New Thread: Does anybody else think it would be nice if they started building high rise towers on the other side of the river and eventually connected it to the core?

Yes.

I'd also like to see a couple 50+ story towers built around NW Expressway and the 74. Same thing with with Kilpatrick Turnpike I would like to see some 40+ story towers there as well.

Yes.

I'd also like to see a couple 50+ story towers built around NW Expressway and the 74. Same thing with with Kilpatrick Turnpike I would like to see some 40+ story towers there as well.
Still hoping to outdo Dallas, plupan? Even they don't do that out in the burbs.

New Thread: Does anybody else think it would be nice if they started building high rise towers on the other side of the river and eventually connected it to the core?

It is neat to think of, but not sure why any company would build a tower outside of the core. It kind of defeats the entire purpose of spending the money to build vertically when in an area lacking the amenities or property value of a dense core.

Still hoping to outdo Dallas, plupan? Even they don't do that out in the burbs.Los Angeles does :)

As soon as we hit 4-5 million population I am sure we will see 'this multitude of towers being built. And when we move the city to the coast we can get beautiful palm tree lined corniches. And we move the Rockies behind the city for some tremendous framing of all our new towers.

I would love to see some high rises along 35 between downtown and Moore, especially at the 235/35 interchange.

I don't see any need to expand high rises out of downtown. I think you want to keep the skyline centered in one area, the density aspect to me looks more impressive than to have 20 story buildings sprinkled throughout the city.

The way I'm reading this, Kyle means on the south side of the river, south of downtown, not out in the suburbs. No?

The way I'm reading this, Kyle means on the south side of the river, south of downtown, not out in the suburbs.

OP is not Jim Kyle but another Kyle. :)

I wish we would do the opposite. Tear down the towers on NW Expressway, etc, and rebuild them downtown.

^ No way. It's nice that OKC has more than one skyline.

Can you imagine how awesome the downtown skyline will look with those buildings there instead?

I wish we would do the opposite. Tear down the towers on NW Expressway, etc, and rebuild them downtown.

Can't we just beam them there?

The way I'm reading this, Kyle means on the south side of the river, south of downtown, not out in the suburbs. No?

Yes south of downtown

I wish we would do the opposite. Tear down the towers on NW Expressway, etc, and rebuild them downtown.

It would be awesome if we could have the three towers along NW Expressway downtown, particularly the Valliance Bank Tower and Founders Tower. Founders Tower would been amazing downtown!

I'm thinking they could start building the new high rises along Walker then eventually cut across I-40. It would decrease the need to destroy historic buildings for parking garages because if you think about it the more high rise office buildings in the core means more parking so more and more historic structures will be destroyed until there are none left. If we expand less people will need to park in one area so less parking garages and more room for restaurants and other entertainment for everyone to enjoy. There are plenty of lots available to turn that into a new district over there.

Every time I see the towers on NW Expwy I think of how much more dense our DT could look if those buildings were in DT. And I've never understand why we have a small smattering of high rises (relatively speaking) out on NW Expwy. If we could just click and drag those tall buildings downtown...

I'm thinking they could start building the new high rises along Walker then eventually cut across I-40. It would decrease the need to destroy historic buildings for parking garages because if you think about it the more high rise office buildings in the core means more parking so more and more historic structures will be destroyed until there are none left. If we expand less people will need to park in one area so less parking garages and more room for restaurants and other entertainment for everyone to enjoy. There are plenty of lots available to turn that into a new district over there.

If we do this we can still build in the core but we can expand at the same time. I would like to see taller buildings in the core and shortER not short buildings around the core

Every time I see the towers on NW Expwy I think of how much more dense our DT could look if those buildings were in DT. And I've never understand why we have a small smattering of high rises (relatively speaking) out on NW Expwy. If we could just click and drag those tall buildings downtown...

Sure they (Valiance Bank Tower (321 ft., United Founder's (275 ft., & Union Plaza (252 ft., would add density to the skyline; however they wouldn't look that impressive--they would only rival Bank of Oklahoma Plaza (310 ft.,).

I wish we could get a rectangle high rise that's about 500 feet on those surface lots next to the myriad gardens with lights on the top like the Oklahoma tower that run down the side.

Since i live basically near the NW HWY i wish someone would build a supertall along the expressway. :Smiley122

Since i live basically near the NW HWY i wish someone would build a supertall along the expressway. :Smiley122i wish more people would share you sentiment because I'm sure the NIMBYS would protest anything above 25 stories.

We have to keep in mind what OKC can support, and then focus our efforts so that we get the most bang for our buck.

Even optimistically, OKC doesn't have the population or the corporate base to start building high rises south of the river, or in any suburban area. Not to build there and also continue to build them downtown, anyway. I think the best locations for us to put up new high rises are: 1) along the left side of the new central park, 2) up Broadway in the surface parking lots of Automobile Alley, and 3) in the surface parking lots along Main between Hudson and Classen. A dozen or so 15-20 story towers in these areas would dramatically extend our skyline. This is, of course, not counting any redevelopment of the Cox Center or the Bob Howard site, both of which will be important.

Everywhere else should be 5-10 story development like we see in Bricktown and Deep Deuce. We've got more than enough vacant land to fill to keep us busy for the next 20 to 30 years.

If you really want to take a big step and start adding skyscrapers in an area outside of downtown, the biggest gain to the skyline would be seen if you bridged the gap between downtown and OUHSC. Put another dozen or so 10-ish story buildings in the HSC area to bulk it out and bridge the gap. Then toss in 3 or 4 skyscrapers in the 20-25 story range. That land is on a higher elevation, so they'll look taller than comparable downtown skyscrapers. You'll have a great base to build up from because of the existing buildings. Driving along I-35, it will look like one continuous downtown that stretches across the interstate.

I think the best locations for us to put up new high rises are: 1) along the left side of the new central park,

What is the left side of the park? That would depend on whether you're looking North or South.

I think the best locations for us to put up new high rises are: 1) along the left side of the new central park, .

That's what I was talking about build along walker then eventually cut across I-40. That area needs improvement we could even turn it into a new district.

What is the left side of the park? That would depend on whether you're looking North or South.

The left side when you're facing West South-West. Duh. :banghead:

That's what I was talking about build along walker then eventually cut across I-40. That area needs improvement we could even turn it into a new district.

There's a thread on here about the "Strawberry Fields" development. Turning it into a new district seems to be the plan.

The thing is, barring a natural disaster or something and half of NYC moving to Oklahoma, we could build downtown up for 30 years before we needed to cross I-40 to get more land.

If I-40 isn't realistic then what about we keep building along Sheridan?