What about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (IMO) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all Oklahomans or have a very strong tie to Oklahoma/OKC and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) Pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and I think everyone on here respects Pete too much to let it get carried away.

agreed. a healthy debate.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. And if you are young, drop the age silliness. If you are not, all the more reason to do so. the fake is to rail on how the public has a right to demand what goes on this private property in the way of development, and more specifically how it will look how tall it will be, an any other facet that seems to balance out whatever unfairness you have persuaded yourself exists in the acquisition of the property.

This isn't a public roadway where certain constraints are being ignored, which in large part is how the friends of the Blvd. made the headway they did.
This isn't a Devon situation, where a company with strong reserves came in and paid cash, plus loaned money out to make it all happen as fast as possible.
This isn't Continental, which though besides Devon is probably the most able, or at least one of the most able, groups to pull off a Devon size project, has no interest in doing so at the present.

This is a partial block development, that although its height won't make some folks drool on themselves for hours on end, will apparently be a solid addition to downtown.
At some point the remainder of the block, or other partial blocks nearby, may well have what the tape measure crowd needs to dust their wheaties.

Some of us do remember well what the core looked like and was before Norick got real dang serious and put his reputation on the line. And what it was like when we were only in OKC because we tagged along with parents or youth trips. So yeah, it's not merely the younger generation who can see the difference. Older farts, well many of us anyhow, have just outgrown the tape measure mentality and the often all too common sense of entitlement that is can be part and parcel of youthful exuberance.

I would not have an issue with a 30 or more story tower that also had interaction at the street level. I simply don't see where I or anyone else has a right to be demanding it happen or else the guy should have to sell the property or it should just sit until he will.

If it was a sweetheart deal, then it was. fact is, I don't care. If others do, then they should raise the capital and make an offer so damn compelling the owner can not walk away from it and then do what they want. Oh wait. that was tired,well, all except the raise enough money for a compelling offer part.

I'll leave the last word to you or others who think it is appropriate to demand others meet their desires despite having no skin in the game.

If you have paid taxes in Oklahoma City then you have skin the game.

We have (as a population) invested heavily in all of the areas directly around this property, so therefore we have a right to speak our mind about how this land should be developed. We don't have the right to legally stop it, but we do have freedom of speech to raise our concerns with our investment. We aren't repaid monetarily, but with quality of life. And if this building doesn't improve my quality of life ("make me proud to have it in Oklahoma City" as Mr. Williams would say) then I don't want it taking up a spot that another developer would accomplish.

I want to stick with this question of "world class" - which is something Rainey Williams did promise. So, are we tying "world class" to height? Because if that's so, look down the street and tell me how height makes the 31-story Oklahoma Tower (now there's a mediocre design if I've ever saw one) better than the 22-story Leadership Square.
World class - well heck, that phrase is applied throughout the architecture community internationally to Stage Center.
I'm asking everyone again - do we really know what this development will look like? We know how it will be conceptually modeled and the site plan. But the exterior architectural finish IS NOT shown in the renderings provided so far. So how does anyone know whether it will be world class, unless the definition is set at height as what I'm sensing from many in this thread.
I keep asking, and I'll keep asking ... is DDRC being given enough information about this project to allow for demolition to continue?

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

Excellent, excellent post!

Also, can anybody name a city that has a great skyline but an otherwise poor downtown? I can't think of any except for possibly Tulsa. Towers add to urban feel and are excellent for placemaking just as much as good street interaction does from my experience.


I disagree with this premise. There is no correlation between an area's skyline and the quality of the neighborhood- except maybe that it's harder to have a good neighborhood in the presence of skyline-defining buildings. In my experience, you're better off staying away from the parts of cities that have skylines because they tend to be more boring, dead, bland, and corporate. I'd rather find myself in Lincoln Park instead of the Loop, Brooklyn instead of Wall Street, Montrose instead of DT Houston, Uptown instead of DT Dallas.

In contrast, one of the most boring city skylines is probably Portland, a city that is considered extremely unique because it actually has a vibrant and interesting downtown with tons of shopping, unlike almost every other American city. The most coveted cities in the world are in Europe. Skylines are a rarity in Europe, and wherever you do find a skyline, you'll find a part of town that is dead, quiet, and boring like La Defense or Canary Wharf.

It's not that you can't have a vibrant neighborhood with a good skyline- but they certainly aren't natural partners.

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

Best post to date in this thread. Brilliantly said, BDP.

On multiple occasions, I've walked my butt off all over old Rome. It's about 2 miles square. There's not a building over 6 floors high. Monuments and history galore, but not a tall building.

It's also where everyone wants to be.

This is an apples to oranges comparison, but the point is the height of buildings just are not that important.

Originally Posted by bchris02
Also, can anybody name a city that has a great skyline but an otherwise poor downtown? I can't think of any except for possibly Tulsa. Towers add to urban feel and are excellent for placemaking just as much as good street interaction does from my experience.

Easy, New Orleans..... downtown is a bit dangerous, everyone goes to the French Quarter.

And they have a 60 story building too.

Melodrama, my favorite! Stage Center is ugly and dysfunctional and there is something better waiting on the land. Time to let it go.

Direct response to the post above mine. My post was not calling for preservation or retention. Why the need to reinforce how badly you want it torn down?

pro·gres·sive [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

Sorry, I assumed you knew what progressive meant. Yet, considering you suggested to shut down a public forum, for a reason you refuse to give or do not have, your response is not surprising.

6.
Getting all pissed off and crying like a little baby just because we don't get a 1000 ft. skyscraper "as promised".

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

Agreed, best post to date on this thread. If this can be the anchor of the west side of downtown, with everything you mentioned included, then I know I can deal with not being able to see it from the east side of downtown.

We have (as a population) invested heavily in all of the areas directly around this property, so therefore we have a right to speak our mind about how this land should be developed.

Of course you have the right to speak your mind, but being the owner of the property, RW has the right to completely ignore your opinion.


And if this building doesn't improve my quality of life ("make me proud to have it in Oklahoma City" as Mr. Williams would say) then I don't want it taking up a spot that another developer would accomplish.

^Definition of entitlement. I agree with Kevin Pate.

I'm not going to repost BDP's post again, just want to echo that it's the best post to date on this thread. Ask yourself if Paris and Washington DC are "world class" cities. We should be so lucky in OKC.

Also....I doubt very seriously there are more than a handful of people in the history of earth that have ever moved to a city specifically and only because of the height of their buildings. And if such people actually do exist, well, we could build 20 Devon Towers and they still wouldn't be moving to OKC.

I think an urban experience is created by a combination of height and street interaction. I'm sorry, but OKC will never be a Paris or a Washington DC. Paris isn't really a comparison because its a European city and urban planning is different over there, but Washington DC is the only US city I can think of that truly feels urban and world class yet lacks a strong skyline. America's greatest cities, be it Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, etc all have both height AND excellent place-making to give them the complete package. What I am saying here is that in this point in OKC's development, height IS important, as is good street interaction.

Easy, New Orleans..... downtown is a bit dangerous, everyone goes to the French Quarter.

And they have a 60 story building too.

The New Orleans I am familiar with has an excellent, authentic downtown with great urban canyons. The French Quarter may be where the life is at, but it is situated much as Bricktown is to downtown OKC so it is still basically downtown. If you want to compare New Orleans' CBD vs Oklahoma City's CBD, New Orleans wins by a long shot.

I'm not going to repost BDP's post again, just want to echo that it's the best post to date on this thread. Ask yourself if Paris and Washington DC are "world class" cities. We should be so lucky in OKC.

Berlin as well.

No, Kevinpate is just living in the 'REAL' world....... not in fantasy dream land or Sim City.

If you want change, like he said, go to the council and speak your peace. The FBB group was very effective with the boulevard, but they went through the proper channels.That is an invalid statement and used to twist things and promote someone-that thinks like you- to support your opinion. You know this and I just wanted to state that.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. And if you are young, drop the age silliness. If you are not, all the more reason to do so. the fake is to rail on how the public has a right to demand what goes on this private property in the way of development, and more specifically how it will look how tall it will be, an any other facet that seems to balance out whatever unfairness you have persuaded yourself exists in the acquisition of the property.

This isn't a public roadway where certain constraints are being ignored, which in large part is how the friends of the Blvd. made the headway they did.
This isn't a Devon situation, where a company with strong reserves came in and paid cash, plus loaned money out to make it all happen as fast as possible.
This isn't Continental, which though besides Devon is probably the most able, or at least one of the most able, groups to pull off a Devon size project, has no interest in doing so at the present.

This is a partial block development, that although its height won't make some folks drool on themselves for hours on end, will apparently be a solid addition to downtown.
At some point the remainder of the block, or other partial blocks nearby, may well have what the tape measure crowd needs to dust their wheaties.

Some of us do remember well what the core looked like and was before Norick got real dang serious and put his reputation on the line. And what it was like when we were only in OKC because we tagged along with parents or youth trips. So yeah, it's not merely the younger generation who can see the difference. Older farts, well many of us anyhow, have just outgrown the tape measure mentality and the often all too common sense of entitlement that is can be part and parcel of youthful exuberance.

I would not have an issue with a 30 or more story tower that also had interaction at the street level. I simply don't see where I or anyone else has a right to be demanding it happen or else the guy should have to sell the property or it should just sit until he will.

If it was a sweetheart deal, then it was. fact is, I don't care. If others do, then they should raise the capital and make an offer so damn compelling the owner can not walk away from it and then do what they want. Oh wait. that was tired,well, all except the raise enough money for a compelling offer part.

I'll leave the last word to you or others who think it is appropriate to demand others meet their desires despite having no skin in the game.Kevin, I really respect what you have to say, but I must ask, you come across as someone who hates the Stage Center, may I ask why exactly? I've read your posts and got bits and pieces, but can you sum it up in a short(ish) paragraph.

I like the Stage Center, but I would trade it for a 25 story building, but anything less than that is just not worthy, imo.

The New Orleans I am familiar with has an excellent, authentic downtown with great urban canyons. The French Quarter may be where the life is at, but it is situated much as Bricktown is to downtown OKC so it is still basically downtown. If you want to compare New Orleans' CBD vs Oklahoma City's CBD, New Orleans wins by a long shot.

Some of those buildings in the NO CBD are completely boarded up. In fact, I think it's either the 2nd or 3rd tallest has been empty pre Katrina.

That is an invalid statement and used to twist things and promote someone-that thinks like you- to support your opinion. You know this and I just wanted to state that.

Nope, not at all. He knows who owns the property and RW has the right to do whatever he wants to with it as long as he follows the proper guide lines. Nobody has 'rights' to this property just because at one time or another they paid a tax in OKC.

It's great that we all have opinions, and that we express them, but some of this crap about height demanding is beyond compromise.

Kevin, I really respect what you have to say, but I must ask, you come across as someone who hates the Stage Center, may I ask why exactly? I've read your posts and got bits and pieces, but can you sum it up in a short(ish) paragraph.

I like the Stage Center, but I would trade it for a 25 story building, but anything less than that is just not worthy, imo.

There was a time I loved SC. Of course, there was a time it was a unique, functional structure. Not the best structure, but functional, utilized and quirky enough to draw some attention.
But then it ceased to be that. Whether that was intentional neglect, bad design, tragic accident, yada, yada, yada, what was once functional, expensive and less than perfection, but functional, become non-functional, and at that point, someone, somewhere made a decision to leave it to rot.

I don't hate the structure. I hate what happened to it. I hate that it wasn't loved enough to generate the funds to keep it functional. I hate that it wasn't maintained. I hate that it became something that rather than contribute to the arts became an eyesore that sucks funds away from the arts just to keep it secure and not become an urban camper man cave. I hate that there was no longer any serious interest to save it. I hate that people who either don't kn ow, or perhaps don't care, would rahter it sit and rot as a failed opportunity than have it removed so something better can take its place.

There was a time I honestly believed that if I hit a lotto I would salvage the place, and if it ticked folks, then it did. It wasn't all that long ago. But then reality struck. Why dump all that money into something, even fi I actually had it, when it wasn't all that appreciated even by those who did you it. Once the love of the memories wasn't enough,a nd it became clear no one had a plan to save it that made sense, then it became a rotting corpse of a structure that needed to be gone so it would not impede development of the space, and would not be an attractive nuisance when the school come in and impressionable kids abound. I grew up near abandoned mines and some dead buildings in se OK. I'm better acquainted than I'll go into on why young minds, false bravado, low common sense and dangerous structures are not a good combination.

So yes, I've made my piece with it going away. It's time. there is interest in the property. It has sold. Sure, it may not be a super tall. It may not even be all that tall. But it is a move forward and it is time. And I meant something I wrote earlier. While it would make me sad personally, I truly would rather see a surface parking lot generating funds for a project in a couple of years, than see a rotting abandoned and unsafe building left standing just because it was once functional.

Finally, I think Devon is a nice, truly nice building. Spectacular even. But tall is not the only thing that is important, nor is it even of major importance to me.

Not short, sorry. But hopefully it helps explain some. I look forward to seeing what happens. Just as SC was an improvement on the dead grassy lot that was once there, I believe what is coming is an improvement on the dead abandoned SC that no longer needs to be there.

There was a time I loved SC. Of course, there was a time it was a unique, functional structure. Not the best structure, but functional, utilized and quirky enough to draw some attention.
But then it ceased to be that. Whether that was intentional neglect, bad design, tragic accident, yada, yada, yada, what was once functional, expensive and less than perfection, but functional, become non-functional, and at that point, someone, somewhere made a decision to leave it to rot.

I don't hate the structure. I hate what happened to it. I hate that it wasn't loved enough to generate the funds to keep it functional. I hate that it wasn't maintained. I hate that it became something that rather than contribute to the arts became an eyesore that sucks funds away from the arts just to keep it secure and not become an urban camper man cave. I hate that there was no longer any serious interest to save it. I hate that people who either don't kn ow, or perhaps don't care, would rahter it sit and rot as a failed opportunity than have it removed so something better can take its place.

There was a time I honestly believed that if I hit a lotto I would salvage the place, and if it ticked folks, then it did. It wasn't all that long ago. But then reality struck. Why dump all that money into something, even fi I actually had it, when it wasn't all that appreciated even by those who did you it. Once the love of the memories wasn't enough,a nd it became clear no one had a plan to save it that made sense, then it became a rotting corpse of a structure that needed to be gone so it would not impede development of the space, and would not be an attractive nuisance when the school come in and impressionable kids abound. I grew up near abandoned mines and some dead buildings in se OK. I'm better acquainted than I'll go into on why young minds, false bravado, low common sense and dangerous structures are not a good combination.

So yes, I've made my piece with it going away. It's time. there is interest in the property. It has sold. Sure, it may not be a super tall. It may not even be all that tall. But it is a move forward and it is time. And I meant something I wrote earlier. While it would make me sad personally, I truly would rather see a surface parking lot generating funds for a project in a couple of years, than see a rotting abandoned and unsafe building left standing just because it was once functional.

Finally, I think Devon is a nice, truly nice building. Spectacular even. But tall is not the only thing that is important, nor is it even of major importance to me.

Not short, sorry. But hopefully it helps explain some. I look forward to seeing what happens. Just as SC was an improvement on the dead grassy lot that was once there, I believe what is coming is an improvement on the dead abandoned SC that no longer needs to be there.Very reasonable and moderated post and thank you for that. I honestly can't argue with any of your points there and it does in fact seem, the Stage Center has truly limped past the point of no return. Maybe if this building is built it will be bigger and better than most think, I would just really like to see at least something that would pack some sort of punch to the skyline.

Very reasonable and moderated post and thank you for that. I honestly can't argue with any of your points there and it does in fact seem, the Stage Center has truly limped past the point of no return. Maybe if this building is built it will be bigger and better than most think, I would just really like to see at least something that would pack some sort of punch to the skyline.

Nothing better than a little punch. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzZDZAucJ4

you.......... YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT ON TELEVISION-it's obscene!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My grandmother don had a hart tack' from the level of violence on there! ;)

you.......... YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT ON TELEVISION-it's obscene!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My grandmother don had a hart tack' from the level of violence on there! ;)

No prob, plupan, this isn't television.

Living in Dallas the last 19 years, I'm of the opinion that tall buildings don't make as much difference as density and unique draws the city offers. This city Doesn't hold up to San Antonio or even Austin in my opinion.
I do however feel you want MORE corporate presence and many corps are not large enough nor do they have enough to try and justify so much class a space. Usually density and variety gives you that presence.

Since most on this forum deems either the design or height of this project unworthy at 17 or 18 stories, i thought i would compare OKC to the competition in buildings over 17 stories.
Also, since Devon is the first building over 17 stories built since leadership square in 1984, how would okc stack up there since it would show companies perception of the cities.
I chose 10 cities i thought that okc might compare and compete with:

Kansas city
Charollote
Austin
Memphis
Indianapolis
Louisville
Raleigh
Omaha
Little rock
Tulsa

1. KC has 33 total buildings over 17 stories. (In all of these instances-even with okc, not all but a large percent of the buildings are downtown.) but, since 1984 (when Leadership sq. was built) 11 of those 33 buildings were built.
This puts OKC at a HUGE disadvantage comparatively. While OKC lay dormant for 25 years, KC was becoming home to all the corporations that filled those buildings. That, coupled with the historical value of the city, give it a very unique advantage over OKC.
2. CHARLOTTE is often compared with Okc. They have 26 buildings over 17 stories. 13 of those were built since 1984! Incidentally 13 is only one or two less than OKC has all together.
3. Austin has 29 buildings over 17 stories. 20 of them built while OKC lay dormant. Think of the companies that came over from Cali. But few are in or built the taller towers in austin.
4. Louisville has 25 towers taller than 17 stories. 8 were built since 1984.
5. Indy- 20 total - 11 built since '84
6. Raleigh - 11 total - 8 built
7. Little rock- 9 total - 4 built
8. Tulsa -15 total - one built
9. Memphis - 12 total. - 1 built
10. Omaha -7 total. - 2 built

OKC -15 buildings over 17 stories -Devon is the only tower since Leadership Sq.
So where does OKC really stand comparatively? Making progress yes, but clearly companies are finding other cities with much more draw.

I take pride Being from OKC, even though the year i moved, the city decided to throw a big party and installed the maps program when i left! So many i talk with down here in Texas still have the OKC from the eighties stuck in their heads. They say 'why would i even go to OKC!' I say, you havent seen it lately though!
But don't let the pride become a weakness or worse, a downfall! Give companies too much flack, and the onlooking companies may think twice about coming to OKC, and decide on Little Rock or Tulsa with less resistance. They aren't that far behind. Don't kid yourself.
Being that the second tower will likely be an energy company, and is watching how this proceeds, i would use caution and patience. In Houston, Companies like Exxon, conoco, phillips are building multiple towers less than 25 stories. Maybe this second company would rather go down there?
What if Conoco or Exxon wanted to downsize and sell the second or 3rd (etc) towers? Wouldn't that be an easier sale than one forty story, because you open up to a lager group of buyers.
I think there are more positives to this project than most of us would care to admit because pride...which is what you do and don't want to have.

Great post, BigD Misey!

Those stats really show how far behind OKC still is compared to its peer cities. It's definitely too soon to start taking any development for granted. Take Louisville for instance, they are of similar population and demographics to OKC, but it will take us 10-15 years of development at the current rate to catch up to them. This Stage Center Tower will only be 14 stories at tops so it won't figure into the count. THIS, however, is OKC's time to do as much catching up as it can do while development in other cities like Louisville, Kansas City, and Charlotte are stalled due to the Great Recession. My mind is starting to change on this tower. Yes, higher would be nice, but right now OKC can't act like a spoiled child and demand it. As long as the building adheres to good urban design principles, I think its something we all should support.

Yes, higher would be nice, but right now OKC can't act like a spoiled child and demand it. As long as the building adheres to good urban design principles, I think its something we all should support.

Exactly! It seems like most posters here have gotten over the initial shock and disappointed of this tower being shorter than expected and are beginning to support this development. OKC needs to keep the momentum it has going, and this is just another step in the right direction.

No, Kevinpate is just living in the 'REAL' world....... not in fantasy dream land or Sim City.

If you want change, like he said, go to the council and speak your peace. The FBB group was very effective with the boulevard, but they went through the proper channels.

We also had some very legitimate political and legal "pivots". Having those pivots enabled us to turn the middle section design around and force it through a proper review. The additional time that it has bought has enabled more people to the table and in theory enabled a better design.

It sounds as though there may be some "pivots" here for the new urbanists to lobby for a great "World Class" design. But saving the existing Stage Center building seems a huge stretch.

What day does the demo request come up before the DDRC?

^

January 16th.

It sounds as though there may be some "pivots" here for the new urbanists to lobby for a great "World Class" design.


Please expound on these "pivots".

Please expound on these "pivots".

Well, for example, the DDRC meeting itself is a major pivot. Both a political and an actual mechanical one.

The only major reason I can think of a developer pressing for such an early demolition permit is if he is assuming the worst possible scenerio. Protests from Save Stage Center folks and the DDRC voting against a demo. Then it would likely go through the "appeals process" involving approval or denial from the Planning Commission and then onward to the City Council. That process can be relatively quick (6 weeks) or up to three months. This depends on the timing of these various meetings.

All are technically political and mechanical "pivots" in the process.

The question of whether these moments "pivot" for or against your cause is the question.

The great things about these moments is that they are great opportunities to directly communicate with the applicant and those involved in the approval process. Usually the more respectful and professional you are, the better.

I have seen the DDRC and the Planning Commission actually tell developers NO. That they wouldn't grant demolition so far in advance without a better defined design and secured commitments. At a minimum, significant discussion was had.

For the New Urbanists out there who don't care about the Stage Center building itself, these are moments are when you can let the developer know what IS an acceptable replacement.

If there is a running narrative among lots of people, that is helpful. FBB was and continues as an actual campaign. Obviously the "Save Stage Center" folks have their narrative in place. So developing a narrative for New Urbanist ideas might be more challenging.

I think the DDRC meeting is a great opportunity to communicate support for a well thought out design however. The developer can still design whatever his group wants but these are moments when they actually are forced to listen. It is much easier to be for a "vision" with defined community expectations before he returns to the DDRC with the plans already drawn.

I have seen the DDRC and the Planning Commission actually tell developers NO. That they wouldn't grant demolition so far in advance without a better defined design and secured commitments. At a minimum, significant discussion was had.

I think this is a very reasonable policy to have. RW already has the secured commitment in OG&E, now he needs to come out with more concrete plans. And hopefully, since he has no experience in developing towers, he will be open to some outside input. And by that, I don't mean necessarily height. He shouldn't overbuild just because some people are disappointed that they're not getting a 40 story tower on the SC site.

The DDRC can say no to a demolition or design but in the end they have very little in the way of legal rights if the developer decided they wanted to fight them.

We saw this in Bricktown (slightly different design standards but same general constructs) with House of Bedlam, where the committee kept wanting Johnson to change his design and he did make some changes, but in the end they even said in the meeting they had no legal right to deny what he had planned. A similar situation occurred between OCURA and Randy Hogan over Kd's.

These committees work more on the basis of suggestion and hope that the developer will comply in order to get quick approval. But if you watch the DDRC meetings on-line, it's a very friendly type of situation where a committee member will say something like "I'd really like to see more landscaping on the east side" and the developer will respond, "Sure, we can do that".

The developers already know the development guidelines and rarely submit plans that are way over the line in any area. The City staff writes a preliminary report about what items are in compliance and what is not, along with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or not approve. But in many cases where the City suggests rejection, the committee approves anyway.

In other words, they have a lot more power to override guidelines than to affect change on any project that already meets them. And the guidelines are pretty basic stuff and in themselves do not come close to guaranteeing great development.

I agree. Your right about the techical aspects and limitations of these meetings. But these are the (public) moments when things can change and be influenced. That is my point.

The dude wants approval. And to have that he will probably be there and hear the community. It is possible that the design could be influenced by opinions expressed there.

UP, sorry if I appeared to be arguing against your points as that was not at all my intention.

Just trying to provide some insight on how the process usually works.


I agree that public participation and feedback is starting to have a strong influence on how some of these decisions are made and I see that trend only picking up steam.

It was only a couple of years ago where it was almost impossible just to get the OCURA minutes, and then only a full month after the meeting.

Got the new SLICE magazine yesterday. Great little mag by the way, they do a super job with feature articles. This is on page 26.

http://i.imgur.com/fEd67TZ.jpg

I wanted to protect the work of the writer, so if you want to read it - pick up a copy! It's very pro-Stage Center.
The magazine has a great article about Honey Springs too (the largest Civil War battle in Oklahoma).
http://www.sliceok.com

I won't miss that eyesore one bit. From a functionality standpoint it has been a debacle since day one. That is only one of the multiple negatives about it. I say adios.

Luckily, there are human beings that are so young they'll never be aware of the atrocious Stage Center...

Pete- no problem. What you wrote is exactly how it works. I just wanted to stress that public involvement can and often does have a positive impact in those meetings. I'm not advocating either way on the Stage Center site. I see the merits of preservation as well as the positive outcomes of a well designed urban block.

And of course the discourse on this blog has an incredible impact as well. One that is often difficult to measure.

Over time and lack of anything being done for so long about Stage Center I have pretty much accepted its fate.

Given the public nuisance (makeshift homeless shelter) and and safety hazard it's devolved into, I can't see DDRC responsibly doing anything but approving it's demolition. And I hate to see it go. It attracted my attention immediately when I got here in 2004. Unfortunate that bad design with respect to the elements and apparently it's utility ultimately will be it's downfall.

UP is right, that the new urbanist and historic preservation voices need to merge in this case. The replacement building for the site must be a higher and better use than Stage Center. That means we should demand more than a parking garage.

That's the strongest argument for design review to take an active role in the design of this tower. This is how you tell the developer to go back to his architects for some fine tuning.

Just wanted to make this point one more time regarding the height vs density debate: In the case of this project, we are only talking about one block.


If Williams builds one 35 story building or 3 that are each 15 stories, it doesn't change density one bit. Everything would all still be on that one block with a parking garage at the base and even with multiple buildings there is no guarantee the street interaction would be better than just one. Or another way to say it: Street interaction on that block could be just as good with one tall building than with multiple.

Absolutely nobody is arguing against more density; it's just in this particular case that density won't change regardless of the height of the main building. So why not make it tall, add to the skyline and create further excitement for the casual citizen, which is the huge majority?

I suspect the reason is that the one building is essentially OG&E's and the remainder Williams has to develop on his own steam and either doesn't want to take the risk of building too much, or doesn't have the ability to secure enough financing for anything more than a second, 8-12 story structure.

Several people have pointed out to me that the proposed smaller tower is fairly respectful in scale to new school across the street.

What do people think about that?

The main tower is a full block from the school.

The parking garage alone will be much taller than the school.

Interesting

... If Williams builds one 35 story building or 3 that are each 15
stories, it doesn't change density one bit.
Physically speaking it does change the density by 10 stories.


... Absolutely nobody is arguing against more density; it's just in this
particular case that density won't change regardless of the height
of the main building. So why not make it tall, add to the skyline and
create further excitement for the casual citizen, which is the huge
majority?
Agreed. I'd like to see the skyline point skyward but leave the
population in Manhattan.

I won't miss that eyesore one bit. From a functionality standpoint it has been a debacle since day one. That is only one of the multiple negatives about it. I say adios.

Some serious thoughts on Stage Center. Give me a minute or so?

In a quick answer to MustangGT, many thought otherwise. Very conservative people didn't like it one bit. If there was a computer forum of progressive city thinkers (like this board) when the Mummer's Theater was built, we would have all been thinking it was the coolest thing to ever hit Oklahoma City. As for the division, I remember it from the day it opened, but it wasn't one-sided. It certainly was "love it or hate it," but it was unique - in the truest sense of the word. Many loved it - many hated it. But the awards rolled in.

I've read people on this board write about how actors and producers of theater today don't even like it. But I know quite a few theater types who tell me that's a minority viewpoint and the intimate, close atmosphere was a chance to really showcase great talent.

With a last and faint breath, I argue that Stage Center could again be an incredible facility. In a time where we can turn the North Canadian River into the Oklahoma River, an abandoned warehouse district into Bricktown, renovate old, dusty, decrepit buildings into beautiful new urban landscapes, we can surely turn the Stage Center into a world-class facility. Is there the will? Probably not. But, is there a way? Of course. Things have been transformed all over this country from much worse. The propaganda campaign of such normally optimistic people in this city about so many things became so negative about Stage Center it finally wore down those who support this incredible building. It wasn't a matter of how, or if, or if there's a way, (there was always a way), it was just a matter of cost and will. There was simply no will. Art (no matter how well recognized around the globe) had no way to compete with very powerful monied interests who had their eyes on this property for a long time. They will most probably soon have their demolition permit in hand. So sad. So terribly, terribly sad.

... The replacement building for the site must be a higher and better use than Stage Center. ...

Well, that certainly is no high standard. Excluding festival of the arts week, one could park a hot dog cart, an Elvis on velvet seller, and a out of tune banjo player with a tip jar and argue rather successfully they created a higher and better use of this lot than it has seen in recent years.

Well, that certainly is no high standard. Excluding festival of the arts week, one could park a hot dog cart, an Elvis on velvet seller, and a out of tune banjo player with a tip jar and argue rather successfully they created a higher and better use of this lot than it has seen in recent years.
+11

Some serious thoughts on Stage Center. Give me a minute or so?

In a quick answer to MustangGT, many thought otherwise. Very conservative people didn't like it one bit. If there was a computer forum of progressive city thinkers (like this board) when the Mummer's Theater was built, we would have all been thinking it was the coolest thing to ever hit Oklahoma City. As for the division, I remember it from the day it opened, but it wasn't one-sided. It certainly was "love it or hate it," but it was unique - in the truest sense of the word. Many loved it - many hated it. But the awards rolled in.

I've read people on this board write about how actors and producers of theater today don't even like it. But I know quite a few theater types who tell me that's a minority viewpoint and the intimate, close atmosphere was a chance to really showcase great talent.

With a last and faint breath, I argue that Stage Center could again be an incredible facility. In a time where we can turn the North Canadian River into the Oklahoma River, an abandoned warehouse district into Bricktown, renovate old, dusty, decrepit buildings into beautiful new urban landscapes, we can surely turn the Stage Center into a world-class facility. Is there the will? Probably not. But, is there a way? Of course. Things have been transformed all over this country from much worse. The propaganda campaign of such normally optimistic people in this city about so many things became so negative about Stage Center it finally wore down those who support this incredible building. It wasn't a matter of how, or if, or if there's a way, (there was always a way), it was just a matter of cost and will. There was simply no will. Art (no matter how well recognized around the globe) had no way to compete with very powerful monied interests who had their eyes on this property for a long time. They will most probably soon have their demolition permit in hand. So sad. So terribly, terribly sad.

I love your passion. So few people have it.

Several people have pointed out to me that the proposed smaller tower is fairly respectful in scale to new school across the street.

What do people think about that?

Just wondering how tall is the new school going to be? The project for stage center site will be about as tall as the Colcord Hotel if they stay at 14 floors. The Colcord doesn't even register in most skyline pics that I see. What a waste of prime real estate.

Just wondering how tall is the new school going to be? The project for stage center site will be about as tall as the Colcord Hotel if they stay at 14 floors. The Colcord doesn't even register in most skyline pics that I see. What a waste of prime real estate.

The school is only 3 stories tall on the east side.

Just wondering how tall is the new school going to be? The project for stage center site will be about as tall as the Colcord Hotel if they stay at 14 floors. The Colcord doesn't even register in most skyline pics that I see. What a waste of prime real estate.

Lol it will be much taller than the Colcord. Lolol

I think it would make a cool childcare facility for Downtown workers with kids.

Some serious thoughts on Stage Center. Give me a minute or so?

In a quick answer to MustangGT, many thought otherwise. Very conservative people didn't like it one bit. If there was a computer forum of progressive city thinkers (like this board) when the Mummer's Theater was built, we would have all been thinking it was the coolest thing to ever hit Oklahoma City. As for the division, I remember it from the day it opened, but it wasn't one-sided. It certainly was "love it or hate it," but it was unique - in the truest sense of the word. Many loved it - many hated it. But the awards rolled in.

I've read people on this board write about how actors and producers of theater today don't even like it. But I know quite a few theater types who tell me that's a minority viewpoint and the intimate, close atmosphere was a chance to really showcase great talent.

With a last and faint breath, I argue that Stage Center could again be an incredible facility. In a time where we can turn the North Canadian River into the Oklahoma River, an abandoned warehouse district into Bricktown, renovate old, dusty, decrepit buildings into beautiful new urban landscapes, we can surely turn the Stage Center into a world-class facility. Is there the will? Probably not. But, is there a way? Of course. Things have been transformed all over this country from much worse. The propaganda campaign of such normally optimistic people in this city about so many things became so negative about Stage Center it finally wore down those who support this incredible building. It wasn't a matter of how, or if, or if there's a way, (there was always a way), it was just a matter of cost and will. There was simply no will. Art (no matter how well recognized around the globe) had no way to compete with very powerful monied interests who had their eyes on this property for a long time. They will most probably soon have their demolition permit in hand. So sad. So terribly, terribly sad.

I agree. Stage Center was and is and could be phenomenal. The question should be, "Is what we're getting better?"

For those of you who want a more impressive development in order to justify the demolition of a great landmark that DOES and COULD contribute to the Myriad Gardens, here is your argument.

I agree. Stage Center was and is and could be phenomenal. The question should be, "Is what we're getting better?"

For those of you who want a more impressive development in order to justify the demolition of a great landmark that DOES and COULD contribute to the Myriad Gardens, here is your argument.

That's always been a part of this... We all just assumed there was going to be something great on that spot, so losing the Stage Center wasn't the end of the world.

But what if from the beginning it was clear were would be getting a 14-16 story building, maybe another 8-12 story building and a huge parking lot with virtually nothing for the public, no new jobs coming downtown, etc. ?

How many people would have been for losing the Stage Center if we knew all along that's what we'd be getting??


I'm not a huge SC fan but thought we'd get something special in it's place. This seems to be about the least special development that could have ever been imagined.