Does anyone know the final height on this building ? Originally it was to be a few feet shorter than the Oklahoma Tower, but it looks much taller from about every angle. I can't see how the ground elevation could be that much different between the two buildings.

I agree. Every angle it looks noticeably taller.

This photo is from https://twitter.com/DowntownOKC.

I have been trying to figure out this traffic signal and now it seems it is actually setup for the Devon parking garage rather than for Main Street.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok021318.jpg

A traffic light for a parking garage? That's a first for me.

Doesn't that same garage have a second (primary) exit onto Devon's little Harvey strip to the east? Why do they need such extreme priority to get onto Hudson?

is it open to the public? I could see a benefit for public events, which would probably have more people entering from Hudson.

is it open to the public? I could see a benefit for public events, which would probably have more people entering from Hudson.

No, the Devon garage is not open to the public.

Looks to me as if they might be signalizing both the garage AND Main Street.

Looks to me as if they might be signalizing both the garage AND Main Street.

Yes, that's what I was trying to figure out.

We'll soon see.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok022518.jpg

Yesterday, the bank officially opened the ground-floor branch. From https://twitter.com/BankofOklahoma:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok032818.jpg

Took this today of the Main / Hudson intersection.

As you can see, the garages on either side of Hudson will have a light and there are also lights at Main.

It's a bit odd because as you head north on Hudson, you end up stopping at the garage lights which creates an absolutely huge intersection.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok033118.jpg

Why not encourage Devon employees to use Harvey? It is essentially their private driveway now, and has a normal intersection.

Yesterday, the bank officially opened the ground-floor branch. From https://twitter.com/BankofOklahoma:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok032818.jpg

Well, it's nice too see where some of my BOK's banking fees are going..........

That intersection/signal setup is completely absurd. This city is going to get worn out fast riding around in Devon's back pocket.

That intersection/signal setup is completely absurd. This city is going to get worn out fast riding around in Devon's back pocket.

It's interesting but I doubt it's going to greatly impact anything or anyone except during peak rush hours in and out of the garage who happen to use what is now, essentially, a side street.

As far as the city getting tired of Devon? Uh, no. Devon is too big a fish. Offset the traffic light with the huge number of high paying jobs, tax revenue, charitable donations, civic donations and the good far outweighs the bad.

Sometimes, you just make allowances.

Big cities/states don't let a small handful of company executives influence urban design, tax codes, legislative debates, etc. the way the brass at Devon and Continental do. It's actually the root of many of Oklahoma's and OKC's problems. Even though there is widespread support for addressing education issues, Harold Hamm still shows up to stare down legislators just so he can get his very narrow interests served. If making "allowances" for Devon means putting their interests ahead of good urban design then that's a bad move, precedent, and approach. Devon is not an expert on design and shouldn't have sway if it's a bad policy. Obviously, I'm speaking to far more than these traffic lights built for Devon employees in their parking garage district. Devon should have a seat at the table to make an argument for what this area looks like. However, in OKC too often, it's not a seat at the table, they're just handed the decision-making power outright.

I am not trying to be argumentative but I am really interested in knowing where one of these companies made a truly important and long-term power play in CITY decision-making? And yes, this is only a traffic light. Thats done a lot of places there is a large corporate installation. In fact, I bet Tinker has a few.

Cities don’t pay for education funding

What is the antonym of sycophants?

Big cities/states don't let a small handful of company executives influence urban design, tax codes, legislative debates, etc. the way the brass at Devon and Continental do. It's actually the root of many of Oklahoma's and OKC's problems. Even though there is widespread support for addressing education issues, Harold Hamm still shows up to stare down legislators just so he can get his very narrow interests served. If making "allowances" for Devon means putting their interests ahead of good urban design then that's a bad move, precedent, and approach. Devon is not an expert on design and shouldn't have sway if it's a bad policy. Obviously, I'm speaking to far more than these traffic lights built for Devon employees in their parking garage district. Devon should have a seat at the table to make an argument for what this area looks like. However, in OKC too often, it's not a seat at the table, they're just handed the decision-making power outright.
That’s actually how most if not all cities function. He who holds the gold makes the rules.

I am not trying to be argumentative but I am really interested in knowing where one of these companies made a truly important and long-term power play in CITY decision-making? And yes, this is only a traffic light. Thats done a lot of places there is a large corporate installation. In fact, I bet Tinker has a few.

Paycom has 3 police officers Monday through Friday directing traffic at their HQ during rush hour. They stop the westbound traffic on the service road to let their employees out. Then they direct traffic at JKT and Rockwell.

Paycom has 3 police officers Monday through Friday directing traffic at their HQ during rush hour. They stop the westbound traffic on the service road to let their employees out. Then they direct traffic at JKT and Rockwell.

How is that handled? Are they really on-duty OKCPD officers or security guys or off-duty cops? Does Paycom write a check to OKCPD for this or does OKCPD do it out of the kindness of their hearts? Can anybody rent the OKCPD for their business? Anybody know any details? This kind of thing has always seemed weird to me...

Off duty officers do traffic all over. There are always officers at various churches, etc. when services let out.

^^^^^^^^^
Also all kinds of other events. When you see an OCPD officer at a Thunder game on the court, they are off-duty. When you see one in the lobby of an event at the Civic Center, they are off-duty. When you see one standing on the steps of Mickey Mantle's Steakhouse on a big game night, they are off-duty. When you see one working the gate at a fundraiser, off-duty. OCPD allows their officers to be hired in uniform for off-duty work with certain restrictions. It is considered a perk of being an officer and a way for them to generate additional income. There are certain officers who coordinate this, which I assume means there is some sort of internal reporting (but don't know for sure). The going rate used to be about $50/hr but that may have changed. It has been quite some time since I was involved with the hiring of off-duty officers for anything.

FWIW, I don't ever see OKC off duty officers doing traffic work, but I do see Sheriff's deputies. I assume they're off duty...

Yes, sheriff's deputies also do off-duty work. There is a captain in the Sheriff's department who handles this. Same deal as OCPD, though their rate is less. Quite a few of the sheriff's deputies you see are reserve deputies. OCPD has a higher rate than off-duty deputies. Lower Bricktown management uses sheriff's deputies on weekend evenings to shoo along kids who are violating curfew, etc.

Thanks for the replies, didn't know they could wear their uniforms off-duty, makes more sense now.

Isn’t OHP the same way? I thought the construction companies usually pay OT for the cars sitting at construction zones..

^^^^^^^
I assumed those OHP troopers were off-duty but didn’t know for sure.

When I worked at McDonald's in high school in Edmond, we had two off duty police officers that worked off duty in full uniform on Firday and Saturdays. (Chip and Boyle I think). Never understood how that worked, being able to work armed, privately, in full Edmond PD uniform...

I would guess that their commission gives them their police powers 24/7, so they can enforce laws anytime they want. If someone wants to pay them to enforce those laws on their time, it shouldn’t be an issue as long as they follow all the same rules and regulations as if they are on city time.

I would guess that their commission gives them their police powers 24/7, so they can enforce laws anytime they want. If someone wants to pay them to enforce those laws on their time, it shouldn’t be an issue as long as they follow all the same rules and regulations as if they are on city time.

By law, all commissioned law enforcement officers in Oklahoma are authorized to enforce law violations, even off duty. Further, they are allowed to carry their weapons off duty if approved by the head of their agency. In addition, they are allowed by law, if allowed by their chief officer, to perform security work and other types of duties while off duty, and use their uniforms. And in departments that have take home car programs, they are allowed to use their patrol vehicle if authorized by their agency. Oklahoma City has such a program. In fact, in OKC, officers are allowed to use their patrol vehicle for personal purposes within the city limits of OKC. Even out of uniform. They can drive them to the store, the mall, to take their kids to school, to church...etc. (Or at least that was the policy a few years ago but I believe it is still the policy). The only condition on that was they were subject to being called to respond to emergency situations if necessary. The purpose of the program is to put more police cars on the street. It is effective. Instead of the cars being parked for the officers off duty days, they are out and about being seen and hopefully deterring crime. We have a few officers that attend the church I attend, and some now drive their patrol cars to church and park them up front. Just a deterrent to criminal activity.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a similar program. Except I don't believe they can use the car to go to the store/church/etc. But they can use their cars for private security work. All those OHP cars you see parked at road construction sites are off duty Troopers. They are paid by the contractors for those services. I even believe it is required in the construction contracts that the contractors have to hire off duty troopers to sit at the sites, lights running, as a safety measure.

Some may see this all as a misuse of taxpayer money, but it is a relatively inexpensive way for the cities and the state to have a larger law enforcement presence out and about.

Some may see this all as a misuse of taxpayer money, but it is a relatively inexpensive way for the cities and the state to have a larger law enforcement presence out and about.

Our police are not paid well anyway. It is a good way for them to earn extra money.

This is the crazy huge intersection as you head north on Hudson at Main.

The car pictured on the right had actually stopped at the 2nd light (there is another light directly above where I was stopped here) and was in the middle of motorist purgatory before figuring out his/her mistake and just driving through the red light.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok042918.jpg

By law, all commissioned law enforcement officers in Oklahoma are authorized to enforce law violations, even off duty. Further, they are allowed to carry their weapons off duty if approved by the head of their agency. In addition, they are allowed by law, if allowed by their chief officer, to perform security work and other types of duties while off duty, and use their uniforms. And in departments that have take home car programs, they are allowed to use their patrol vehicle if authorized by their agency. Oklahoma City has such a program. In fact, in OKC, officers are allowed to use their patrol vehicle for personal purposes within the city limits of OKC. Even out of uniform. They can drive them to the store, the mall, to take their kids to school, to church...etc. (Or at least that was the policy a few years ago but I believe it is still the policy). The only condition on that was they were subject to being called to respond to emergency situations if necessary. The purpose of the program is to put more police cars on the street. It is effective. Instead of the cars being parked for the officers off duty days, they are out and about being seen and hopefully deterring crime. We have a few officers that attend the church I attend, and some now drive their patrol cars to church and park them up front. Just a deterrent to criminal activity.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a similar program. Except I don't believe they can use the car to go to the store/church/etc. But they can use their cars for private security work. All those OHP cars you see parked at road construction sites are off duty Troopers. They are paid by the contractors for those services. I even believe it is required in the construction contracts that the contractors have to hire off duty troopers to sit at the sites, lights running, as a safety measure.

Some may see this all as a misuse of taxpayer money, but it is a relatively inexpensive way for the cities and the state to have a larger law enforcement presence out and about.


For the record Paycom pays the police officers, doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime.

^^^^^^^
I don't think yukong was trying to say otherwise; I'm guessing the "...some may see this all as a misuse of taxpayer money..." comment was referencing his/her own additional information regarding the car take-home program.

BOK logo is going up today on the building.

https://i.imgur.com/Z1tFZaN.jpg?1

There is a case (Stewart v. State, 1974 OK Cr 173)that says a off duty police officer working as private security has no more authority or power than that of a private citizen. The can do a citizen's arrest but have to follow the statutory requirements of that.

I have no issue with them working private security other than we the citizen's subsidizing it. They are using gov't equipment for free to do their side jobs. It is no different than if we let the parks grounds employees use the city mowers to run a lawn cutting service on the weekends. The last time I asked an officer friend of mine...they don't reimburse the city for the wear and tear or the gas on the patrol cars when they sit outside the bank for 8 hours running the a/c on their patrol cars.

FYI...starting salary for OCPD officer is $52972 ($25-$26 per hour)with lots of benefits. OCSO Deputies make less. Not worth it to me but not exactly low pay. They make $35-$50 hour on side jobs.

There is a case (Stewart v. State, 1974 OK Cr 173)that says a off duty police officer working as private security has no more authority or power than that of a private citizen. The can do a citizen's arrest but have to follow the statutory requirements of that.

I have no issue with them working private security other than we the citizen's subsidizing it. They are using gov't equipment for free to do their side jobs. It is no different than if we let the parks grounds employees use the city mowers to run a lawn cutting service on the weekends. The last time I asked an officer friend of mine...they don't reimburse the city for the wear and tear or the gas on the patrol cars when they sit outside the bank for 8 hours running the a/c on their patrol cars.

FYI...starting salary for OCPD officer is $52972 ($25-$26 per hour)with lots of benefits. OCSO Deputies make less. Not worth it to me but not exactly low pay. They make $35-$50 hour on side jobs.

I believe the benefit is not in the authority power off duty, but the apparent increase in police presence as a deterrent to crime.

For the record Paycom pays the police officers, doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime.

I was well aware of that fact. I was just making the point that some might see these programs as a waste of taxpayer money...it is in fact a good program that heightens police visibility. Thus a safer community.

You can see the 4 floors BOK occupies (24-27) directly below their newly installed sign.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok050618a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bok050618b.jpg

BOK towers 27 stories; they occupy the one floor below their signage (24th), the floor of the signage (25th) and the two top floor above that (26th & 27th) floors. Got it?

Any speculation on potential tenants? Would be a good opportunity to grab a relocation.

BOK towers 27 stories; they occupy the one floor below their signage (24th), the floor of the signage (25th) and the two top floor above that (26th & 27th) floors. Got it?

No, the top 3 'stories' are just mechanical and the crown.

BOK occupies the first habitable floor below the sign (the 27th) and the three below that. You can see the shades are partially open on those 4 floors, as they are the only tenant in the building. The also have a small branch on the ground floor.

Anybody else think the sign is a little small?

^^^^^^^

Are those all Devon's floors that they don't currently need? I asked a friend who works for DVN what the current occupancy of the tower is and he said he thought it was about half full with multiple empty floors so I don't see them moving into BOK anytime soon.

Are those all Devon's floors that they don't currently need? I asked a friend who works for DVN what the current occupancy of the tower is and he said he thought it was about half full with multiple empty floors so I don't see them moving into BOK anytime soon.

Devon had announced they were taking the 10 floors directly below the BOK space but then said they don't have plans to use any of it.

Especially since the last round of layoffs, they have capacity in the existing complex for hundreds of workers if they ever need it.

That's actually pretty sad information. The most prominent building in the state isn't even near capacity. I miss the days of rumored OKC relocations.

Anybody else think the sign is a little small?
No

Anybody else think the sign is a little small?
I’ve yet to see it in person, but from the pictures, yes.

I’ve yet to see it in person, but from the pictures, yes.

i think the pictures actually make it look more appropriately sized. driving in on i40 it looks pretty miniscule. not that i'm advocating for gigantic signage, just looks a little weird

Devon had announced they were taking the 10 floors directly below the BOK space but then said they don't have plans to use any of it.

Especially since the last round of layoffs, they have capacity in the existing complex for hundreds of workers if they ever need it.

There is a little bit more to this story.

Devon tower currently can hold far more employees than when it was originally built/configured

Originally the floor were laid out in a very very generous manner. With few cubicles and lots of priviate offices. As Devon was growing. By the time people moved into the tower Devon was still in 3 or 4 other buildings down town

They then paid to remodel / reorganized a majority of their floors to be able to use the space more efficiently and fit more people per floor.

They still had a need for extra space at that time which is why they agreed to take the floors in this building.

Then the layoffs happened and they now have less employees and no need for the space. But part of that is the reconfigured Devon tower

In skyline pictures it _seems_ like the letters are a similar height to "Continental", but that could be the perspective. But if so, I've never heard complaints about the continental signage size.

Anybody else think the sign is a little small?

Looks too big imo. I would've preferred no sign at all.

Looks too big imo. I would've preferred no sign at all.

I agree, looks so 80's. Most new skyscrapers built now have no signage at all.

I agree, looks so 80's. Most new skyscrapers built now have no signage at all.

The two newest 20+ story office towers in downtown Denver both have prominent signage. One is for Polsinelli (law firm) and the other is Optiv (cybersecurity) on the new Devon-Tower look-alike 1144 15th:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcYdUfhVMAEW6j7?format=jpg

I think the sign on BOK is too low, should be one floor higher. Hope to see it lit up. ...

btw, is there just one sign fronting the East flank or is there another/other(s)?

I think that's it.

I believe the reason for the size and position is that it only overlaps on the first floor of the crown, which is not illuminated. And of course, in that way the sign doesn't overlap any windows.