Same goes for those about surplus structured parking. And "he initially said it would be ___, but now it's going to be ___." Project plans typically change constantly between initial concept and building completion - why shouldn't this project be any different? Heck, he doesn't even have a demolition permit in hand yet!

But he's doing something that was certain - redeveloping Stage Center - and doing it mostly with his own money (and that of investors), while bringing a new, attractive addition to the skyline, and new, Class A office space to the general market.

Cool. And I agree - this whole proposition should be subject to a thorough discussion of what is gained and lost, of what expectations should be set, etc.
I've asked this before, I'll ask it again: if folks on this board had their choice, would they prefer one 60-story building or would they prefer a 16-story tower, a 12-story building, a 20-story tower and another 20-story tower?I'd pick the 60 story building over any 20 story tower or less in the CBD.

I'd pick the 60 story building over any 20 story tower or less in the CBD.

And that's the deeply insightful and thoughtful perspective you're known for...

I would take the density every time, Pete. Is there something you're seeing around here that indicates we don't need more density still?

Tbh, just driving and walking around a lot in the last few days, and though I'm very excited to be back home, it hits me how badly blighted and underdeveloped OKC still is. Even downtown. We need horizontal density more than we need vertical erections.And Spartan, have you seen how many new infill projects are taking place? Is it really bad to ask for at least two or three super falls here? If that is unrealistic or OKC is not ready for that, we should at least be building a 25 story+ skyscraper on sites as important as where the Stage Center is.

And that's the deeply insightful and thoughtful perspective you're known for...Thank you(even though I realize you are not expressing that in complementary way), it is an opinion and still applies even if you disagree with it. In case you missed my other post that I corrected, you may want to go back and re-read it.

And Spartan, have you seen how many new infill projects are taking place? Is it really bad to ask for at least two or three super falls here? If that is unrealistic or OKC is not ready for that, we should at least be building a 25 story+ skyscraper on sites as important as where the Stage Center is.

Yeah, it is. Any city not named NYC or Chicago isn't going to get three supertalls. As for what we have done, we've filled 4 blocks in Deep Deuce. We're set to fill another 2 in Bricktown and another 2 in Midtown. Let's keep it going we need a LOT more.

A drive anywhere through downtown will take you past dozens of bad blocks, and a couple of good ones. That's the reality.

Yeah, it is. Any city not named NYC or Chicago isn't going to get three supertalls. As for what we have done, we've filled 4 blocks in Deep Deuce. We're set to fill another 2 in Bricktown and another 2 in Midtown. Let's keep it going we need a LOT more.

A drive anywhere through downtown will take you past dozens of bad blocks, and a couple of good ones. That's the reality.

We need more skyline-changing skyscrapers AND infill. I think OKC could support at least one more high-rise. Maybe not as tall as the Devon tower but taller than the Chase Tower. That would also help balance out the skyline. Right now, it looks ridiculous from certain angles. I also disagree that any city not NYC or Chicago will get three supertalls. Austin has and will likely get more before all is said and done. So did Charlotte in the 2000s. Nashville is about to get one and it wouldn't surprise me if they got another one shortly after. Tulsa has FOUR skyscrapers taller than the Chase Tower. It's not unrealistic to hope for another skyline altering tower in OKC.

I would be just fine with this development if it were 35 stories and anything above that would be an added bonus. I don't expect it to be bigger than the Devon Tower(which I would love to see a building or two bigger than 900ft here but I'm not getting my hopes up).

As someone who wants to participate in developing in the urban core one day and building great urban projects, let me say I wish the best of luck to Williams and hope he is successful in building this tower. All I can say is if it were me, I would build it in Midtown or somewhere in Film Row, not in the CBD.Some of the comments here make it seem that development is arbitrary and speculative. That's just not true.

There has to be a tenant (or tenants) and the tenant has to want to be on a site that actually can be developed accordingly. That's just the beginning. If you can get to the starting line then the really hard and expensive work begins.

Now, depending upon financing options available, you may be able to get by with something less than 100% leased but the more leased the better.

So if you want a 60 story building then you have to find one or more tenants to occupy a whole bunch of those floors. And those tenants have to want to be in Oklahoma City at that very place.

That's just the beginning. After that you start spending a whole bunch of your own money so you can borrow a whole bunch more. You have leases to negotiate (meaning lots of legal $) and execute. You have approvals. You have engineering and a host of architectural plans to purchase. Mostly this is all your money by the way. And if it is a big project then it is going to be pretty big money on your part.

Surprising to some it turns out that finding those initial tenants is not all that easily done. Companies that can afford to lease a bunch of space in a brand new building in Oklahoma City have options. So the universe of potential tenants shrinks rather quickly.

And if you really want to be a developer (as in real estate developer) it turns out that it is a lot easier to secure tenants, investors, financing, and so on if you've accomplished a few other projects. Even then it's probably better to get a few tens of millions dollars projects before you get in the hundreds and billions.

Yeah, it is. Any city not named NYC or Chicago isn't going to get three supertalls. As for what we have done, we've filled 4 blocks in Deep Deuce. We're set to fill another 2 in Bricktown and another 2 in Midtown. Let's keep it going we need a LOT more.

A drive anywhere through downtown will take you past dozens of bad blocks, and a couple of good ones. That's the reality.Ok, so that's fine. We can support buildings over 25 stories on prime lots such as the Stage Center.

All I am saying is we need sine skyline changing buildings that are significant. We almost had a super tall and there is no reason that we couldn't get one. Midland is about to get one, so that says something.

Ok, so that's fine. We can support buildings over 25 stories on prime lots such as the Stage Center.

All I am saying is we need sine skyline changing buildings that are significant. We almost had a super tall and there is no reason that we couldn't get one. Midland is about to get one, so that says something.

Midland isn't getting a supertall. The Energy Tower isn't going to be much taller then Devon and Devon wasn't ever classified as a super tall even before being reduced. After staying in Midland's DT a few weeks ago, it really drove home how ridiculous that project is. They really could use several more mid-rise towers with solid street interaction before adding a tower like that. Midland's downtown area is pitiful when it comes down to street interaction, and activity outside of business hours. It feels like OKC in 1993, though it has a much better economy then we did at the time. A lot of the development has moved out of downtown due to the cheaper real estate.

Cool. And I agree - this whole proposition should be subject to a thorough discussion of what is gained and lost, of what expectations should be set, etc.
I've asked this before, I'll ask it again: if folks on this board had their choice, would they prefer one 60-story building or would they prefer a 16-story tower, a 12-story building, a 20-story tower and another 20-story tower?

I take the 60 story in a heartbeat, because they are more difficult to get. There are a lot more circumstances that can arise where a 12-20 story building gets built than a 60 story. Take the rare ones when you can get them.

We need more skyline-changing skyscrapers AND infill. I think OKC could support at least one more high-rise. Maybe not as tall as the Devon tower but taller than the Chase Tower. That would also help balance out the skyline. Right now, it looks ridiculous from certain angles. I also disagree that any city not NYC or Chicago will get three supertalls. Austin has and will likely get more before all is said and done. So did Charlotte in the 2000s. Nashville is about to get one and it wouldn't surprise me if they got another one shortly after. Tulsa has FOUR skyscrapers taller than the Chase Tower. It's not unrealistic to hope for another skyline altering tower in OKC.

Please help me to better identify these supertalls of Charlotte which you speak of...

Please help me to better identify these supertalls of Charlotte which you speak of...

We'd like to know about the supertalls in Austin also, Spartan. Nashville has talked about this for a long time but isn't about to get any yet.

You can't really blame us Millennials for wanting to experience another skyscraper boom since we were too young to remember the last one in the 80's when five skyscrapers were built, 1980-1984. Continental, Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Leadership Square North and South.

Given the choice of multiple 20 story and less structures that someone is apparently ready and willing to build and a 60 story or so tower that near on as anyone knows for certain no one is ready to build, I'm good with the direction the current developer is taking.

Yeah, ok, I put a twist in there that Steve did not, but I think it is a fair twist. Yes, there were other lookers interested in SC, but no one was out there screaming the sellers were idiots for taking a pass on a supertall proposal in favor of the winning proposal.

And as far as the developer being stuck with the moniker of the guy who dozed SC, the reality is there are going to be more folks who say that with a smile and a hallelujah in their tonal quality than there are who will sneer it with spittle running down their chin. Fer cryin' out loud, I really enjoyed my trips there, and will enjoy the memories for a long time, but again being real - the one semi-serious proposal to 'save' SC was a group who had no real financial backing buy lacked the place so much they hoped to spend millions to turn something with minimal exhibit space into a children's museum.

The only salvation SC was going to truly have was a white knight with way more money than sense (aka me winning a mega lotto or similar) who did it just to be able to say been there, done that, sold some t shirts and ticked out a few in the process. I have to suspect if the lotto dream had ever materialized there would have been no small number of the arts community who would have moved heaven and earth to see such funds poured into the arts, rather than burned up in a vanity project. And dang it, they'd be right, too.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Go for it Williams! But if you scrap your multi non tall structures for a waffle house, then there's going to be trouble.

Please help me to better identify these supertalls of Charlotte which you speak of...

It depends on your definition of supertall. I am not going by the official definition. I am going by OKC's standard which is anything taller than the Chase tower - that is 500 ft. Charlotte has five of them, three of them finished since 2000. The Duke Energy Tower, which is somewhat similar in design to the Devon Tower was completed in 2010 along with the Vue, a high-rise residential tower. They have also had nine additional towers added since 2000 that are below 500 ft but above 200 ft. The boom there was simply remarkable.

It depends on your definition of supertall. I am not going by the official definition. I am going by OKC's standard which is anything taller than the Chase tower - that is 500 ft. Charlotte has five of them, three of them finished since 2000. The Duke Energy Tower, which is somewhat similar in design to the Devon Tower was completed in 2010 along with the Vue, a high-rise residential tower. They have also had nine additional towers added since 2000 that are below 500 ft but above 200 ft. The boom there was simply remarkable.

Tell me more about Charlotte.

It depends on your definition of supertall. I am not going by the official definition. I am going by OKC's standard which is anything taller than the Chase tower - that is 500 ft. Charlotte has five of them, three of them finished since 2000. The Duke Energy Tower, which is somewhat similar in design to the Devon Tower was completed in 2010 along with the Vue, a high-rise residential tower. They have also had nine additional towers added since 2000 that are below 500 ft but above 200 ft. The boom there was simply remarkable.

You can't just use your own definitions and expect others to follow along. Hell, you can't really just use your own definitions period. Supertall has a meaning and it is not what you are using.

You can't just use your own definitions and expect others to follow along. Hell, you can't really just use your own definitions period. Supertall has a meaning and it is not what you are using.

Fair enough. A true supertall boom may be unrealistic for OKC, but I don't see why there can't be another tower or two over 500 ft.

Some of the comments here make it seem that development is arbitrary and speculative. That's just not true.

There has to be a tenant (or tenants) and the tenant has to want to be on a site that actually can be developed accordingly. That's just the beginning. If you can get to the starting line then the really hard and expensive work begins.

Now, depending upon financing options available, you may be able to get by with something less than 100% leased but the more leased the better.

So if you want a 60 story building then you have to find one or more tenants to occupy a whole bunch of those floors. And those tenants have to want to be in Oklahoma City at that very place.

That's just the beginning. After that you start spending a whole bunch of your own money so you can borrow a whole bunch more. You have leases to negotiate (meaning lots of legal $) and execute. You have approvals. You have engineering and a host of architectural plans to purchase. Mostly this is all your money by the way. And if it is a big project then it is going to be pretty big money on your part.

Surprising to some it turns out that finding those initial tenants is not all that easily done. Companies that can afford to lease a bunch of space in a brand new building in Oklahoma City have options. So the universe of potential tenants shrinks rather quickly.

And if you really want to be a developer (as in real estate developer) it turns out that it is a lot easier to secure tenants, investors, financing, and so on if you've accomplished a few other projects. Even then it's probably better to get a few tens of millions dollars projects before you get in the hundreds and billions.

Stop injecting common sense and business reality into our fantasy, party pooper. We should just be able to snap our fingers and get a whole bunch of 1,000 foot tall skyscrapers because...we want them!

Yeah, it is. Any city not named NYC or Chicago isn't going to get three supertalls. As for what we have done, we've filled 4 blocks in Deep Deuce. We're set to fill another 2 in Bricktown and another 2 in Midtown. Let's keep it going we need a LOT more.

A drive anywhere through downtown will take you past dozens of bad blocks, and a couple of good ones. That's the reality.

So....what you're saying is, the grass isn't always greener? lol

Could someone with more talent than me show me what it would look like if the west tower of this project was replaced with a duplicate of the east tower.

I like the shape of the east tower because it is 1) all glass and 2) it has resemblance to the Devon tower design.

The pool and garden is a great idea but the views to the north will be the back of the office building. I'd expect an architect to do more than just want residents and visitors to be looking at that.

If both towers were of the similar shape but at a right angles, so they created a wall on Hudson and Sheridan, they'd also create a very beautiful outdoor room for those on the green roof. Staggering their heights a little would be a nice touch and easy to get away with as well with this type of design.

Anyone have friends at ADG to pitch this idea? I really think that the west tower is part of the reason this project is coming in so "meh". The whole visual focus is on the east tower and given that it is "only" 16 stories or so, it makes the whole development seem lopsided and an excessive use of land for the project.

To summarize, we need a 'twin towers' design, not a single pretty tower, with a bland office tower. To me, that would come closer to a 'world class' mark. World class means that all the components and details were paid attention to. Out of this whole project, the west tower is, to me, bringing the rest down.

Here's a rough visualization on what that would look like. I like the idea!

http://i.imgur.com/N3enyLm.jpg (http://imgur.com/N3enyLm)

You can't just use your own definitions and expect others to follow along. Hell, you can't really just use your own definitions period. Supertall has a meaning and it is not what you are using.

Yeah, but the actual definition doesn't work nearly as well to buttress the point he's trying to make.

Here's a rough visualization on what that would look like. I like the idea!

http://i.imgur.com/N3enyLm.jpg (http://imgur.com/N3enyLm)

Now that would be cool, though I would rotate it 90 degrees counterclockwise so that you could view both towers from Myriad Gardens.

Yeah, but the actual definition doesn't work nearly as well to buttress the point he's trying to make.

Inconceivable!

You can't just use your own definitions and expect others to follow along. Hell, you can't really just use your own definitions period. Supertall has a meaning and it is not what you are using.

^ This...you can't make up your own definition for supertall...it already has a definition: any building 300 meters or taller. Neither midland, Nashville, Austin, nor Charlotte have one.

supertall building - definition | meaning | description | PSC #4198457539 - Phorio Standards (http://standards.phorio.com/?t=definition&code=4198457539)

^ This...you can't make up your own definition for supertall...it already has a definition: any building 300 meters or taller. Neither midland, Nashville, Austin, nor Charlotte have one.

supertall building - definition | meaning | description | PSC #4198457539 - Phorio Standards (http://standards.phorio.com/?t=definition&code=4198457539)

This is the US and we don't talk metrics.

Anyways,this Tower "not really a tower IMO" will not even be as tall as the regency. Scrap it and start over on this prime area. This is simply not good enough. A couple of small buildings will add nothing to the skyline. Move it to NW Expressway and they will fit right in. Rainey needs to stay out of downtown with this crap.

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!
In the words of the great Ron Burgondy, "my that escalated quickly!"

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!


No we don't have to do that Steve. But if we are going to tear down a structure on a PRIME PIECE of property downtown then we should get a world class tower in it's place. The project that they are proposing doesn't do that and this type of project fits better out on NW Expressway or maybe up by the Regency.

All I am saying is we need sine skyline changing buildings that are significant.

I think you went off on a tangent there.

I think you went off on a tangent there.

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

:congrats:

Isn't escalation and erection the topic at hand? :)

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

Realistically if he thought he had a market for that kind of space, there is a good chance it would be more efficient to add a third tower in some of the rooftop garden space than stack all the new space on what is already the larger of the two towers

^ This...you can't make up your own definition for supertall...it already has a definition: any building 300 meters or taller. Neither midland, Nashville, Austin, nor Charlotte have one.

supertall building - definition | meaning | description | PSC #4198457539 - Phorio Standards (http://standards.phorio.com/?t=definition&code=4198457539)

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :P

Mudland, math & Viagra. Boy this thread has derailed big time. Where's Torea so he can toot some horns? Lol