I don't have access to the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if those comments were taken out of context. There is always a risk, that's why the FAA reviews things. Doesn't they wouldn't approve.

Once again Matteson will just use this as an excuse on why the other towers are delayed which are already approved.

He wasn't using this as an excuse. The comment and snippet posted in that comment was 100% out of context.

He said that he didn't want to respond to the airport director's comments until the FAA reviewed those comments. They already approved the building.

This isn't delaying anything. Other factors of his own doing are, but this isn't one of them. Nor did he ever say it was.

From the very beginning, the height of the super-tall was to be "based on demand after the first three towers are constructed and leased".

So why would concern about a height that was never feasible and was always a crazy pipe dream stop them from starting on the first phase?

Of course it wouldn't, and what a shocker: this is playing out just as most people expected with one silly excuse after another.

From the very beginning, the height of the super-tall was to be "based on demand after the first three towers are constructed and leased".

So why would concern about a height that was never feasible and was always a crazy pipe dream stop them from starting on the first phase?

Of course it wouldn't, and what a shocker: this is playing out just as most people expected with one silly excuse after another.

Where in that NewsOK article was an excuse made? I don't think the airport director's comments are being used as an excuse. There are other excuses, sure. But this article, to me, didn't read like a new excuse he was making.

I just went back to page 34 (if you have default posts per page) and read the comments when the supertall was first revealed. Pretty funny stuff as we are exactly where a lot of posters said we would be a year ago.

Where in that NewsOK article was an excuse made? I don't think the airport director's comments are being used as an excuse. There are other excuses, sure. But this article, to me, didn't read like a new excuse he was making.

He has already twice broken promises about when work was to start, and now is only saying "sometime in 2025" with zero applications or anything else that has to precede construction.

Before, when trying to get attention, he was full of bravado: "We are fully funded", "This is going to happen", "I've been doubted before", etc.

Now, silence broken only by a very vague "sometime".


Call all that what you will.

I said at the time the entire application to the FAA was a ruse.

Now, it's become the excuse for not doing anything at all.

This is the equivalent of Heartland's flood plain.

I can't believe I am wasting my time back in this thread but this whole thing is still fascinating.

Why not just focus on the smaller 3 towers and show you are somewhat serious about those? Like Pete said, the (-1000% chance of happening) supertall would only be considered based on demand from those.

Still don't get his endgame here unless his goal was to look like a fool in the development world.

His goal was always to get attention and 'fake it 'til you make it'.

Trying to get development partners, investors, and lenders.

It's "developments" like this that scare the heck out of me when it comes to getting the land around the new arena developed. No one with vision has money. Those with money have no vision. So my fear is land will sit there.

It's "developments" like this that scare the heck out of me when it comes to getting the land around the new arena developed. No one with vision has money. Those with money have no vision. So my fear is land will sit there.

Hall Capital and Bob Howard have already done hundreds of millions of development all around OKC and both have very deep pockets. They aren't just some random guy making wild claims while living in an apartment.

If there is really demand for high-end hotels, condos, and apartments, it would be far better suited on their land vs. a parking lot abutting a Uhaul storage facility and railroad tracks.

In an odd way, this project not going anywhere would likely benefit the development of the REHCO land that sits between the two parks.

The problem with any large-scale urban development is that there is no current market for office space. So, that leaves hotels, condos, apartments, and maybe a bit of restaurant space.

Why not build something with those components on a more reasonable scale on a much more important downtown property?

It's the one place where you would think new construction mid- or high-rise residential would work in OKC.

I said at the time the entire application to the FAA was a ruse.

Now, it's become the excuse for not doing anything at all.

This is the equivalent of Heartland's flood plain.

I've said it before in this thread but I think he's just delaying until we get a recession and he can site "unsuitable economic environment" for pulling the plug which he can claim is no fault of his own

Another view:

Boardwalk at Bricktown to begin construction in 2025, developer says

https://journalrecord.com/2024/11/21/boardwalk-at-bricktown-to-begin-construction-in-2025-developer-says/

Key Quotes:

“We are planning on starting construction first quarter 2025,” developer Scot Matteson said in a text Thursday.

In September, Kenton Tsoodle, president and CEO of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, said construction had not begun because the land transaction and financing had not been finalized.
Things are moving along, Tsoodle said Thursday.

“As far as I know they were waiting on the FAA determination on the building height and were still working on the same issues of real estate and financing,” he said. “Even though the tower is a later phase, they still need to complete the final design as the infrastructure on the first phase has to take all of that into account.”

^

The height of the 4th tower was always TBD.

So why doesn't Matteson have a plan for the infrastructure that would allow them to adapt the height as needed, given that it was always going to be determined by demand after the first 3 buildings were complete? That part hasn't changed at all and has nothing to do with the FAA.

It makes zero sense. WTC site would have never been redeveloped if they had to wait for everything to get approved and that has trains, underground parking lots, basements, etc that are all interconnected. I don't see how a hypothetical building on a plot of land to the south of your original proposal would affect things that much. This is a dude looking for a reason to procrastinate and delay taking action.


“As far as I know they were waiting on the FAA determination on the building height and were still working on the same issues of real estate and financing,” he said. “Even though the tower is a later phase, they still need to complete the final design as the infrastructure on the first phase has to take all of that into account.”

Here's your real reason.

Nevermind

It makes zero sense. WTC site would have never been redeveloped if they had to wait for everything to get approved and that has trains, underground parking lots, basements, etc that are all interconnected. I don't see how a hypothetical building on a plot of land to the south of your original proposal would affect things that much. This is a dude looking for a reason to procrastinate and delay taking action.



Here's your real reason.

Working on the issue of financing when he previously said that financing had been secured? Checks out

Working on the issue of financing when he previously said that financing had been secured? Checks out

Things about lies, they are so difficult to keep track.

https://www.citynewsokc.com/arts_and_entertainment/legends-tower-set-to-transform-oklahoma-city-skyline-as-construction-begins-in-2025/article_50466626-aa0a-11ef-bee3-b7395754d6a5.html

came across this article today in my feed. says that Matteson is i guess now saying groundbreaking is 1st quarter 2025. we shall see......

https://www.citynewsokc.com/arts_and_entertainment/legends-tower-set-to-transform-oklahoma-city-skyline-as-construction-begins-in-2025/article_50466626-aa0a-11ef-bee3-b7395754d6a5.html

came across this article today in my feed. says that Matteson is i guess now saying groundbreaking is 1st quarter 2025. we shall see......

Need a building permit first unless they just plan on moving dirt for half the year.

That site just takes articles from others... That was lifted from the Journal Record.

The FAA report was issued on December 4th and the developer has until January 3rd to appeal.

It also says a preliminary letter was issued in August, which likely alerted them that Legends Tower was never going to be allowed at 1907 feet tall. At that point, the FAA then circulated the application to the local airports and airlines and received back 22 letters of objection.

Interestingly, the report also contained this language, which addresses the three smaller towers and the podium:


The following aeronautical studies do not penetrate any protected surfaces and do not have any impacts to the
NAS however, it is Obstruction Evaluation Group (OEG) policy not to provide favorable determinations until
all issues associated with the project have been resolved.


So, instead of applying for and receiving the perfunctory clearance for Phase I, those buildings were included with Legends Tower which Matteson likely knew way back in August was never going to fly. He has also said repeatedly that the height of Legends Tower would be completely determined by the track record of the first phase.

So, why on earth would he lump everything together with a building so absurd it would never get FAA approval and almost certainly would never be built anywhere near even half as tall?

It may just be me, but I can't help but wonder why an airplane can't miss a stationary tower 6+ miles from the airport? Put some lights and a beacon on it and just go around it.

It may just be me, but I can't help but wonder why an airplane can't miss a stationary tower 6+ miles from the airport? Put some lights and a beacon on it and just go around it.

100%

It may just be me, but I can't help but wonder why an airplane can't miss a stationary tower 6+ miles from the airport? Put some lights and a beacon on it and just go around it.

The report goes into this in detail.

It demonstrates how the building would be in the path of several airports, landing, takeoff, and holding patterns.

Remember, there is not always good visibility.

Link to the FAA Determination: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/letterViewer.jsp?letterID=640982962

The report goes into this in detail.

It demonstrates how the building would be in the path of several airports, landing, takeoff, and holding patterns.

Remember, there is not always good visibility.

I don't know very much (or anything at all) about these determinations, but based on the analysis of the VFR requirements, wouldn't the Devon Tower also violate many of these if the suggested solution is a building no taller than 499 ft AGL (pg. 29)? Is it the case that just because there is some potentially deleterious impact on flight operations doesn't automatically mean it is prohibited?

I don't know very much (or anything at all) about these determinations, but based on the analysis of the VFR requirements, wouldn't the Devon Tower also violate many of these if the suggested solution is a building no taller than 499 ft AGL (pg. 29)? Is it the case that just because there is some potentially deleterious impact on flight operations doesn't automatically mean it is prohibited?

this was my question as well... like then how did the Devon tower ever get approved, unless that extra distance away is just outside of some vfr route or something... it really doesn't make any sense on the 499ft height requirement.

With Devon, it could be that the height wasn't enough to warrant letters of concern.

Remember, Legends would be 2.3X the height of Devon Tower. At least, that's what they put on the application.

Thank God we got Devon Tower constructed and standing tall.

Just wish they could have stayed with 921 feet original plans instead of 844 feet.

So, why on earth would he lump everything together with a building so absurd it would never get FAA approval and almost certainly would never be built anywhere near even half as tall?

He must pay close attention to the feuding between SpaceX and FAA over the years. With SpaceX, its always been the FAA's fault even if its obvious the rocket and pad needs another 2 months of work.

Sounds like he is jumping on the blame FAA for everything bandwagon. Its effective too, because even here people are more interested in FAA decision than the decision to lump everything together. Is he trying to say the project won't be successful without a pie in the sky tower?

From the minute Matteson made a big deal about filing with the FAA, I thought it was a ruse and said so.

Nothing that has happened since has made me think otherwise.

Sounds like he is jumping on the blame FAA for everything bandwagon. Its effective too, because even here people are more interested in FAA decision than the decision to lump everything together. Is he trying to say the project won't be successful without a pie in the sky tower?

i've never thought the project was going to be real anyways. just always hoped... so reading through the FAA report, i didn't even concern myself with that piece, because it's all hot air. i was honestly just curious how the FAA could say a max height of 499 when they have one 850 siting basically just down the street.

^

My thought is that 499 is just an easy cutoff to say anything below that is a quick pass without putting the FAA through a lot of work.

Anything above requires more study and circulation to the airports and airlines for possible objections.

And since Devon is only 350 feet above 499, I doubt there were any real concerns. But 1,400 feet above that threshold is completely different, obviously.

^

My thought is that 499 is just an easy cutoff to say anything below that is a quick pass without putting the FAA through a lot of work.

Anything above requires more study and circulation to the airports and airlines for possible objections.

And since Devon is only 350 feet above 499, I doubt there were any real concerns. But 1,400 feet above that threshold is completely different, obviously.

oh absolutely. and your statement makes sense. give the number that's an auto pass, and go from there.

So how do supertalls get FAA approval in Manhattan? LaGuardia is less than 6 miles away and Newark about 8. Those airports were established in ‘28 and ‘29, well before supertalls. Just wondering?

So how do supertalls get FAA approval in Manhattan? LaGuardia is less than 6 miles away and Newark about 8. Those airports were established in ‘28 and ‘29, well before supertalls. Just wondering?

My guess is that since there are a ton of supertall buildings in Manhattan, there are already avoidance protocols for takeoff, landing, and circling.

Remember, the Empire State Building and several others long predated commercial air travel.

My guess is that since there are a ton of supertall buildings in Manhattan, there are already avoidance protocols for takeoff, landing, and circling.

Remember, the Empire State Building and several others long predated commercial air travel.

heck, Empire state and i think the Chrysler building were build with blimp commercial air travel in mind, as i think one if not both were built with blimp docking stations

In the end, airports are generally owned by public trusts or municipalities. I realize Tinker is an exception.

And those airports and their owners aren't likely to fight against big economic developments in their jurisdictions. In fact, that would be against their own interests. And airlines wouldn't complain much either, as they very much want as many flights as possible out of big airports.

I seriously doubt OKC is fighting hard for Legends Tower because absolutely no one believes it is even approaching reality. If there had been a big issue for Devon Tower, that would have been very different, and for all we know that's why the FAA clearance was never even mentioned.

i've never thought the project was going to be real anyways. just always hoped... so reading through the FAA report, i didn't even concern myself with that piece, because it's all hot air. i was honestly just curious how the FAA could say a max height of 499 when they have one 850 siting basically just down the street.

The 499 is based on traffic minimums, kind of like you can put up an unlit antenna tower that is 199ft without approval.

Devon was determined to not interfere at 847ft if lit in a certain manner. It probably doesn't encroach on minimums for any STARs or SIDs. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/letterViewer.jsp?letterID=169695099

It looked like significant modifications to those well-established obstacle and instrument procedures would need to be made to accommodate Legends Tower, and of course I'm sure there would be a lot of public pushback for noise if those were implemented.

By the way, if you ever fly out of a big semi-urban American airport like LGA, LAX or SFO, the takeoffs tend to be very weird where they either have to take very steep angles, cut engine power in the middle of the initial ascent (to reduce noise pollution), and/or take very weird routes.

And in all cases, airlines just comply because those airports are so lucrative for them.

So how do supertalls get FAA approval in Manhattan? LaGuardia is less than 6 miles away and Newark about 8. Those airports were established in ‘28 and ‘29, well before supertalls. Just wondering?

Very well established procedures, even for visual approaches. Plus, it is a Class B airspace; most of what will be there outside of the Hudson River exclusion will be scheduled traffic.

Those procedures still get modified occasionally to maintain minimums or noise abatement. For example, the expressway visual into LGA was recently modified slightly for noise. (That's the approach you're flying in on when you get to look down into Citi Field as you turn final, by the way.)

I'd kill for this thing to be like a 6 story Drury Inn.

I'd kill for this thing to be like a 6 story Drury Inn.

Just so you can be right? Seems highly petty, and that you don't actually want OKC to thrive.

Very well established procedures, even for visual approaches. Plus, it is a Class B airspace; most of what will be there outside of the Hudson River exclusion will be scheduled traffic.

Those procedures still get modified occasionally to maintain minimums or noise abatement. For example, the expressway visual into LGA was recently modified slightly for noise. (That's the approach you're flying in on when you get to look down into Citi Field as you turn final, by the way.)

Really appreciate all your input. This is an interesting topic.

Having flown in and out of LAX easily over 100 times, I know regardless of weather conditions or direction of original approach, every single landing was directly west starting before downtown and slightly north of the 105 freeway, almost coasting with very low engine power.

And takeoffs always headed directly west over the ocean, getting very high, then over the water parallel to the coast (almost always north) for quite a distance before heading back over land in a direct line to the destination.

It's all done to minimize noise. In L.A., I lived only a few miles south of LAX (Manhattan Beach) and about 10 miles north (Malibu) and hardly ever heard planes. LAX is like the 4th busiest airport yet and I lived relatively close and rarely noticed; here I see and hear them far more often and I'm sure that's because all the approaches and takeoffs are merely maximized for efficiency without any real regard for noise.

Just so you can be right? Seems highly petty, and that you don't actually want OKC to thrive.

....what?

No, just so literally anything would be built here since this is all vapor.

^^^^ I recall Manhattan is a no-fly zone, or something like that.

....what?

No, just so literally anything would be built here since this is all vapor.

I've said from Day 1 that if we at least get a Dream Hotel in any form, I'd be happy.

The 499 is based on traffic minimums, kind of like you can put up an unlit antenna tower that is 199ft without approval.

Devon was determined to not interfere at 847ft if lit in a certain manner. It probably doesn't encroach on minimums for any STARs or SIDs. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/letterViewer.jsp?letterID=169695099

It looked like significant modifications to those well-established obstacle and instrument procedures would need to be made to accommodate Legends Tower, and of course I'm sure there would be a lot of public pushback for noise if those were implemented.


....what?

No, just so literally anything would be built here since this is all vapor.

But Oklahoma City DESERVES to thrive Jake! It DESERVES ​more height!!

^^^^ I recall Manhattan is a no-fly zone, or something like that.

Not technically no-fly, but practically impossible at or below 7000ft. The bravo airspace starts at 1300ft over Lower Manhattan and at the surface closer to Central Park. Can't really maintain minimum separation from ground structures without being under positive control by ATC there, and they aren't going to vector you that way.

You can still fly up and down the Hudson River and part of the East River, and there is a very narrowly defined corridor where you can cross Central Park between the rivers as VFR traffic.

Really appreciate all your input. This is an interesting topic.

Having flown in and out of LAX easily over 100 times, I know regardless of weather conditions or direction of original approach, every single landing was directly west starting before downtown and slightly north of the 105 freeway, almost coasting with very low engine power.

And takeoffs always headed directly west over the ocean, getting very high, then over the water parallel to the coast (almost always north) for quite a distance before heading back over land in a direct line to the destination.

It's all done to minimize noise. In L.A., I lived only a few miles south of LAX (Manhattan Beach) and about 10 miles north (Malibu) and hardly ever heard planes. LAX is like the 4th busiest airport yet and I lived relatively close and rarely noticed; here I see and hear them far more often and I'm sure that's because all the approaches and takeoffs are merely maximized for efficiency without any real regard for noise.

That's one of the reasons I hated flying out of LAX when I lived out there! Just shooting right out over the ocean when I'm flying to Oklahoma made me nervous! I mostly flew out of Burbank for convenience, anyway.

I've said from Day 1 that if we at least get a Dream Hotel in any form, I'd be happy.

It's one thing to come up with a planned development with no intention of ever being built you'd think you wouldn't do it while partnering with one of the largest hotel operators (Hyatt). If this never happens why would any of them (Hilton, Marriot) ever work with this guy again?

It's one thing to come up with a planned development with no intention of ever being built you'd think you wouldn't do it while partnering with one of the largest hotel operators (Hyatt). If this never happens why would any of them (Hilton, Marriot) ever work with this guy again?

Those are just flags and certainly aren't officially attached.

Matteson is probably just working with an operator (looks like it's his brother) to try and negotiate agreements with them.

Proposed record-breaking skyscraper for Bricktown a 'hazard' to air travel, FAA says

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/business/downtown/2024/12/11/legends-tower-okc-skyscraper-faa-report-hazard-air-travel/76915395007/

Key Notes:

The letter concludes: “construction of this building as currently planned should not be approved.”

“It will take a week to digest these reports to see what we might need to do,” Matteson said. “We're still going to have a build there no matter what.”

He said Wednesday he is now going to proceed with construction of the first phase consisting of two towers, named Ruby and Emerald, that will be 23 stories above a parking and retail podium.

^

He had to have known in the beginning and at least by August when he got the preliminary report that a 1,907-foot tower would never be approved by the FAA. Yet, he submitted the other structures as part of that same project which of course the FAA has now officially rejected.

If his plan was always to build the first phase, why didn't he get that approved first and then come back with the super tall separately since that was always going to come later and only years down the road after gauging demand?


Also, funny how this report was issued on Dec. 4th but the Oklahoman only covers it a week later and after we posted the results a couple of days ago. I can tell by the IP addresses they have several people monitoring this site pretty much every day.

I live directly south of the airport south of 119th and Meridian. In fact, flights landing or taking off due south fly over a 750 house neighborhood. The neighborhood was developed in 2005-2006. Just laughing when compared to Pete’s description of LA. Not complaining and understand why this occurs. Just funny. I marvel at the planes that fly directly over my house on the same path daily. Rarely hear planes while in my house, but get quite startled while at the pool when Fed Ex planes take off or the monthly military jets that fly regularly out of Will Rogers.

On a side note, really interesting to hear about the interest in the develop at Lariat Landing that get’s shot down due to FAA requirements. I have learned that the Proton Cancer Breast Cancer Center was intended to be 3 stories was limited to 2 stories due to the FAA. I have also learned multiple hotels have been shot down due to height variances.

Not related to the fiction that is the proposed boardwalk development, but interesting nonetheless. Makes me wonder why Lariat Landing is zoned for commercial east of Portland. Seems like this is lip service to protect the hotel operators on Meridian….

The tower would actually be pretty close to the flight path for planes coming from the south/southeast when the winds are blowing from the south. Sometimes you make the turn toward the airport almost directly over the east side of downtown.

I’m sure they can revise the airspace and approach/departure clearances. Downtown is NOT in the direct flight path of any airport in the metro with the possible exception of OU Max with is not a major airport (therefore no large planes or extended approaches). All other claims are just nimby-ism.

as for his build plan, I personally think it’s smart to get the whole thing approved THEN start construction. Wouldn’t you want to be efficient with your development partners to design the whole thing vs piecemealing it just to satisfy okctalk naysayers? Didn’t this approach happen with just about every project in this city? Did Devon build the small buildings first or did they get the whole thing approved THEN apply for permit? Did BOK build the garages first or did they get the tower approved first? Is Boulevard starting? It might just have to do with spending the money efficiently, idk.

im not sure why there’s so much cynicism for this project. None of us have any skin in the game - let it play out without the hate. If built it will forever change OKC. I’m confident the three towers will be built and that alone is worth celebrating.

Downtown is NOT in the direct flight path of any airport in the metro with the possible exception of OU Max with is not a major airport (therefore no large planes or extended approaches).

Pretty standard 17L approach by WN2442 earlier tonight:

19366

And OUN does get quite a few fractional midsized jets on gameday.

I’m sure they can revise the airspace and approach/departure clearances. Downtown is NOT in the direct flight path of any airport in the metro with the possible exception of OU Max with is not a major airport (therefore no large planes or extended approaches). All other claims are just nimby-ism.

as for his build plan, I personally think it’s smart to get the whole thing approved THEN start construction. Wouldn’t you want to be efficient with your development partners to design the whole thing vs piecemealing it just to satisfy okctalk naysayers? Didn’t this approach happen with just about every project in this city? Did Devon build the small buildings first or did they get the whole thing approved THEN apply for permit? Did BOK build the garages first or did they get the tower approved first? Is Boulevard starting? It might just have to do with spending the money efficiently, idk.

im not sure why there’s so much cynicism for this project. None of us have any skin in the game - let it play out without the hate. If built it will forever change OKC. I’m confident the three towers will be built and that alone is worth celebrating.

Tell me you don't fly into OKC very often from the South or Southeast during any season other than winter, without telling me. Literally used to do it 4 times per month. When landing on 17L flying into OKC from Houston, Dallas or anywhere requiring an approach from the south, the flight path takes you east of bricktown (sometimes seemingly almost directly over bricktown) as the plane turns just north of downtown to get lined up for its final approach. With any research it's not shocking at all that the FAA wouldn't approve this and it's almost like Matteson was counting on it.

BOK and Devon are terrible examples. They weren't building 4 towers including one that even the developer mentioned was a phase 2 moonshot. They were building low rise support structures for their main towers. In no world would it have make sense for them to request approval for or build any of them separately.

And this absolutely will not change OKC because it's not going to happen as is becoming increasingly more obvious than it was to anyone with a brain when it was announced. There is cynicism because it's obvious that the group behind it is a joke and that there is very little likelihood that it's going to happen.