Yeah, but people won't care either way in 6 months.

Well, let’s hope not. My nightmare would be city profile packages during the NBA playoffs talking about this — why wouldn’t they? It’s been talked about now for the last month and the whole “tallest building in the country in the plains?” angle is just tailor-made for the ubiquitous profile fluff pieces at playoff time. I just want it all to go away.

The worst part of this is knowing the very small chance this thing even gets built and knowing they will unleash hell on us when that day comes that it was somehow our fault because we are some pretender city or something along those lines.

If it doesn't get built, you'll most likely just not hear about it in national publications again.

If it does get built, there will continue to be articles written about how unnecessary it is.

Really, the worst outcome for any of this, much more so than it not being built, is that it gets built and is unsuccessful / half empty. That will definitely be commented on, since it will essentially be a high profile failure. I don't think that should be seen as reflective of the state of the city itself (large projects fail in major cities all the time), but that is what people tend to do.

But, the only real downside from a PR perspective at this point, is that the discussion distracts from all the positive things that have happened and are happening in OKC, like the emergence of several various walkable neighborhoods and districts in the core with their own identities and mix of dining and entertainment options. Tall buildings like this one can be cool looking vanity projects, but "stuff to do" is more important and OKC's core has more of that than it ever has at a scale that is appropriate for its size.

Making any comparisons between OKC and major international cities, like NYC, that have hundreds of skyscrapers and millions more people is dumb on its face to begin with, whether this gets built or not.

Well, let’s hope not. My nightmare would be city profile packages during the NBA playoffs talking about this — why wouldn’t they? It’s been talked about now for the last month and the whole “tallest building in the country in the plains?” angle is just tailor-made for the ubiquitous profile fluff pieces at playoff time. I just want it all to go away.

NBA couldn't care less about proposed building projects in OKC. Everybody is giving this whole thing way, way more weight than it deserves. Making it such a big deal in our minds only proves that the rest of the country is right about us. We shouldn't act like we are googly eyed kids waiting for Christmas for some shiny toy.

Well, let’s hope not. My nightmare would be city profile packages during the NBA playoffs talking about this — why wouldn’t they? It’s been talked about now for the last month and the whole “tallest building in the country in the plains?” angle is just tailor-made for the ubiquitous profile fluff pieces at playoff time. I just want it all to go away.

OKC residents should quit tying their sense of worth on some wild investor from California.

I think it is perfectly OK to be excited about a new skyscraper development in your city. Can you IMAGINE if this was being proposed in Seattle (my city)? Or Vancouver?

Or Chicago? Or NY?. Any city would be happy/proud to get such a development. I don't think OKC people should go hide away just so we look like we - been there done that. Which is what I presume your point is Rover. Even cities that been there and done that would be hyped about this - think Chicago Spire (yes it didn't happen but look at the hype back then from a multi million world city full of some of the world's first and tallest skyscrapers already). .. For this to be somewhat seriously proposed for OKC (and I say that because they ARE going through all the steps and approvals) - it's eye opening and OKC people should be hopeful, proud, and eager to defend their city from attack and 'continued' ridicule.

Now, will it be built? Kind of looks like there's a chance. But the rest of the development isn't being discussed and I think that is what most OKC people are most thrilled about - a dense addition to OKC's already dense urban entertainment district. That is what we should be talking about, like most on here have said the pics from the Wall Street Journal detract from - OKC's rise as a major city and with major city offerings. The supertall, if built, will be the literal cherry on the top.

Honestly, if anything the stories from WSJ (which is a NYC-centric national paper any way you slice it) chosing to pick dead of winter, East facing pics that crop most of the skyline; to me shows their insecurity moreso than OKCs. Because when people come to VISIT okc they will see the true, growing, modern city (at least in the core) that they too will be 'shocked' just as everybody else who comes to OKC is. If the papers/articles were more honest then visitors wouldn't be so surprised when they come.

This is a potential David vs. Goliath with regard to NYC's ego, they'll just ahve to deal with it just like Goliath did.

I think it is perfectly OK to be excited about a new skyscraper development in your city. Can you IMAGINE if this was being proposed in Seattle (my city)? Or Vancouver?

Or Chicago? Or NY?. Any city would be happy/proud to get such a development. I don't think OKC people should go hide away just so we look like we - been there done that. Which is what I presume your point is Rover. Even cities that been there and done that would be hyped about this - think Chicago Spire (yes it didn't happen but look at the hype back then from a multi million world city full of some of the world's first and tallest skyscrapers already). .. For this to be somewhat seriously proposed for OKC (and I say that because they ARE going through all the steps and approvals) - it's eye opening and OKC people should be hopeful, proud, and eager to defend their city from attack and 'continued' ridicule.

Now, will it be built? Kind of looks like there's a chance. But the rest of the development isn't being discussed and I think that is what most OKC people are most thrilled about - a dense addition to OKC's already dense urban entertainment district. That is what we should be talking about, like most on here have said the pics from the Wall Street Journal detract from - OKC's rise as a major city and with major city offerings. The supertall, if built, will be the literal cherry on the top.

Honestly, if anything the stories from WSJ (which is a NYC-centric national paper any way you slice it) chosing to pick dead of winter, East facing pics that crop most of the skyline; to me shows their insecurity moreso than OKCs. Because when people come to VISIT okc they will see the true, growing, modern city (at least in the core) that they too will be 'shocked' just as everybody else who comes to OKC is. If the papers/articles were more honest then visitors wouldn't be so surprised when they come.

This is a potential David vs. Goliath with regard to NYC's ego, they'll just ahve to deal with it just like Goliath did.
Man, if you think the people of NYC are insecure, I just don’t know what to say.

I track development projects all over the country. There are many that are well beyond the financial scope of this one as proposed. I get notifications on most development projects in New York. I can tell you they have plenty of other projects larger and more important than this proposal. Heck, even Dallas has projects exceeding this scope and the people don’t get hysterical as to whether it will happen and if it doesn’t, whether it makes them look bad. It’s just a part of the process. Our insecurity here is showing.

i dont see anybody here getting histerical if it happens or not. people are just excited about a large scale project hitting OKC's radar. Nothing wrong with that. Believe me, people here would be doing the same thing and worse if it were proposed for Seattle.

IMO, almost everyone in OKC has the feeling "Ill believe it when I see it", just like they did with the Devon Tower if they even knew about it. What's wrong with that? Most people are also defending OKC - as a bonafide city vs. the stereotype narrative that continues to persist for some reason. Definitely nothing wrong with that.

NYC people are definitely insecure (not all of course, but the vocal ones who spread the narrative), otherwise they wouldn't even really be talking about OKC's tower other than perhaps a congrats or they'll build something taller and definitely wouldn't feel the need to belittle OKC as hick/redneck or whatever. ...

Yeah, but people won't care either way in 6 months.

I don't think many care right now.

OKC residents should quit tying their sense of worth on some wild investor from California.

Agreed. My tinfoil hat says he knee people would talk about the city in this way and it gives him plenty of opportunities to save face. "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling haters!"

I think most of the people on the board are in the same boat as thinking this has a very small chance of actually happening. I have had multiple people reach out to me that know I know a lot about urban development and everything going on in OKC to talk to me about this like it is a done deal. To everyone else on the board that goes through the same thing, what do you say to people when they ask/talk to you about it? I feel like I am regurgitating the same things over and over and being labeled as a pessimist because I don't think this is going to happen. Same with the American Heartland theme park in Vinita. Would love to get people's thoughts...

The 3 smaller towers? I can very easily see those happening. The supertall? No way. I think it gets shrunk down, or spread to 2 smaller towers. But I don't think just because the supertall won't happen, that the rest of the development is out, as well.

The 3 smaller towers? I can very easily see those happening. The supertall? No way. I think it gets shrunk down, or spread to 2 smaller towers. But I don't think just because the supertall won't happen, that the rest of the development is out, as well.

If you are replying to me, I was talking specifically about the Legends Tower. The smaller towers I could see happening as well.

Agreed. My tinfoil hat says he knee people would talk about the city in this way and it gives him plenty of opportunities to save face. "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling haters!"

The only opinions he cares about are boards that approve permits, bankers, investors, potential tenants, etc. Opinions on internet sites is way way low on items to be considered when it is totally doubtful that the opinions of the most opinionated and vocal posters represent a meaningful section of the population.

The next step is they have to submit building permit applications for the 3 towers, lagoon, podium, etc.

Matteson said they want to start moving dirt this summer and you can do some rudimentary things (like ground prep) without a building permit, but that doesn't get you far. And to get approved permits for a project like this, it will take around 6 months, if not longer. I doubt Hogan is going to let them tear up his income-producing parking lot without a building permit in hand.

So, they need to submit applications ASAP to have any hope of doing real work before the end of the year.

The ball is completely in their court now, so we'll see if they can actually move forward instead of just talk.

If you are replying to me, I was talking specifically about the Legends Tower. The smaller towers I could see happening as well.

I don't think I've spoken to anyone who views the Legends Tower as anything other than the way Hogan referred to it as, "aspirational." That doesn't mean it won't happen. It also doesn't mean it will. There are a lot of hurdles that would have to be navigated to get to that point.

And again Thank You Rover! After all it is a forum but it can be overboard at times.

OKC residents should quit tying their sense of worth on some wild investor from California.

I'll take the Legends Tower even more seriously when and if it goes political at the state capitol from the wild investor being from California.

NBA couldn't care less about proposed building projects in OKC. Everybody is giving this whole thing way, way more weight than it deserves. Making it such a big deal in our minds only proves that the rest of the country is right about us. We shouldn't act like we are googly eyed kids waiting for Christmas for some shiny toy.

Disagree. I HATE this project. The problem is not people on this forum kicking around strong beliefs,
Rover. A proposal to build the tallest building in the country in Oklahoma City is begging for discussion, and no poster here should tell anyone that we're giving this "more weight than it deserves," or that people here are, "making it such a big deal." We're supposed to see embarrassing articles about this on the front page of the largest circulating newspaper in America - and not have thoughts worth expressing? Please.


As far as the NBA caring or not caring, it's not the league I've thought about, it's the national media coverage of the NBA playoffs. Playoff games here will be subject to human interest packages during coverage that profile the city. Proposals to build the tallest building in the United States in OKC could very well be a part of those packages. That’s why I mentioned it.


People here thinking opposition to this is based on not wanting our city to have good things or believe that we don't "deserve" this is ridiculous. Does Lawton deserve a Devon Tower? We need a balanced skyline and not one that will look tiny except for this big monstrosity that, if it actually get close to fruition, should be stopped cold.

I think it is perfectly OK to be excited about a new skyscraper development in your city. Can you IMAGINE if this was being proposed in Seattle (my city)? Or Vancouver?

Or Chicago? Or NY?. Any city would be happy/proud to get such a development. I don't think OKC people should go hide away just so we look like we - been there done that. Which is what I presume your point is Rover. Even cities that been there and done that would be hyped about this - think Chicago Spire (yes it didn't happen but look at the hype back then from a multi million world city full of some of the world's first and tallest skyscrapers already). .. For this to be somewhat seriously proposed for OKC (and I say that because they ARE going through all the steps and approvals) - it's eye opening and OKC people should be hopeful, proud, and eager to defend their city from attack and 'continued' ridicule.

Now, will it be built? Kind of looks like there's a chance. But the rest of the development isn't being discussed and I think that is what most OKC people are most thrilled about - a dense addition to OKC's already dense urban entertainment district. That is what we should be talking about, like most on here have said the pics from the Wall Street Journal detract from - OKC's rise as a major city and with major city offerings. The supertall, if built, will be the literal cherry on the top.

Honestly, if anything the stories from WSJ (which is a NYC-centric national paper any way you slice it) chosing to pick dead of winter, East facing pics that crop most of the skyline; to me shows their insecurity moreso than OKCs. Because when people come to VISIT okc they will see the true, growing, modern city (at least in the core) that they too will be 'shocked' just as everybody else who comes to OKC is. If the papers/articles were more honest then visitors wouldn't be so surprised when they come.

Well, it wouldn’t be a complete and total shock if the tallest building was proposed for Seattle or Chicago. That’s the point. For it to be in Oklahoma is what makes it sound ridiculous. For it to actually get built and be in Oklahoma City would be a disaster. Unless you want to be the butt of jokes. A bunch of small buildings (they would no longer look so tall) with this giant building? You seriously think that would look like anything other than absurd? I understand every city has their “homers” who love anything that puts their city in the news, but to think this would be a good look for OKC is very hard for me to understand.

As for the Wall Street Journal being a “NY-centric” newspaper, it simply is not. It has the largest print circulation in the United States and has no real ties to NYC except the street name, “Wall Street” and the fact it is based there, much like every other media empire. It is an international business and finance newspaper whose influence is enormous in the business community and financial sector.

People here that think opposition to this is based on our city not wanting to have good things or believe that we don't "deserve" this is ridiculous. Does Lawton deserve a Devon Tower? We need a balanced skyline and not one that will look tiny except for this big monstrosity that, if it actually get close to fruition, should be stopped cold.


That sounds a lot like the opposition to building the Eiffel Tower in Paris when it was constructed. Paris hardly has a balanced skyline.

That sounds a lot like the opposition to building the Eiffel Tower in Paris when it was constructed. Paris hardly has a balanced skyline.

That comparison doesn’t work. The Eiffel Tower was built for the 1889 World’s Fair as a proof of concept for a tall iron attraction. Paris has had a no-skyscrapers height restriction for most of the modern era.

there is not one supertall in Seattle, so how is Seattle deserving Legends Tower (which would be more than twice as tall as our tallest too) - come off of it. We have a supertall proposal, for years, and nothing - so if Seattle got this one (which we wont) believe me it'd be all news as well.

Chicago - yes, that's a different animal as there's a plethora of existing supertalls including the world's tallest historically - but Legends Tower would be news there too.

Deserving (??) of a supertall is superficial, if it's built in OKC then OKC deserved it. If Lawton built a Devon Tower, then more power to them - they obviuosly deserved it just like OKC did and might deserve Legends if it's built. .. If city council approves (which they likely will), and the FAA approves, and they get permitting - then it will be built. Let's see.

You guys who keep using terms like “deserving” are weird.

Well, it wouldn’t be a complete and total shock if the tallest building was proposed for Seattle or Chicago. That’s the point. For it to be in Oklahoma is what makes it sound ridiculous. For it to actually get built and be in Oklahoma City would be a disaster. Unless you want to be the butt of jokes. A bunch of small buildings (they would no longer look so tall) with this giant building? You seriously think that would look like anything other than absurd? I understand every city has their “homers” who love anything that puts their city in the news, but to think this would be a good look for OKC is very hard for me to understand.

As for the Wall Street Journal being a “NY-centric” newspaper, it simply is not. It has the largest print circulation in the United States and has no real ties to NYC except the street name, “Wall Street” and the fact it is based there, much like every other media empire. It is an international business and finance newspaper whose influence is enormous in the business community and financial sector.



I believe Seattle has a 38 floor max limit. Enacted around 10 years ago.

You guys who keep using terms like “deserving” are weird.

This is correct.

I believe Seattle has a 38 floor max limit. Enacted around 10 years ago.

Maybe this only applies to certain areas, like near the Space Needle? There are multiple buildings currently under construction there that are 40+ stories high.

That comparison doesn’t work. The Eiffel Tower was built for the 1889 World’s Fair as a proof of concept for a tall iron attraction. Paris has had a no-skyscrapers height restriction for most of the modern era.

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-controversial-saga-of-the-eiffel-tower-revisiting-historical-opposition-to-its-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-controversial-saga-of-the-eiffel-tower-revisiting-historical-opposition-to-its-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

At least Hitler thought highly enough of it not to bomb it to destruction while taking over Paris. He probably thought that in doing away with an architectural icon he would lose total control over it from it no longer being in existence any longer. Maybe it was lucky the Eiffel Tower wasn't destroyed before Nazis had to flee Paris.

Maybe this only applies to certain areas, like near the Space Needle? There are multiple buildings currently under construction there that are 40+ stories high.

I know Amazon HQ was limited to 38 floors due to this. Maybe office and apartment towers (apartment or condo being lower ceiling height) are different floor count ?

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-controversial-saga-of-the-eiffel-tower-revisiting-historical-opposition-to-its-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

Come on, Rick, you’re smarter than to make this silly argument. Do you really think you can compare Paris in 1889 with Oklahoma City in 2024? We’re talking skyscrapers in an age of skyscrapers. I am not opposed to them at all, only this ridiculous project. I stand by my argument that it would look out of place and would stop skyscraper development for many years in this city.

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

Come on, Rick, you’re smarter than to make this silly argument. Do you really think you can compare Paris in 1889 with Oklahoma City in 2024? We’re talking skyscrapers in an age of skyscrapers. I am not opposed to them at all, only this ridiculous project. I stand by my argument that it would look out of place and would stop skyscraper development for many years in this city.

Come on Blue, I stand by the reasoning of my comparison. The comparison is based on the relationship of the projects to the rest of the city and how they fit in. They are quite similar in how they were regarded by many people in that respect. You are welcome to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

but but but THE FAA!?!?!?!

Come on Blue, I stand by the reasoning of my comparison. The comparison is based on the relationship of the projects to the rest of the city and how they fit in. They are quite similar in how they were regarded by many people in that respect. You are welcome to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

Other than being completely different, they are the same. Lol

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

They said the same thing about the NBA. OKC will never get a major league team. Quit being a naysayer. Dream big!

Not sure why people are saying this tower would be a disaster. Demand for housing downtown is strong. I'm sure it will fill up quickly, especially given its location in Bricktown.

Other than being completely different, they are the same. Lol

Once again, you completely missed the point. I never said the projects were similar at all. I said how they were regarded by many people were the same. You are just reaching for a reason to disagree.

Once again, you completely missed the point. I never said the projects were similar at all. I said how they were regarded by many people were the same. You are just reaching for a reason to disagree.

I’m reaching to understand why you are doubling down. The issues were very different. The times were very different. People here aren’t objecting to the project. They just doubt the ability of the developer to pull it off and question why he wants to. This isn’t some historic profundity.
.

I’m reaching to understand why you are doubling down. The issues were very different. The times were very different. People here aren’t objecting to the project. They just doubt the ability of the developer to pull it off and question why he wants to. This isn’t some historic profundity.
.
That's not what the person I was responding to was concerned about. Go back and look at what he said about needing to have a "balanced" skyline in OKC. He said nothing about the ability of the developer to "pull it off". And "profundity" is just a LOL. I have said nothing about anyone who is questioning if the developer might be able to make it happen.

That's not what the person I was responding to was concerned about. Go back and look at what he said about needing to have a "balanced" skyline in OKC. He said nothing about the ability of the developer to "pull it off". And "profundity" is just a LOL. I have said nothing about anyone who is questioning if the developer might be able to make it happen.
The convo was about the Parisians objecting to the Eiffel Tower like OKC and this maybe tower, No comparison to be had.

The convo was about the Parisians objecting to the Eiffel Tower like OKC and this maybe tower, No comparison to be had.

You are just trying to have the last word as always. The comparison about how the project would fit is totally accurate compared to how many objected to the Eiffel Tower. I was only responding to one person and that was his exact argument.

And I'm still impressed with "profundity". You have a great deal to add to many discussions but you tend to try too hard sometimes to impress with your knowledge. "convo" LOL

I'm not confident it will be built, because it's based on demand. There really is no vertical pressure in OKC like there is in other places like NYC or Chicago. Land is cheap, so there's really no reason to go through the expense of something like this. And frankly, housing in downtown OKC may be fairly solid, but the number of units this would bring at one time, is massive for our market (which is not large). But honestly, even with the other 3 towers, it's still a good win.

In response to some of these other comments, yeah the Eifel Tower was not well received when it was built. The metal erector set style was seen as UGLY, for one thing. It's amazing how something goes from being dislikes, to being a worldwide icon, isn't it?! But the same story has been told in other cities. When the Sears tower was built in Chicago, there wasn't anything even close to it in height. It wasn't for some time before things like Hancock, Aon, etc were constructed and many more years for the high fil-in to take place. In NYC, when the WTC was built, a lot of people thought it was also a plain concrete ugly eyesore that was "too tall". I mean if you're comparing it to the Empire State, they are so wildly different. The WTC ended up taking on an icon status because of it's sheer size and "in your face" statement. Not really because it was so pleasant to look at.

So if it did get built, would it stand out? yes. Does Devon? Yes. But have we all sort of gotten used to the size difference and even embraced it? I would argue to say yes. So if it did get built, I honestly think that after the initial period of shock, it would sort of level out eventually. With something all by itself like it would be, and so massively tall, it's always going to stand out no matter what. And you're always going to have people that think of it as awful (and some that are saying that are just annoyed it's not in their city). We would be able to wear that with pride though. Come to OKC and check out our two big middle finger towers that are pointed at everyone that says that we can't do it, or that we're flyover city. I mean there is something to be said for that iconic status, hated or loved. It will attract visitors, and that's a good thing.

I'm not confident it will be built, because it's based on demand. There really is no vertical pressure in OKC like there is in other places like NYC or Chicago. Land is cheap, so there's really no reason to go through the expense of something like this. And frankly, housing in downtown OKC may be fairly solid, but the number of units this would bring at one time, is massive for our market (which is not large). But honestly, even with the other 3 towers, it's still a good win.

In response to some of these other comments, yeah the Eifel Tower was not well received when it was built. The metal erector set style was seen as UGLY, for one thing. It's amazing how something goes from being dislikes, to being a worldwide icon, isn't it?! But the same story has been told in other cities. When the Sears tower was built in Chicago, there wasn't anything even close to it in height. It wasn't for some time before things like Hancock, Aon, etc were constructed and many more years for the high fil-in to take place. In NYC, when the WTC was built, a lot of people thought it was also a plain concrete ugly eyesore that was "too tall". I mean if you're comparing it to the Empire State, they are so wildly different. The WTC ended up taking on an icon status because of it's sheer size and "in your face" statement. Not really because it was so pleasant to look at.

So if it did get built, would it stand out? yes. Does Devon? Yes. But have we all sort of gotten used to the size difference and even embraced it? I would argue to say yes. So if it did get built, I honestly think that after the initial period of shock, it would sort of level out eventually. With something all by itself like it would be, and so massively tall, it's always going to stand out no matter what. And you're always going to have people that think of it as awful (and some that are saying that are just annoyed it's not in their city). We would be able to wear that with pride though. Come to OKC and check out our two big middle finger towers that are pointed at everyone that says that we can't do it, or that we're flyover city. I mean there is something to be said for that iconic status, hated or loved. It will attract visitors, and that's a good thing.

well said

We keep circling back having the same conversations and arguments. We will know soon if this is for real or just a sham, hang tight.

Thank you haha. I've read "I think the smaller towers will get built but not the big one" a million times now.

We keep circling back having the same conversations and arguments. We will know soon if this is for real or just a sham, hang tight.

We already know.

Thank you haha. I've read "I think the smaller towers will get built but not the big one" a million times now.

none of it’s getting built

(Let’s start the cycle again lol)

Well that is always a possibility. But what a lot of us are saying here, is that we feel like there are two different projects in play here. One is a perfectly plausible smaller collection of mixed use development. The other is a wile pie in the sky farse. The plausible is not dependent on the farse, so it at least stands a very good chance of being built. It's in a good location for what they are wanting to build. There is demand for something like that in the area.

The farse, well we'll all believe it when we see it. What it's dependent on is likely to not come to fruition. But that's not a lot of what the conversation here is about. A lot of the conversation surrounding this structure is the questioning of if OKC should have a structure like this. Does OKC "deserve" the tallest title? There's a lot of b.s. that fuels that ideology about OKC's status in the U.S. So it's a lot more highly charged than if we were just talking about another Devon sized structure. So i dont think it's as easy as saying we're repeating the same conversations. It really has evolved as there has been more buzz in social media/web/etc. The more people analyze, the more they are talking about OKC. And those conversations go both ways in terms of how OKC is viewed. For me, I prefer to think of it as IF it does get built, what does that mean? What impact would that have on OKC? And it would have one.

Can we please stop with this "deserving" crap? It's inane, doesn't mean anything, has no purpose other than to keep people arguing/debating (oh, wait....), and is just patently absurd. Cities can't "deserve", the criteria for it doesn't really exist, they're not living entities that have traits or have done things that "deserve" anything, either good or bad. :rolleyes:

Well that is always a possibility. But what a lot of us are saying here, is that we feel like there are two different projects in play here. One is a perfectly plausible smaller collection of mixed use development. The other is a wile pie in the sky farse. The plausible is not dependent on the farse, so it at least stands a very good chance of being built. It's in a good location for what they are wanting to build. There is demand for something like that in the area.


Well, one is most likely a PR stunt to get the smaller projects over the finish line(or at least one tower started) in terms of interest and funding. That brings the smaller projects into question if the developer felt the need to do that.

Tallest tower, deserving argument, tornado alley argument: all pointless noise to me. They don't have a building permit yet and won't get one for several more months at least. This could stay in Schrodinger's box for a long time.

any word on when legends tower might be approved by the faa

any word on when legends tower might be approved by the faa

i could be wrong, but i think i remember that the FAA won't look at an application for approval in a city without first having city council approval (when needed). i remember reading something about that back when Devon Tower was first announced, talking about how the FAA gets so many applications for approval, that they hold off on as many as possible, so that they aren't spending time and effort on something that gets denied somewhere else.

i could be wrong, but i think i remember that the FAA won't look at an application for approval in a city without first having city council approval (when needed). i remember reading something about that back when Devon Tower was first announced, talking about how the FAA gets so many applications for approval, that they hold off on as many as possible, so that they aren't spending time and effort on something that gets denied somewhere else.

Hopefully the FAA is aware that we deserve this and can expedite the approval

Hopefully the FAA is aware that we deserve this and can expedite the approvalThe FAA doesn't care a bit about anything but their requirements and standards. That being said the FAA approval will probably be the easiest, fastest single part of the process.

Assuming Legend Tower is built in some form and knowing that it will never be 1,907 tall, what would be the optimal height?

At 60 floors with some rooftop elements, it would likely be about the height of Devon Tower. Even that would be very out of scale with everything else surrounding it.

OTOH, it seems our only chance (albeit small) to add to our skyline anytime soon.

If it were up to me, I'd move the entire thing over to the the former Ford dealer block west of Paycom, get the first three buildings done (minus some of the garish Vegas style lighting), and then consider building the Legend Tower at a more reasonable 700-900 feet tall.

Assuming Legend Tower is built in some form and knowing that it will never be 1,907 tall, what would be the optimal height?

At 60 floors with some rooftop elements, it would likely be about the height of Devon Tower. Even that would be very out of scale with everything else surrounding it.

OTOH, it seems our only chance (albeit small) to add to our skyline anytime soon.

20% higher than the other 3 towers.

The optimal height is halfway between the height of BancFirst and Devon. Around 650 feet.

20% higher than the other 3 towers.

This seems pretty reasonable and attainable actually. I'd still like to move the whole thing though.