Well sir, it just matter of taste I suppose. I really like Dallas and think it is a great city. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I respect that. I--in all honesty--can not dis Cleveland as I have never visited; but I hope to one day. I really hope it is great city and want to say great things about it as I don't want to wish ill on any city.

We all want a nice skyline. But we have greater areas of concern if we want to improve our city. Hopefully we can address both.

But, to chime in, Dallas sucks.

Here's one thing nobody has mentioned. I am sure we all want to improve the national perception of OKC, which justified or not, is many times unflattering. This matters because boomtowns are places where people WANT to live, and corporate relocations generally move to those places. More skyscrapers added to the skyline will go much farther towards addressing the city's image problem than a hundred buildings with great urban design principles because the skyline is what they will see on TV during Thunder games, in Forbes magazines (providing they update the image), etc. I am not saying skyline is everything, its absolutely not, but it does affect a place's image. No matter how much development there is, OKC will probably not be known as an urban metropolis a-la Portland or DC in our lifetimes. We need street-level urbanism for quality of life here, but we need skyscrapers for our image.

Keep bashing Texas though man, at every chance you get! :)

It's the Okie way, isn't it?

I believe demolishing the asinine Stage Center and saying a tornado did it is
a very good plan of action. Everyone knows how unpredictable a tornado
can be. Say it happen in the dark of night without the slightest warning.
Maybe include something like, "the dog ate my homework". Anything.

It served it's purpose with dignity as public restroom but it became obsolete
in the 20's.

I believe demolishing the asinine Stage Center and saying a tornado did it is
a very good plan of action. Everyone knows how unpredictable a tornado
can be. Say it happen in the dark of night without the slightest warning.
Maybe include something like, "the dog ate my homework". Anything.

It served it's purpose with dignity as public restroom but it became obsolete
in the 20's.

The 20s? I think you have the wrong building...

You seem like just another butthurt kid that is actually jealous of Dallas but wants to dog on it every time you get the chance.

When I worked for my dad for 4 years, I would drive people from the airport to his car lot when they were renting a car. I drove hundreds if not thousands of people and we would talk and have cool conversations during the 15-30 minute drive(depending on traffic). A lot of times we would discuss the lack of mass transit here in OKC and such.... I talked to so many people from NYC, Chicago, and Philly and it is so funny how many of them said how awesome Dallas was. I never once heard a negative thing about Dallas but some of them said they didn't care for it, but was a cool city. The things I've heard about Cleveland though........(I won't even get into).

Keep bashing Texas though man, at every chance you get! :)

Literally every single thing you said is an opinion, so you have your right to that. I do agree OKC is becoming an amazing city, but we need major high-rise towers, IMO. Urban neighborhoods are great and I want them to flourish here. The Stage Center needs at least a 25 story building on it. 500-600ft. would be awesome and anything over that would just be sugar on top.

I lol'd. Hard. The typical stops.

And around the wheel we go.

Because it doesn't need to be. OKC needs to drive in its own direction and become a great city by setting its own path. Paris is a cool city, but OKC doesn't need to be as urban as Paris, imo.

The Stage Center tower doesn't really seem to be a building you would find in Paris anyways.

Not true. Paris has a downtown district just a few miles East of the Eiffel Tower. It has several giant glass towers that resemble Devon or what is proposed for the SC site. I took some pictures of it this past September from the top of the Arch of Triumph.

I believe demolishing the asinine Stage Center and saying a tornado did it is
a very good plan of action. Everyone knows how unpredictable a tornado
can be. Say it happen in the dark of night without the slightest warning.
Maybe include something like, "the dog ate my homework". Anything.

It served it's purpose with dignity as public restroom but it became obsolete
in the 20's.

Good grief, man, just grab a sledgehammer already and go start beating on the place. We get it. You hate the Stage Center and everything it stands for. I'm guessing it stole your lunch money when you were a child or something. It's the the worst building in the history of buildings. It was probably really designed by Satan, not Johansen. You want it down NOW!! We get it!

You don't have anything to worry about. It will be down soon enough. Pretty much the only talk on here of NOT tearing it down is by people who want to use the demolition permit as a stick to make the developer build a taller building. Even the people who love the building for its architecture have almost universally come to terms with the fact that it is coming down.

This thread is about the NEW building being proposed for that site, not really a place to debate the architectural merits of the building about to be removed. But by all means, don't let that dissuade you from coming in every few posts and registering your contempt for Stage Center.

Paris developed the way it did over centuries, most of which was prior to the invention of the automobile or the ability to build skyscrapers.

So? History has to start at some point in time.

Paris developed the way it did over centuries, most of which was prior to the invention of the automobile or the ability to build skyscrapers.If you really want to put this in perspective, just take a little drive over to Arkansas and prowl around, say, Fort Smith. It's no urban paradise or Big League City, but it DOES have history going back almost 200 years. So do many of the much smaller towns along the border. On our side of that border, though, we have very little that's more than 100 years old -- and we don't seem to value that tiny bit that we DO still have.

Some of the atmosphere that folk seem to be wanting, with their comparisons to the great cities of Europe, vanished irretrievably when we got rid of almost all OKC history (especially in the downtown area regardless of where you draw its borders). The first brick building in OKC went under the wrecking ball. So did the site where the state's constitution was drafted. And those are just a couple of examples.

There's no way that our new and shiny construction is going to replace the patina of actual age and history. All we can do is have the patience to wait for new history to be made here, and for a change, preserve and celebrate it.

BTW, does anyone remember where the discovery well for the famed OKC Oil Field was (it's not there any more, but if you search you can find a plaque marking the spot)? Or even remember WHEN that happened? We do have "promotable" history in these parts, if anyone is interested enough to publicize it...

Here's something you can go to if you want to understand the term 'human scale' before you use it again.

ULI Oklahoma: Reception Honoring Leslie Batchelor & Film "The Human Scale" - ULI Oklahoma (http://oklahoma.uli.org/event/uli-oklahoma-cocktail-reception-honoring-leslie-batchelor-film-the-human-scale/)

So? History has to start at some point in time.

History in Oklahoma for me started about 12,000 years ago with the Paleo indians.

I lol'd. Hard. The typical stops.

And around the wheel we go.alright

History in Oklahoma for me started about 12,000 years ago with the Paleo indians.

Sometimes it's hard to fathom what all has happened on this land we call Oklahoma through the ages. Sometimes we forget it didn't suddenly pop-up in 1889.

Dallas is one of the most successful cities in the world during the last decade. Anybody making claims that Dallas is any sort of failure has 0 credibility when discussing it. Oklahoma City actually owes a decent amount of its success due to its close proximity to Dallas.

Also, We also aren't a European city. In fact, we aren't ANY other city. Sure, we can take cues from other cities and apply some of the successes of those cities but striving to be like any specific city entirely is just outright ridiculous. Learn to love OKC for what it can uniquely and organically become, or GTFO.

----

I walked around the Myriad Gardens and stood at the Northwest corner and tried to imagine what this new tower will look and feel like once complete. First off, it was hard letting go of the stage center which actually surprised me. I didn't think I was that emotionally tied to it but it is a really unique structure and it makes an impression on you. But past that, this new tower won't be AS BAD as I originally thought either. It will create a decent wall along the Westnorth corner, and if there are shops along ground level it will be pretty cool. Still absolutely HATE the fact the view down California will be blocked. This fact is starting to irk me more so then how short the tower will be. But another point on height, it won't be that short either. 14 stories will still make you feel like you are "in downtown". You just won't have to tilt your head back to see the top of it. From far away though, it will still be short. Especially right next to Devon.


Side note**** the Myriad Gardens are absolutely dreadful. Plants are dead everywhere (I know its been cold, but come on.....) and the whole place is just not maintained at all. At least 90% of all the fish are dead or dying. It is really a disaster at this point.

OKC needs to drive in its own direction

I see what you did there. :)

Sometimes it's hard to fathom what all has happened on this land we call Oklahoma through the ages. Sometimes we forget it didn't suddenly pop-up in 1889.

Exactly, I have personally found extremely unique artifacts that have been dated to 8,000 years old in creek beds just south of OKC.

For all these people screaming for 40 floors who swear OKC is "screaming" for the space, I wonder what market information they have regarding demand for space at the price that it would command. Is this based on knowledge or just emotion? Fact or hope? It is easy to say they should risk another $200 million or $300 million when it isn't your money. It is quite different getting the loan for it.

Let's just make him build something world class at the street and forget about that extra 10-15 floors on top.

DEVON spent $1B in downtown OKC while adding 1 Mil sf. of Class A space in OKC. This was expected to "flood the tennant market" and leave a void in the demand. Once the building was completed the demand for Class A space has increased 4x. This is why they / Raney W. are building in the first place. The demand for this space IS screaming for it.

The first $50 - 100 Mil is the Highest Risk. If you go too small, and place an average space in a high demand area, the new developer across the street, may build their version of "World Class" and then all the new customers want to be in that building. So ask yourself Mr. Banker, what is the true risk? ...giving less money in a short return ( keeps your exposure to a specified limit) or providing them the $$$ to be SO successful, that they need to build another 40 Story World Class Building? This is not a down market. This is not a bubble market. This is THE time when you loan the money for a great partnership ( called your customer ). IF you allow your customer to build that ICONIC World Class sturcture, it will take out ALL the risk for ALL parties. If you
're gonna hit a homerun, don't leave it short of the fence.

DEVON spent $1B in downtown OKC while adding 1 Mil sf. of Class A space in OKC. This was expected to "flood the tennant market" and leave a void in the demand. Once the building was completed the demand for Class A space has increased 4x. This is why they / Raney W. are building in the first place. The demand for this space IS screaming for it.

The first $50 - 100 Mil is the Highest Risk. If you go too small, and place an average space in a high demand area, the new developer across the street, may build their version of "World Class" and then all the new customers want to be in that building. So ask yourself Mr. Banker, what is the true risk? ...giving less money in a short return ( keeps your exposure to a specified limit) or providing them the $$$ to be SO successful, that they need to build another 40 Story World Class Building? This is not a down market. This is not a bubble market. This is THE time when you loan the money for a great partnership ( called your customer ). IF you allow your customer to build that ICONIC World Class sturcture, it will take out ALL the risk for ALL parties. If you
're gonna hit a homerun, don't leave it short of the fence.

Just curious as to if you arrived at this after talking to commercial realtors and commercial lending companies or if this is an extrapolation of bits and pieces of optimistic reporting. I do not believe that the demand has increased anywhere near 400% since Devon. While everyone is optimistic, I don't think a professionally done marketing study would arrive at near the same conclusions. Or, we would see a couple of spec towers right now.

And, the risk of the first is NOT the highest if you have a guaranteed tenant for long term which guarantees success vs. spending money for purely speculative offices in an expensive building. OG&E isn't going to be lured across the street...lol. They will sign a long term contract. Plus, large companies don't just up and move every so often...it is very expensive and disruptive to operations to make a major move.

Just curious as to if you arrived at this after talking to commercial realtors and commercial lending companies or if this is an extrapolation of bits and pieces of optimistic reporting. I do not believe that the demand has increased anywhere near 400% since Devon. While everyone is optimistic, I don't think a professionally done marketing study would arrive at near the same conclusions. Or, we would see a couple of spec towers right now.

If his was Houston, you would see those (2) towers breaking ground immediately. They spend money in big ways. Dallas is the same way, they are used to doing business that way. I agree.

In OKC, we move slow... we think smaller & more conservatively. Thus, our debate. The demand IS there. If you create your own momentum, then that lowers your risk. If Raney W. placed an Iconic Tower 40 - 50 stories, he would NOT have an issue filling the demand. ...but if he goes small, then he is placing his product up against More competition.

If his was Houston, you would see those (2) towers breaking ground immediately. They spend money in big ways. Dallas is the same way, they are used to doing business that way. I agree.

In OKC, we move slow... we think smaller & more conservatively. Thus, our debate. The demand IS there. If you create your own momentum, then that lowers your risk. If Raney W. placed an Iconic Tower 40 - 50 stories, he would NOT have an issue filling the demand. ...but if he goes small, then he is placing his product up against More competition.

Thus, the commercial lending groups need to help him get there. From the outside in, they need to help insure his success by getting this going. They are in the market of lending. It only works when you lend it out.

If his was Houston, you would see those (2) towers breaking ground immediately. They spend money in big ways. Dallas is the same way, they are used to doing business that way. I agree.

You are talking about the fifth and fourth largest metropolitan areas on the country that have a 2012 population estimate of 6.7 million and 6.2 million, respectively. OKC is 42nd with 1.3 million. Why not compare our building with some places closer to our population as opposed to the largest two cities in the second largest state in the country? Austin is 35, Nashville 36, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Memphis, Louisville, Richmond, etc all cities within 500,000 people of OKC so better comparisons.

Dallas is one of the most successful cities in the world during the last decade. Anybody making claims that Dallas is any sort of failure has 0 credibility when discussing it. Oklahoma City actually owes a decent amount of its success due to its close proximity to Dallas.

Also, We also aren't a European city. In fact, we aren't ANY other city. Sure, we can take cues from other cities and apply some of the successes of those cities but striving to be like any specific city entirely is just outright ridiculous. Learn to love OKC for what it can uniquely and organically become, or GTFO.


Dallas is prosperous, to be sure. But walking around downtown Dallas, it just feels like a larger version of OKC, which is not very impressive for a city of its size.

--

We aren't a Eupoean city, but that doesn't mean we can't adopt some of their design philosophies and try to grow into something kinda like them. New York and Chicago do skyscrapers right. We can absolutely try to mimic them when it comes to new buildings in our CBD. We won't be those cities, not even close, but it doesn't mean we can't strive for a great skyline. We can also push for urban neighborhoods with abundant midrises that maintain as much historical character as they can, similar to a European city. We don't have 1000 years of history like London or Paris, but that doesn't mean we can't take lessons from those cities.

In the end, OKC will be OKC. No one is proposing we build an exact copy of Paris (or Manhattan) here in central Oklahoma. But saying "they do it this way over there" can be a very helpful guideline for future growth.

You are talking about the fifth and fourth largest metropolitan areas on the country that have a 2012 population estimate of 6.7 million and 6.2 million, respectively. OKC is 42nd with 1.3 million. Why not compare our building with some places closer to our population as opposed to the largest two cities in the second largest state in the country? Austin is 35, Nashville 36, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Memphis, Louisville, Richmond, etc all cities within 500,000 people of OKC so better comparisons.

warreng, Dallas & Houston IS the best sample. They are in our region. West Coast is a different animal / East Coast too. What happens in North Texas ( OKC's close neighbor) is a geat example of "how they are successful vs. OKC is the Best comparison. fyi.

warreng, Dallas & Houston IS the best sample. They are in our region. West Coast is a different animal / East Coast too. What happens in North Texas ( OKC's close neighbor) is a geat example of "how they are successful vs. OKC is the Best comparison. fyi.

Then by that reasoning, why not use Wichita? They are in the same region, only three hours away and are about half our size as opposed to five to six times our size.

Dallas is prosperous, to be sure. But walking around downtown Dallas, it just feels like a larger version of OKC, which is not very impressive for a city of its size.

Downtown Dallas feels a lot more polished and glitzy. The lights on the towers make it feel much more vibrant. There is constantly construction cranes and new towers going up. It really has more of an energetic, moving forward feel. I will say it is not as impressive as downtown Houston, but it's no slouch for a major city in this region of the country.

In my opinion OKC could better its skyline without having to build more towers, especially at night.

Downtown Dallas feels more like a larger version of Charlotte than OKC.

How did I know that was coming.

Just curious as to if you arrived at this after talking to commercial realtors and commercial lending companies or if this is an extrapolation of bits and pieces of optimistic reporting. I do not believe that the demand has increased anywhere near 400% since Devon. While everyone is optimistic, I don't think a professionally done marketing study would arrive at near the same conclusions. Or, we would see a couple of spec towers right now.

And, the risk of the first is NOT the highest if you have a guaranteed tenant for long term which guarantees success vs. spending money for purely speculative offices in an expensive building. OG&E isn't going to be lured across the street...lol. They will sign a long term contract. Plus, large companies don't just up and move every so often...it is very expensive and disruptive to operations to make a major move.

OG&E as a tenant can sign a long term 20/30 year contract, sure. This is why I said "if Raney W is building to sell". I'm not sure what his intentions are once built. But if I'm Raney W and the market is demanding a 40 story tower vs. a 16 story tower, then I would want the latter. ...that is real estate, ...buy less, improve, sell high.

how did i know that was coming.

lol.

How did I know that was coming.

bchris02: We are all hoping your New Year's resolution list has somewhere near the top: "Only type 'Charlotte' once per week at OKCTalk."

Dallas is one of the most successful cities in the world during the last decade. Anybody making claims that Dallas is any sort of failure has 0 credibility when discussing it. Oklahoma City actually owes a decent amount of its success due to its close proximity to Dallas.

Also, We also aren't a European city. In fact, we aren't ANY other city. Sure, we can take cues from other cities and apply some of the successes of those cities but striving to be like any specific city entirely is just outright ridiculous. Learn to love OKC for what it can uniquely and organically become, or GTFO.

----

I walked around the Myriad Gardens and stood at the Northwest corner and tried to imagine what this new tower will look and feel like once complete. First off, it was hard letting go of the stage center which actually surprised me. I didn't think I was that emotionally tied to it but it is a really unique structure and it makes an impression on you. But past that, this new tower won't be AS BAD as I originally thought either. It will create a decent wall along the Westnorth corner, and if there are shops along ground level it will be pretty cool. Still absolutely HATE the fact the view down California will be blocked. This fact is starting to irk me more so then how short the tower will be. But another point on height, it won't be that short either. 14 stories will still make you feel like you are "in downtown". You just won't have to tilt your head back to see the top of it. From far away though, it will still be short. Especially right next to Devon.


Side note**** the Myriad Gardens are absolutely dreadful. Plants are dead everywhere (I know its been cold, but come on.....) and the whole place is just not maintained at all. At least 90% of all the fish are dead or dying. It is really a disaster at this point.

Are you architect2014? About mid-way through I recalled reading something this abrasive in the past and then it hit me...

Dallas is a travesty. There are two really excellent articles I tried digging up, one on Fort Worthology (a great new urbanist website that used to take digs at Dallas/N. Texas, but alas, no longer exists) and another in the Dallas Observer from a Cornell architecture professor critiquing the Dallas Arts District developments. The Cornell professor was a riot, arguing that the wide open-range starchitecture has the subtlety of a bull mounting a comely heifer. Won't forget that analogy for a while, plus he was spot-on.

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.

Are you architect2014? About mid-way through I recalled reading something this abrasive in the past and then it hit me...

Dallas is a travesty. There are two really excellent articles I tried digging up, one on Fort Worthology (a great new urbanist website that used to take digs at Dallas/N. Texas, but alas, no longer exists) and another in the Dallas Observer from a Cornell architecture professor critiquing the Dallas Arts District developments. The Cornell professor was a riot, arguing that the wide open-range starchitecture has the subtlety of a bull mounting a comely heifer. Won't forget that analogy for a while, plus he was spot-on.

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.

:iagree:

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.

Since this thread is completely off subject now, I will say I agree with this as a former resident of the area. DFW has been, for at least the past 40 or 50 years, all about flash and excess. It is not a coincidence that the term "credit card millionaire" originated in Dallas circles in the 80's and 90's. This attitude has occasionally led to dramatic overbuilding and spectacular collapses, like the late 80's banking bust or the dot com bust of 2001. It is certainly not the direction I want OKC going in and I don't think it could even if it wanted to. And while, yes, we are very tied to Dallas economically and culturally, I have never understood the need some have here for OKC to be like Dallas. They are just as close distance-wise, but most people in Houston, Austin, or SA do not feel the same way.

With that in mind, there are lots of "human scale" developments in Dallas that tend to get overlooked by Oklahomans who are going down there on the weekend. It gets overshadowed but areas like M Streets, Lakewood, Bluffview are oozing with character.

If his was Houston, you would see those (2) towers breaking ground immediately. They spend money in big ways. Dallas is the same way, they are used to doing business that way. I agree.

In OKC, we move slow... we think smaller & more conservatively. Thus, our debate. The demand IS there. If you create your own momentum, then that lowers your risk. If Raney W. placed an Iconic Tower 40 - 50 stories, he would NOT have an issue filling the demand. ...but if he goes small, then he is placing his product up against More competition.

You need to go work for a bank commercial lending department. I am sure they will love the "build it and they will come" risk attitude and would let you lend lots of money for development. LOL

Listen Spartan, you are smart and you understand text book urban design more than 99.9% of us. I get that, we get that, you get that.

Your street smarts however, are ridiculously lacking. If a city that has people and businesses flocking to it at rates higher then anywhere else in the world then I'm gonna consider that city a success, and I don't care what anti-dallas website article has to say otherwise. The quality of life there is outstanding, and the entertainment is endless. There have been no urban developments constructed there that has seriously stunted any kind of growth.

I respect your opinion and your input on anything regards to urban design, but I won't always agree with you. I also cuss a lot when I talk, so if I say something like "gtfo" its just who I am. Don't be so sensitive.

Past all this, I don't want us to be compared to Dallas. I want us to be compared to Oklahoma City. I'm tired of all comparisons in general.

Dallas is one of the most successful cities in the world during the last decade. Anybody making claims that Dallas is any sort of failure has 0 credibility when discussing it. Oklahoma City actually owes a decent amount of its success due to its close proximity to Dallas.

Also, We also aren't a European city. In fact, we aren't ANY other city. Sure, we can take cues from other cities and apply some of the successes of those cities but striving to be like any specific city entirely is just outright ridiculous. Learn to love OKC for what it can uniquely and organically become, or GTFO.

----

I walked around the Myriad Gardens and stood at the Northwest corner and tried to imagine what this new tower will look and feel like once complete. First off, it was hard letting go of the stage center which actually surprised me. I didn't think I was that emotionally tied to it but it is a really unique structure and it makes an impression on you. But past that, this new tower won't be AS BAD as I originally thought either. It will create a decent wall along the Westnorth corner, and if there are shops along ground level it will be pretty cool. Still absolutely HATE the fact the view down California will be blocked. This fact is starting to irk me more so then how short the tower will be. But another point on height, it won't be that short either. 14 stories will still make you feel like you are "in downtown". You just won't have to tilt your head back to see the top of it. From far away though, it will still be short. Especially right next to Devon.


Side note**** the Myriad Gardens are absolutely dreadful. Plants are dead everywhere (I know its been cold, but come on.....) and the whole place is just not maintained at all. At least 90% of all the fish are dead or dying. It is really a disaster at this point.Great post man! I haven't been to the Myriad lately, shame to hear about that.

I see what you did there. :)I didn't mean it like that lol. . . probably could've worded that a little better ;)

Are you architect2014? About mid-way through I recalled reading something this abrasive in the past and then it hit me...

Dallas is a travesty. There are two really excellent articles I tried digging up, one on Fort Worthology (a great new urbanist website that used to take digs at Dallas/N. Texas, but alas, no longer exists) and another in the Dallas Observer from a Cornell architecture professor critiquing the Dallas Arts District developments. The Cornell professor was a riot, arguing that the wide open-range starchitecture has the subtlety of a bull mounting a comely heifer. Won't forget that analogy for a while, plus he was spot-on.

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/mark-lamster/20130906-architecture-review-museum-tower-is-a-poor-reflection-on-the-dallas-arts-district.ece)) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.Dallas is not a travesty.

You need to go work for a bank commercial lending department. I am sure they will love the "build it and they will come" risk attitude and would let you lend lots of money for development. LOL

Or how about I just make a few calls to the Boys in Texas, that are accustomed to making (larger investments) than a car loan or Camo'd 4 Wheeler.....????

bchris02: We are all hoping your New Year's resolution list has somewhere near the top: "Only type 'Charlotte' once per week at OKCTalk."

I'll stop throwing out Charlotte all the time for comparison.

However, I don't understand all the Dallas hate here. Dallas is an amazing city in its own right. OKC will likely never be Dallas, they are just too different, but one day it would be nice if this city offered more of the amenities that Dallas does but in a smaller package, like some other city I won't name. That can be done without also repeating the mistakes of Dallas.

BChris might be the best poster on these boards. His ideas are almost spot on. We just don't have the mentality that we should have to become big time. Also, he is 100 percent correct that our skyline could be dramatically improved at night if just several other buildings would get with the program and do something with their lighting. It doesn't even have to be dramatic like the Devon but it would give the current buildings that look "dead" a more vibrant and alive look.

If we could get a couple more towers and mid rises along with the other buildings doing more, it could look pretty impressive to people in our city and those passing through. Like we said earlier, do our leaders not realize that people wanting to locate here not notice stuff like this. It may not be the catch all but subconsciously it DOES make an impression and leaves them thinking "this city really has something going on" and just might want to bring their business here. Who needs to be contacted or what can be done to get other buildings downtown a part of showing the world a more dynamic and vibrant downtown??

BChris might be the best poster on these boards. His ideas are almost spot on. We just don't have the mentality that we should have to become big time. Also, he is 100 percent correct that our skyline could be dramatically improved at night if just several other buildings would get with the program and do something with their lighting. It doesn't even have to be dramatic like the Devon but it would give the current buildings that look "dead" a more vibrant and alive look.

If we could get a couple more towers and mid rises along with the other buildings doing more, it could look pretty impressive to people in our city and those passing through. Like we said earlier, do our leaders not realize that people wanting to locate here not notice stuff like this. It may not be the catch all but subconsciously it DOES make an impression and leaves them thinking "this city really has something going on" and just might want to bring their business here. Who needs to be contacted or what can be done to get other buildings downtown a part of showing the world a more dynamic and vibrant downtown??

100% agree. Lets start with the Chase Tower. It's the city's second largest building yet it looks completely dead at night. Outline it in LEDs and it will look fantastic. They could also light the sides of it like they used to in very old skyline pictures. If they can manage to keep the crosses lit on it every night without fail between Thanksgiving and Epiphany, they can do something to boost the appeal of the building in the city skyline.

Listen Spartan, you are smart and you understand text book urban design more than 99.9% of us. I get that, we get that, you get that.

Your street smarts however, are ridiculously lacking. If a city that has people and businesses flocking to it at rates higher then anywhere else in the world then I'm gonna consider that city a success, and I don't care what anti-dallas website article has to say otherwise. The quality of life there is outstanding, and the entertainment is endless. There have been no urban developments constructed there that has seriously stunted any kind of growth.

I respect your opinion and your input on anything regards to urban design, but I won't always agree with you. I also cuss a lot when I talk, so if I say something like "gtfo" its just who I am. Don't be so sensitive.

Past all this, I don't want us to be compared to Dallas. I want us to be compared to Oklahoma City. I'm tired of all comparisons in general.

Easy enough, we can agree to disagree. I certainly agree with money talks at the end of the day, especially when we're talking about real estate here. I'd even go a step further here and argue that Dallas has a ton more worth in it than even faster growing spots such as Las Vegas, which really is truly a worthless urban environment.

The funniest thing is when we get a wave of new posters, and the process they go through in coming to grips with OKC's development progress. Inevitably that's what we all come to this forum to learn more about and share our interests in, and it's a shame that we get so abrasive sometimes. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive just because I'm on a first name basis and occasionally drink with most of the long-term posters here, a few more than others for sure. But with these newer posters it's funny how they all think their initial phase of discovery involves unique thoughts, and perhaps it's equally ironic that us long-term posters (who generally have grown more as urbanists) ever think our thoughts are unique because admittedly they probably aren't. That said, I too was once a new poster who idolized Dallas and skyscrapers and yearned for skyline changes. This was long before Devon, too, so you can imagine the pain.

Similarly, it's not unusual to get a new transplant over the years (or even a distant poster from Seattle or Texas) who are constantly turning discussions toward the city that they love (seemingly more than OKC at times). So Charlotte is just the latest there, which is cool. That is at least more unique than getting a new wave of bright, young posters who constantly idolize Dallas and quickly accomplish voluminous post counts just by fantasizing over Dallas and Dallas alone.

The thing I've learned, from my own experience, from watching others over the years, and from graduating, leaving, returning, and becoming a community development professional is that Dallas is a phase that fades, much like the city's own boom-bust cycles that are iconic of its culture: big freeways, big skyscrapers, big sky, big houses, big malls, big hair, big cars, big trucks, big signs, big traffic, big, big, big, and more big. At some point I grew up and realized that the key isn't big but rather better. OKC can never out-big Dallas, but there's not much we can't do better.

That's the OKC Talk experience I've experienced myself and seen work its wonders on other posters over the years. The more you stick with us, converse with us, teach us, learn from us, etc - the more we'll make you a believe that OKC can and will do better.

100% agree. Lets start with the Chase Tower. It's the city's second largest building yet it looks completely dead at night. Outline it in LEDs and it will look fantastic. They could also light the sides of it like they used to in very old skyline pictures. If they can manage to keep the crosses lit on it every night without fail between Thanksgiving and Epiphany, they can do something to boost the appeal of the building in the city skyline.

I sure would welcome lighting year round on these buildings if it fit into their business plans well enough that they decided the benefits justified the cost. But I can't for the life of me understand how a group of private citizens feels entitled in any way to direct a private (non-governmental) entity to allocate their resources in any specific way not mandated by any law or regulation. Good luck getting a Minimum Building Decoration Ordinance passed and defended in the courts. Do you understand the operating budgets for these entities? What if a $250,000 expenditure had a negative impact on compensation of the entities employees? What if those operating costs tipped the balance on a new development or facility renovations? How are we in any knowledgeable position to tell them how to run their business? I suppose we could ask nicely, but that's as much as we have the right to do. They are not in any way obligated to comply.

Easy enough, we can agree to disagree. I certainly agree with money talks at the end of the day, especially when we're talking about real estate here. I'd even go a step further here and argue that Dallas has a ton more worth in it than even faster growing spots such as Las Vegas, which really is truly a worthless urban environment.

The funniest thing is when we get a wave of new posters, and the process they go through in coming to grips with OKC's development progress. Inevitably that's what we all come to this forum to learn more about and share our interests in, and it's a shame that we get so abrasive sometimes. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive just because I'm on a first name basis and occasionally drink with most of the long-term posters here, a few more than others for sure. But with these newer posters it's funny how they all think their initial phase of discovery involves unique thoughts, and perhaps it's equally ironic that us long-term posters (who generally have grown more as urbanists) ever think our thoughts are unique because admittedly they probably aren't. That said, I too was once a new poster who idolized Dallas and skyscrapers and yearned for skyline changes. This was long before Devon, too, so you can imagine the pain.

Similarly, it's not unusual to get a new transplant over the years (or even a distant poster from Seattle or Texas) who are constantly turning discussions toward the city that they love (seemingly more than OKC at times). So Charlotte is just the latest there, which is cool. That is at least more unique than getting a new wave of bright, young posters who constantly idolize Dallas and quickly accomplish voluminous post counts just by fantasizing over Dallas and Dallas alone.

The thing I've learned, from my own experience, from watching others over the years, and from graduating, leaving, returning, and becoming a community development professional is that Dallas is a phase that fades, much like the city's own boom-bust cycles that are iconic of its culture: big freeways, big skyscrapers, big sky, big houses, big malls, big hair, big cars, big trucks, big signs, big traffic, big, big, big, and more big. At some point I grew up and realized that the key isn't big but rather better. OKC can never out-big Dallas, but there's not much we can't do better.

That's the OKC Talk experience I've experienced myself and seen work its wonders on other posters over the years. The more you stick with us, converse with us, teach us, learn from us, etc - the more we'll make you a believe that OKC can and will do better.Spartan, I don't idolize Dallas and I think OKC is a better city than Dallas is. OKC is my home and the best city I've ever seen. Dallas is my second favorite city with L.A. right behind it. I like Dallas for many reasons, but I am not a fan of urbanizing OKC except for it core. Anything in between I-40/I-240/I-44.

Help explain what is wrong with urbanizing?

Help explain what is wrong with urbanizing?Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

No, but certainly more than just the core does as well.

Long term, OKC should target I-240/S.74th to N.63rd and Kelly to Portland and the areas for more concentrated urbanization. It would be preferable if new construction or major rehabilitations from here forward would at least approach urban principles.

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

Well, perhaps it should. The following statistics were provided in the Planokc kickoff presentation. For a period in which OKC experienced a 40% population increase (period not noted on the graphic, but I recall it was since the last plan), there has been a 58% increase in water treated, a 63% increase in utility coverage area, a 97% increase in developed area and 297% increase in roadway lane miles. It appears to me that we need to strongly encourage density, and quickly. The infrastructure costs alone are staggering to maintain services to a more and more remote population.

Well, perhaps it should. The following statistics were provided in the Planokc kickoff presentation. For a period in which OKC experienced a 40% population increase (period not noted on the graphic, but I recall it was since the last plan), there has been a 58% increase in water treated, a 63% increase in utility coverage area, a 97% increase in developed area and 297% increase in roadway lane miles. It appears to me that we need to strongly encourage density, and quickly. The infrastructure costs alone are staggering to maintain services to a more and more remote population.Well, I simply disagree with you. All of these percentages can work the same in suburban(an do, Edmond has no problem with their utilities and Edmond Electric has the best rating in Oklahoma for reliability) so it can work. There tons of roads I would like to see widened to six lanes and added medians with turn lanes. This would solve traffic issues outside of rush hour which traffic will always get jammed during rush hour in big cities.

As technology increases, infrastructure will become stronger and last much much longer; might even become cheaper as well. You can encourage density all you want, for me, I see quality of life as living in a suburban neighborhood such houses as this ......

I was going to post a bunch of images from environments I prefer. I will start a thread on it later. As of late, I have been contributing to many off topic post and don't want to veer off any further. I am making a thread about Dallas and I will make one to address your concerns and compare urban and suburban and how I think choice is the best option in OKC.

I look forward to it.

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?No. I'll address it and be more specific in another thread though.

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?

That's a bit harsh, Spartan. You just pooped all over his preferred lifestyle. Gotta be a better way.

Cesspool? Really? This is how we keep a rational discussion? Spartan, you're better than that,

PluPan, I mean this in the kindest way possible as I actually enjoy your posts, but are you familiar with Braess's Paradox, the Downs-Thomson Paradox or the concept of induced demand? I ask because you often post about lane widening, inner-city bypasses and multi-lane, expressway-like streets like they are in some way something to be aspired to or are the solution to a problem. No doubt they are often the RESPONSE to a PERCEIVED problem, but they have actually all been pretty definitively proven to cause more problems than they supposedly solve. Here's another one: law of unintended consequences...

Braess's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox)

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

Downs?Thomson paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox)

cess·pool
ˈsesˌpo͞ol/
noun
noun: cesspool; plural noun: cesspools

1. What the Putnam City area, formerly OKC's finest acres of suburbia, is rapidly becoming, by design rather than accident.

That's Webster's, y'all.

I know this isn't the right page for this question - so don't attack me! And please direct me to where a better place to post this question would be. However, I keep seeing and hearing in the news that Ed Shadid is trying to get signatures to put a vote out to STOP the new convention center...? Is this correct? I could be wrong, but haven't the citizens of OKC already VOTED on this? How can a simple 6,000 signatures and a vote STOP this project? Any merit to this? Is it possible we won't be getting our new convention center? Or is this just a far-fetched attempt by Mr. Shadid to get more votes swayed his way? Thank you.

I know this isn't the right page for this question - so don't attack me! And please direct me to where a better place to post this question would be. However, I keep seeing and hearing in the news that Ed Shadid is trying to get signatures to put a vote out to STOP the new convention center...? Is this correct? I could be wrong, but haven't the citizens of OKC already VOTED on this? How can a simple 6,000 signatures and a vote STOP this project? Any merit to this? Is it possible we won't be getting our new convention center? Or is this just a far-fetched attempt by Mr. Shadid to get more votes swayed his way? Thank you.

Here is the proper thread for that subject: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/36170-ed-shadid-launches-formal-attack-maps-3-conv-center-tandem-mayoral-bid.html

Sooo, since Dallas is such a prominent topic currently, I would just like to let everyone know, I'm in Dallas for the next few days. :)