I like his ideas!

totally agree with many of the ideas (I know this is not necessarily Boardwalk/Legends related but I have to write my thoughts):

OKC should improve upon the bridges - we're no longer concerned (or as concerned) about flood plain on the Oklahoma River, so the bridges should be redesigned/rebuilt particularly in the downtown area and (IMO) along the interstate crossings. Not all of them need to be fancy, but most all around downtown and at gateway areas should be imo. Think the fancy bridge in Dallas but with no piers in the water - which would also improve the rowing/watersport use.

OKC should connect the Bricktown canal with locks - we went on the cheap with this, but I think it is time to finish the job and allow river boats to lock into the Oklahoma River.. Just think of the tourism draw that would be and to have a full destination capability; we'd arguably have the capability to give Chicago a run for its money in some aspects.

OKC should definitely take lessons from Wheeler District and implement similar (and more dense multifamily) designs within at least 2 miles of downtown (3 might be pushing it just from the historic district aspect). Definitely within 1 mile of the core of the cbd we should have a master plan where all new construction is visioned to be more than 6 floors and/or have architectural value lending to urban, walkable city design. The next mile out could be visioned with mixture of single and multi-family but still in the urban, dense, walkable design - tying in the existing housing stock. The next mile should encourage some density at key intersections and destinations, with emphasis on walkability along corridors enhanced with transit. The final area (of the central city) following the inner loop should still encourage density but welcome urban asthetic where big box retail exists and is planned. I'd also argue even the suburban areas outside of the inner loop should have density areas and at least sidewalk and transit connectivity into the core. All sidewalks should be well lit and have tree canopy where in the urban and high traffic suburban area; the trees front the curb protecting pedestrians from traffic. I think the city is doing good with the bike lanes, but I'd build more segregated lanes in the inner core.

OKC needs to improve its key boulevards: EK Gaylord, Lincoln, Classen, Grand, Commerce, etc to urban asthetic. Continuous sidewalk and bike lanes on both sides along with transit stops, with trees and lighting fronting the curbs, and where possible tree-lined medians with statues/architecture significant to OKC at key spots. Take the ethnic enclaves (Asian, Capital HIll, Eastside, 39th Street, etc) a bit further by having a monument/statue - Asian district definitely needs a chinatown gate - doesn't ahve to be ON classen but should be nearby say at Military and 25/26th near the park for example. These improvements could themselves become tourist attractions or at least enhance the feel of the urban fabric when visitors travel along the boulevards AND be something residents can be proud of when showing off the city.

OKC should improve freeway signage. Once you get into OKC city limits the signage turns away from OKC very quickly, whereas in other cities they still show/promote the route to DOWNTOWN even until a mile or two away. I know this is more of an ODOT thing, but OKC should have downtown signage throughout the freeway network, particularly outside the inner loop and within where routes go to/near downtown - I'm thinking OKC Boulevard (which just says that, but not that it goes into Downtown). I-235 does a pretty good job actually but I-35 needs to still say downtown even at the I-40/I-235 Crossroads of America junction (and why promote this designation with a nice sign as well - Crossroads of America), I also think I-44 should do better job at the I-40 junction instead of saying Ft Smith/Tulsa it should say Downtown (then Ft Smith/Tulsa after ddowntown has been reached). You may not realize but if we were to do this there is a subconscious feeling that you're in a big city. Most if not all big cities do this, even Tulsa does. We should promote our city better, even simply with freeway signage and not just be a drive-over city (think flyover) where people just passing through or around. in the outer areas, we still 'could' say the next key city but we should say our city too if it hasn't yet been reached:

think at I-40 eastbound approaching I-344 should still say OKLAHOMA CITY and say DOWNTOWN approaching I-44 and again at OKC Boulevard exit, then the thru traffic should start seeing I-40 Ft Smith/I-35 Dallas/Wichita after that. Definitely the drive FROM WRWA should be lined with Downtown Oklahoma City signage: Meridian to I-44 should read Downtown Oklahoma City (or just Downtown) in an overhead sign not just side sign/afterthought, I-240/Airport Rd approaching I-44 E should say Downtown Oklahoma City (not Tulsa), I-44 NB approaching I-40 E should say Downtown in an overhead sign (not just the afterthought on the right) and start saying Tulsa for the through traffic.

I think these are simple, inexpensive (OK, not the canal locks) ways to dramatically improve Oklahoma City as a destination rather than just a stop point for gas on your way to somewhere else.

They may want to delay this ENTIRE project by a year until FAA completes its investigation into the low altitude incidents. Wouldn't want the hypothetical legends tower to get hit. JK

There's no new information here but I don't remember seeing this posted before.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ0sVnyL89Y

Interesting article

https://www.dezeen.com/2024/06/24/legends-tower-tallest-us-skyscraper-height-architect-ao-interview/

Here's an interesting line from that article that's presumably nonsense (but I want to believe):

"A lagoon planned for the development will link up with offshoots of the nearby Oklahoma River..."

Here's an interesting line from that article that's presumably nonsense (but I want to believe):

"A lagoon planned for the development will link up with offshoots of the nearby Oklahoma River..."

That's just nonsense. Maybe they mean the canal, but even seems doubtful.

Here's an interesting line from that article that's presumably nonsense (but I want to believe):

"A lagoon planned for the development will link up with offshoots of the nearby Oklahoma River..."

I bet it will have a spaceport too. That will be cool.

I bet it will have a spaceport too. That will be cool.

Honestly they should just integrate the Legends Tower with a space elevator

That's just nonsense. Maybe they mean the canal, but even seems doubtful.

The canal is right there. Wouldn't be that difficult to join the lagoon and canal. Canal ride to the river. River to OCANA. Would be awesome. Would link a lot of entertainment and restaurants,

The canal is right there. Wouldn't be that difficult to join the lagoon and canal. Canal ride to the river. River to OCANA. Would be awesome. Would link a lot of entertainment and restaurants,

Who is going to pay for the 300 feet canal extension and new bridge for it to go under Reno? Pretty complicated work since the streetcar line and stop is right in the way.

Who is going to pay for the 300 feet canal extension and new bridge for it to go under Reno? Pretty complicated work since the streetcar line and stop is right in the way.

Actually, a streetcar stop being right above the canal overlooking the water access to the lagoon would be pretty cushy. Granted that would be hundreds of millions of dollars of work and construction, but if they could pull that off, that would be a pretty fun way to tie things together, especially if they found the funds to dig that tunnel under both the Amtrak railway and Gaylord Ave, that would not only tie the Bricktown Canal to Bricktown proper, but also the Legends Tower/Dream Hotel and the new arena. It's too bad they won't have like a direct waterway access from the canal to the river landing adjacent to the southernmost point. Of course that would probably require sluice gates to help regulate water flow for heavy rains.

Who is going to pay for the 300 feet canal extension and new bridge for it to go under Reno? Pretty complicated work since the streetcar line and stop is right in the way.
The canal already goes under Reno. An extension into this development would go between Harkins and the Centennial. The canal was actually designed with a stub to allow such an extension in this direction. A bridge would still be required on Oklahoma Avenue, but there would be no streetcar involvement.

I just hope we see some dirt being moved by the end of the year on this. Will tell a whole lot about the developments future, to me.

The canal already goes under Reno. An extension into this development would go between Harkins and the Centennial. The canal was actually designed with a stub to allow such an extension in this direction. A bridge would still be required on Oklahoma Avenue, but there would be no streetcar involvement.

I assumed that direction was equally unlikely because of having to thread the extension between Harkins and the Centennial and whatever utilities might be in the way, plus it's an even longer distance than to the canal to the north. RIP some Centennial parking and the location of their dumpster if it happens, I suppose.

^^^^^^^^
I suspect the Centennial and Lower Bricktown could both survive a dumpster relocation. No significant utility relocation would be required because - as I’d mentioned - the stub was built with the intention that a canal extension could go there, and the route was protected when the Centennial was developed.

^^^^^^^^
I suspect the Centennial and Lower Bricktown could both survive a dumpster relocation. No significant utility relocation would be required because - as I’d mentioned - the stub was built with the intention that a canal extension could go there, and the route was protected when the Centennial was developed.

What do you mean by stub, by the way? Nothing is obvious when looking at that section of the canal on the surface but is it something underground or underwater?

What do you mean by stub, by the way? Nothing is obvious when looking at that section of the canal on the surface but is it something underground or underwater?

Believe it's this portion of the canal that dead-ends at the mosaic; it's very close to the Boardwalk site, seen at the top of this photo:

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bricktown072119b.jpg

Believe it's this portion of the canal that dead-ends at the mosaic; it's very close to the Boardwalk site:

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bricktown072119b.jpg
No, that’s not the stub I was talking about. It is a nondescript area in Lower Bricktown, which was intentionally planned so that an extension/connection could be made there. It is less than a block from the site of this project. Such a connection would be very uncomplicated, due to the foresight of designers. When Lower Bricktown developed, then Public Works Director Paul Brum personally ensured that the potential for connection was left intact.

Here is a Google Maps capture of the area, with the stub location in question highlighted:

18952

The photo fools the eye into believing it’s narrower than it actually is due to the overhead angle and shadows. There’s plenty of room (by design).

No, that’s not the stub I was talking about. It is a nondescript area in Lower Bricktown, which was intentionally planned so that an extension/connection could be made there. It is less than a block from the site of this project. Such a connection would be very uncomplicated, due to the foresight of designers. When Lower Bricktown developed, then Public Works Director Paul Brum personally ensured that the potential for connection was left intact.

Here is a Google Maps capture of the area, with the stub location in question highlighted:

18952

The photo fools the eye into believing it’s narrower than it actually is due to the overhead angle and shadows. There’s plenty of room (by design).

It seems extending the canal south from the photo I showed would be another viable option. The City owns the only property between the canal and the Boardwalk site.

It seems extending the canal south from the photo I showed would be another viable option. The City owns the only property between the canal and the Boardwalk site.
It would certainly be another option; and in fact was previously proposed. Actually they were BOTH proposed, and shown connection to one another on what has now become the site of Boardwalk.

Incidentally Johnson and Associates, who originally designed the canal and who also drew many other potential extensions/connections, has been doing the initial planning and engineering studies for Boardwalk.

Here were the City’s initial plans for what such extensions might look like:

18953

The problem being that - as pointed out above - the construction of the streetcar made that north-south connection infinitely more complicated and expensive.

Did they design the boardwalk site plan with a potential canal extension in mind?

I believe the original lagoon is still in the site plan. A canal connection to the lagoon would be simple, inexpensive within the scope of the whole project, and would clearly qualify as public infrastructure improvement if TIF dollars were used to fund it.

I’ve spoken with a number of folks directly connected to this project over the past few years and they were very intrigued at the thought of a canal link to the project, but I have no idea if that idea has been carried to the developer. His quote about “the river” makes me hopeful that it’s still in discussion (makes more sense than the Oklahoma River due to proximity and the fact that folks often mistakenly refer to the canal as a river), but I don’t have any insight at this point.

I've long thought that the potential of our canal has been held back by the lack of a loop connection through this area. Somebody mentioned in a thread on the pedestrian bridges the idea that a trail system that's 98% complete goes unused without the final 2% tying it all together. That's what we need here: the final connection that makes the canal more than a long, one-way drag.

It would certainly be another option; and in fact was previously proposed. Actually they were BOTH proposed, and shown connection to one another on what has now become the site of Boardwalk.

Incidentally Johnson and Associates, who originally designed the canal and who also drew many other potential extensions/connections, has been doing the initial planning and engineering studies for Boardwalk.

Here were the City’s initial plans for what such extensions might look like:

18953

The problem being that - as pointed out above - the construction of the streetcar made that north-south connection infinitely more complicated and expensive.

Fascinating, that does make the possibilities a lot more clear.

Fascinating, that does make the possibilities a lot more clear.
To be clear that is a City document, and dates back to the very early 2000s. Here is an expanded and refined vision of these ideas, drawn by Johnson and Associates in 2009 as part of an effort to have potential canal routes protected and preserved as MAPS 3, Project 180 and its related Myriad Gardens improvements and the boulevard all came online:

18965

Note that this was created and made public prior to any of those things being done; in fact this was drawn before MAPS 3 projects were voted on or even formally announced. The fact that projects like the convention center and hotel ended up in precisely the pictured locations is due to the fact that those buildings in those locations were already envisioned in Core 2 Shore.

Unfortunately the messaging for this was poor. The drawing was made public by a third party without context, and left up to the public’s interpretation. The group knew it was an uphill battle, as MAPS 3 projects were largely already chosen, though not yet announced.

Pretty much everyone including those planning MAPS 3 took it as a Johnny-come-lately proposal from Bricktown to get more stuff from the City and to have everything in this drawing built as a part of MAPS 3 (though the cost if built would have essentially been a rounding error for MAPS). In that way it had some similarities to the popular, but ultimately rejected, effort to add an aquarium to MAPS 4.

The reality was that proposers were trying only to ask that when the other projects mentioned above were built that they would preserve the POTENTIAL for various canal extensions as shown, perhaps to be funded in the future.

Unfortunately the group’s messaging was poor, eventual MAPS 3 projects had powerful allies while this did not, and the idea was dismissed out of hand with little if any consideration.

The reality is the thing that would make the canal more successful is for it to be a connector. It should be a place to go THROUGH rather than only simply being a place to go TO. Connecting it to other nodes of activity would help both the canal AND the connected node.

To be clear that is a City document, and dates back to the very early 2000s. Here is an expanded and refined vision of these ideas, drawn by Johnson and Associates in 2009 as part of an effort to have potential canal routes protected and preserved as MAPS 3, Project 180 and its related Myriad Gardens improvements and the boulevard all came online:

18965

Note that this was created and made public prior to any of those things being done; in fact this was drawn before MAPS 3 projects were voted on or even formally announced. The fact that projects like the convention center and hotel ended up in precisely the pictured locations is due to the fact that those buildings in those locations were already envisioned in Core 2 Shore.

Unfortunately the messaging for this was poor. The drawing was made public by a third party without context, and left up to the public’s interpretation. The group knew it was an uphill battle, as MAPS 3 projects were largely already chosen, though not yet announced.

Pretty much everyone including those planning MAPS 3 took it as a Johnny-come-lately proposal from Bricktown to get more stuff from the City and to have everything in this drawing built as a part of MAPS 3 (though the cost if built would have essentially been a rounding error for MAPS). In that way it had some similarities to the popular, but ultimately rejected, effort to add an aquarium to MAPS 4.

The reality was that proposers were trying only to ask that when the other projects mentioned above were built that they would preserve the POTENTIAL for various canal extensions as shown, perhaps to be funded in the future.

Unfortunately the group’s messaging was poor, eventual MAPS 3 projects had powerful allies while this did not, and the idea was dismissed out of hand with little if any consideration.

The reality is the thing that would make the canal more successful is for it to be a connector. It should be a place to go THROUGH rather than only simply being a place to go TO. Connecting it to other nodes of activity would help both the canal AND the connected node.

That loop south of the Boulevard still seems possible at least, depending on what happens with this development.

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

Elon Musk? Lol.

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

I didn't see an Elon tweet, but I guess that's because I blocked him after he directed Twitter's coders to amplify his tweets. Championing a tower that won't happen is pretty in line with Elon's promise of products he'll create that never seem to happen either. lol.

The link is confusing because it doesn't show Elon's comment. But he replied to that tweet saying "I like the Oklahoma City plan. Strive for great heights!"

It's nice to see OKC got Elon's attention without having to paint his face on Devon Tower.

Obviously, the chances of this tower being built as proposed are extremely small. But the more I think about it the more convinced I become that it would be an actual game-changer for OKC. I constantly see people online bring it up (even using six-month-old CNN articles like that one). And the responses are overwhelmingly positive ("wish my city could build one," "so cool," etc.). This building could boost both tourism and population growth by functioning as a sort of signal and a vibe shift that legitimizes us in the eyes of people around the country as a place to put on the "move to" or "go check it out" list. To that point, I wonder if it's possible for Matteson to dump the smaller buildings and focus the funding he's got on the supertall.

I don't think it makes sense on paper, but they are trying really hard to will it into existence.

Between the 4 buildings, they could house the entire population of the state! (Ok, not really, but close.)

I don’t think there’s any chance the tower happens, but I agree that its uniqueness could actually be really beneficial. I certainly could see the top floor view becoming a real tourist attraction. Unfortunately, I still can’t imagine a context where it’s economically feasible.

... To that point, I wonder if it's possible for Matteson to dump the smaller buildings and focus the funding he's got on the supertall.

That would literally be the worst thing to happen to this project. There is no proof he has *any* funding lined up for that pie-in-the-sky tower, and I'd bet (along with most rational people that have been following this) that it will never, ever happen. Then we'd have nothing at all.

A 1,907 ft., high skyscraper would far exceed anything in Austin (1,022 ft., UC), Houston (1,002 ft.,) , Dallas (921 ft.,) San Antonio (750 ft.,) Denver (714 ft.,) Tulsa (667 ft., ) Kansas City (624 ft., and St. Louis (593 ft.,--630 ft., Arch). Great Dream for our city.

Like many of you, the 350 foot towers in the Bricktown Boardwalk ($200 million TIF) will impact the skyline add to filling in the DT area.

That would literally be the worst thing to happen to this project. There is no proof he has *any* funding lined up for that pie-in-the-sky tower, and I'd bet (along with most rational people that have been following this) that it will never, ever happen. Then we'd have nothing at all.

I still think "nothing at all" is by the far the most likely ending here. Matteson will likely keep coming up with excuses and delays until he finally makes up some reason that the project wasn't viable... which it likely isn't. I hope I'm wrong!

It would certainly be another option; and in fact was previously proposed. Actually they were BOTH proposed, and shown connection to one another on what has now become the site of Boardwalk.

Incidentally Johnson and Associates, who originally designed the canal and who also drew many other potential extensions/connections, has been doing the initial planning and engineering studies for Boardwalk.

Here were the City’s initial plans for what such extensions might look like:

18953

The problem being that - as pointed out above - the construction of the streetcar made that north-south connection infinitely more complicated and expensive.

That is really interesting. Thank you for posting it.

^^^^^^^^^
You’re welcome…and for anyone who didn’t put two and two together, the footprint for the proposed Boardwalk development is the pink hatched lined area on that drawing.

I still think "nothing at all" is by the far the most likely ending here. Matteson will likely keep coming up with excuses and delays until he finally makes up some reason that the project wasn't viable... which it likely isn't. I hope I'm wrong!

Seems like that's generally how most supertall buildings that are announced end up. Announced near the top of an economic boom and then by the time they are finally ready to start construction we are in a recession and all they have to say is economic conditions make it no longer feasible. I'm hopeful Hyatt has at least committed enough money for the smaller towers to get built.

Seems like that's generally how most supertall buildings that are announced end up. Announced near the top of an economic boom and then by the time they are finally ready to start construction we are in a recession and all they have to say is economic conditions make it no longer feasible. I'm hopeful Hyatt has at least committed enough money for the smaller towers to get built.

Do we know for sure that Hyatt (or anyone) has actually committed money to any part of this project?

Seems like that's generally how most supertall buildings that are announced end up. Announced near the top of an economic boom and then by the time they are finally ready to start construction we are in a recession and all they have to say is economic conditions make it no longer feasible. I'm hopeful Hyatt has at least committed enough money for the smaller towers to get built.

And that window is closing. I'm not sure this project could survive even a mild recession. I still find the excuse for the latest delay kind of weak. Buildings are added to site plans all the time, your telling they didn't factor in infrastructure for even a shorter building in the footprint?

Do we know for sure that Hyatt (or anyone) has actually committed money to any part of this project?

No idea about Hyatt, was just speculating because they recently acquired the Dream brand hotels which only has a handful currently and is looking to expand. I know they have been selling off their properties to independent operators though in more of a license model so no idea how much they are actually still investing in to real estate at this point.

They do have OKC listed as coming soon on their website, not that it necessarily means anything: https://www.dreamhotels.com/destinations

Seems like that's generally how most supertall buildings that are announced end up. Announced near the top of an economic boom and then by the time they are finally ready to start construction we are in a recession and all they have to say is economic conditions make it no longer feasible. I'm hopeful Hyatt has at least committed enough money for the smaller towers to get built.

Actually, recessions can actually help. Many of these extremely large developments incomes are projected out over long terms, but can take advantage of lowered interest rates in construction and for permanent financing that are often associated with slow economic times. And, we tend to create tax incentives for real estate development to help pull us out of the downturns. Given the time to construct, these projects then complete as the economy is in recovery or soon to be in recovery. If you have the ability to get financed or draw investors during bad economic times you can do very well. Like other investments… buy at the bottom, sell at the top.

I make a motion that we stop referring to it as a super tall and start calling it a stupid tall.

I make a motion that we stop referring to it as a super tall and start calling it a stupid tall.

No, that would only be limiting ourselves as being too stupid and SHORT sighted to see big. After all, are the people in Saudi Arabia calling their current to be tallest skyscraper in the world, the Jeddah Tower, stupid tall even though it will be well up there at 3281 ft. tall? I tend to doubt it. Estimated completion date to occur in 2028 or 2029. The Legacy Tower at 1907 ft. is so much SHORTER than the Jeddah Tower. We have already limited ourselves and America enough.

There’s potential to the south, curious what might be developing other than the stadium.

Q
https://youtube.com/shorts/xCt6AQEYKlE?si=3IA1EPMEu2M_0nFE

No, that would only be limiting ourselves as being too stupid and SHORT sighted to see big. After all, are the people in Saudi Arabia calling their current to be tallest skyscraper in the world, the Jeddah Tower, stupid tall even though it will be well up there at 3281 ft. tall? I tend to doubt it. Estimated completion date to occur in 2028 or 2029. The Legacy Tower at 1907 ft. is so much SHORTER than the Jeddah Tower. We have already limited ourselves and America enough.

Yeah, because I was serious.

Yeah, because I was serious.

As serious as the FAA or???

There’s potential to the south, curious what might be developing other than the stadium.

Q
https://youtube.com/shorts/xCt6AQEYKlE?si=3IA1EPMEu2M_0nFE

I think the Funks will develop the rest of the site at some point. Depends on the cost of the clean up of the area.

And don't expect Mazaheri to move forward on anything on the Lumberyard site any time soon.

As serious as the FAA or???

As serious as the FFA. Cows and pigs is serious bidness.

As serious as the FFA. Cows and pigs is serious bidness.

Given that we’ll probably see pigs fly before the legends tower gets build…probably will need both the FAA and FFA involved if it’s really going to happen.

Ok, with all the hate and negative talk on OKC on social media, I want this to happen now more than ever. And by this, I mean the Legends Tower. I know about the rest of the project.

Ok, with all the hate and negative talk on OKC on social media, I want this to happen now more than ever. And by this, I mean the Legends Tower. I know about the rest of the project.

What negative talk about OKC?

What negative talk about OKC?

You must not have Instagram.

You must not have Instagram.

I do, but I'm just not sure what negativity the poster is mentioning. On OKCtalk posts? Or like, in the general realm of IG, people bashing OKC?

I do, but I'm just not sure what negativity the poster is mentioning. On OKCtalk posts? Or like, in the general realm of IG, people bashing OKC?

Mostly IG from what I've seen, but any news or updates about the tower tends to bring highly liked comments about how "boring" OKC is and that the city is so lame and ugly that the view would be pathetic from the top... Or the, "we have the worst education and most homelessness ever but now we're mimicking Dubai" type posts. It has brought a wide variety of OKC complains to the conversation.

Internet being negative? Nah, that can't be true.

Building the tower isn't going to make those comments go away and they will be worse if they can't manage to actually fill it.