Pretty standard 17L approach by WN2442 earlier tonight:

19366

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

Yes, I couldn't find a great shot of this. Thank you for tossing it in.

Here's another one. The flight is at 3900 ft just east of bricktown.
19367

and that will have to change.

I can always count on PhiAlpha to negate what I write with repeat rhetoric. You state that Devon and BOKPP are bad examples due to the lack of highrises for their projects, BUT what you (always) fail to recognize is they are OKC's tallest projects of most recent build that also have multiple structures that weren't started until the main structure was fully approved - hence my point. IF okc had projects with 4 towers then I'd benchmark that. Got it now?

Here is an intersting read that sort of confirms my earlier argument that residential highrises are cheaper to build than office. Unless, things are totally different in OKC than the rest of the highrise world: https://kobobuilding.com/cost-to-build-a-high-rise/ Quote: "The type of building also affects the cost to build a high rise. For example, residential high rises are generally less expensive than office towers because they require less concrete and other materials that are used in commercial buildings."

I know it isn't scientific, but this article does tend to back up what I have known and seen in other cities that I follow htat build towers. ...

Im trying to be reasonable in the assumption that Matteson could be real on this development. Not everything needs to be so skeptical, let's wait and see.

and that will have to change.

I can always count on PhiAlpha to negate what I write with repeat rhetoric. You state that Devon and BOKPP are bad examples due to the lack of highrises for their projects, BUT what you (always) fail to recognize is they are OKC's tallest projects of most recent build that also have multiple structures that weren't started until the main structure was fully approved - hence my point. IF okc had projects with 4 towers then I'd benchmark that. Got it now?

Here is an intersting read that sort of confirms my earlier argument that residential highrises are cheaper to build than office. Unless, things are totally different in OKC than the rest of the highrise world: https://kobobuilding.com/cost-to-build-a-high-rise/ Quote: "The type of building also affects the cost to build a high rise. For example, residential high rises are generally less expensive than office towers because they require less concrete and other materials that are used in commercial buildings."

I know it isn't scientific, but this article does tend to back up what I have known and seen in other cities that I follow htat build towers. ...

Im trying to be reasonable in the assumption that Matteson could be real on this development. Not everything needs to be so skeptical, let's wait and see.

LOL, no it doesn’t have to change if the FAA doesn’t approve the project…or more importantly if it’s never actually going to be built anyway.

Yes I always negate the stupid crap you say that doesn’t make any sense. What are you talking about? The projects are not remotely comparable. One is a single tenant tower and campus that was all intended to be built at the same time and fully occupied when it opened…the tower couldn’t function without the parking garage or the attached building with all of their large meeting space in it. BOK is a single office tower that couldn’t function without the attached parking garage. Those two towers had to be built at the same time as the surrounding buildings. The boardwalk has three midrise towers, each with a different purpose and tenants and the supertall was called “aspirational” from the start and never was a guaranteed part of the project. That is in absolutely no way comparable to the Devon or BOK towers.

If Matteson was serious about the project, why would he allow the approval of the 3 midrise towers (that he claims are going to be built regardless of the supertall) to hinge on whether the FAA approves the moonshot building that most likely was never going to be built? All the blind hopium you keep sunshine pumping into this thread is borderline delusional based on literally every piece of evidence currently available about the viability of the project and credibility of the developer.

In all reality, building that aren't in direct line of the runway (for OKC, that's north and south... but Tinker does have a NW/SE runway), it does not really matter how tall they are. Planes don't fly on a paved road in the sky, they can simply go around (free of charge). So, if this project was serious and well financed, the FAA should not stand in the way. However, those appear to be a couple pretty big ifs.

LOL, no it doesn’t have to change if the FAA doesn’t approve the project…or more importantly if it’s never actually going to be built anyway.



And that would be asking the government to spend a lot of money or resources to make that change. I doubt the FAA would do that unless a piece of legislation was written, but the reasoning for it and more importantly who was proposing it wouldn't pass the sniff test.

In all reality, building that aren't in direct line of the runway (for OKC, that's north and south... but Tinker does have a NW/SE runway), it does not really matter how tall they are. Planes don't fly on a paved road in the sky, they can simply go around (free of charge). So, if this project was serious and well financed, the FAA should not stand in the way. However, those appear to be a couple pretty big ifs.

Its organized chaos in the sky. Its a lot more complex than saying 'Go around'.

and that will have to change.

I can always count on PhiAlpha to negate what I write with repeat rhetoric. You state that Devon and BOKPP are bad examples due to the lack of highrises for their projects, BUT what you (always) fail to recognize is they are OKC's tallest projects of most recent build that also have multiple structures that weren't started until the main structure was fully approved - hence my point. IF okc had projects with 4 towers then I'd benchmark that. Got it now?

Here is an intersting read that sort of confirms my earlier argument that residential highrises are cheaper to build than office. Unless, things are totally different in OKC than the rest of the highrise world: https://kobobuilding.com/cost-to-build-a-high-rise/ Quote: "The type of building also affects the cost to build a high rise. For example, residential high rises are generally less expensive than office towers because they require less concrete and other materials that are used in commercial buildings."

I know it isn't scientific, but this article does tend to back up what I have known and seen in other cities that I follow htat build towers. ...

Im trying to be reasonable in the assumption that Matteson could be real on this development. Not everything needs to be so skeptical, let's wait and see.

It will not have to change because this tower is never getting built. The reasonable judgement is that Matteson is a hack who has no capacity to make it happen.

Anyone who thinks this building at that height would not interfere with current flight patterns should read the 37-page report (linked up-thread), which provides great detail to the contrary.

And as I keep mentioning, this was obvious back in March when Matteson filed his application. So, now we are approaching January, Matteson just said he plans to build Phase I regardless, so what on earth was the point of all this?


I'll tell you what: he is playing the Oklahoman in particular by making a big deal of this (can you ever remember any developer mentioning the FAA?) at the outset, and now, of course the paper has a huge story providing not only more publicity but great cover for when this never-remotely-plausible building is never built. Monorail!

Once again, if the supertall was going to be determined by the success of the smaller two towers, then why isn't he moving forward with the smaller ones first? Esp since those were basically locked and loaded. This whole thing is a dog and pony show and he just needs to go away.

Nothing is going to happen on this site, at least by this nut job.

Doesn't Randy Hogan have a little skin in this project ? What does he have to say about it ?

Once again, if the supertall was going to be determined by the success of the smaller two towers, then why isn't he moving forward with the smaller ones first? Esp since those were basically locked and loaded. This whole thing is a dog and pony show and he just needs to go away.

That's what you call a paradox. Supertall can't happen without the smaller towers, smaller towers can't happen without the supertall.

Obviously answer was because they were not locked and loaded. At least now we can move on past this FAA discussion and actually look for tangible evidence that the first two towers will actually happen. Guess we will see if a building permit actually gets filled by next summer.

Nothing is going to happen on this site, at least by this nut job.

Doesn't Randy Hogan have a little skin in this project ? What does he have to say about it ?

My impression is that Randy is just contributing the land. His initial very guarded comments have been replaced with silence.

I wish this thread didn't exist. I just can't help myself to keep coming to look at it.

Nothing is gonna happen here, I just hope it goes away quietly.

I wish this thread didn't exist. I just can't help myself to keep coming to look at it.

Nothing is gonna happen here, I just hope it goes away quietly.

It’s the thread we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

Has anyone asked Rainey Williams what he thinks about all this?

Has anyone asked Rainey Williams what he thinks about all this?

Frankly I'm only concerned about where this project lands on the Dallas and Kansas City Jealousy Index.

You guys really want to see some actual projects like this (or concept adjacent)come to this?you’re not gonna like it and it would take a few years!

I don't really understand the FAA ruling. I mean i get that you can't just say go around, but it's not like the building is that far away from the core. And when i've ever been in a plane that banks around downtown, the plane has never flown remotely over the spot that the building would go it. There is a lot of traffic that goes on up there at the various heights, but it's far from cluttered. Ever been to Chicago and around those towers? Similarly, the planes go out over the lake and back, around the core....which is MUCH larger and has several towers in line with this tower.

I think this really was just a "we don't want to deal with this in OKC" from the FAA and from the developer's standpoint, a good reason he has to reduce or cut out the tower that was never going to happen anyway. He could have done quite a bit of site prep and have already started on the other Boardwalk structures without this even being part of the conversation if he was serious. I'm wondering now if anything at all is ever going to be built.

Does anyone really think the FAA ruling is what’s holding this up? Honest question? I’m trying to connect A to B.

I don't really understand the FAA ruling. I mean i get that you can't just say go around, but it's not like the building is that far away from the core. And when i've ever been in a plane that banks around downtown, the plane has never flown remotely over the spot that the building would go it. There is a lot of traffic that goes on up there at the various heights, but it's far from cluttered. Ever been to Chicago and around those towers? Similarly, the planes go out over the lake and back, around the core....which is MUCH larger and has several towers in line with this tower.

I think this really was just a "we don't want to deal with this in OKC" from the FAA and from the developer's standpoint, a good reason he has to reduce or cut out the tower that was never going to happen anyway. He could have done quite a bit of site prep and have already started on the other Boardwalk structures without this even being part of the conversation if he was serious. I'm wondering now if anything at all is ever going to be built.

Exactly, the "just go around" was an oversimplification, as it would require actual work from the FAA to adjust any flight patterns that may be affected. That's why the project would need to be well financed... to grease the wheels of the FAA. Anything can be done with enough money.

All this is a moot point, since the tower isn't really more than a talking point.

Does anyone really think the FAA ruling is what’s holding this up? Honest question? I’m trying to connect A to B.

No but will it be used as an excuse to “abandon” the whole project…yes.

Does anyone really think the FAA ruling is what’s holding this up? Honest question? I’m trying to connect A to B.

It is holding it up, but it is also probably a calculated move to stall. Making the initial phase more complex for no good reason. Again, they don't even do this in NYC where utilities and underground infrastructure are far more This complex. This hypothetical tower is just going on an empty lot to the south of the first three buildings.

Again, the FAA received 22 letters of objection from airports and airlines.

The FAA wouldn't be doing the work "to just go around", it would be those entities.

Read the report.

No but will it be used as an excuse to “abandon” the whole project…yes.

Just wait, He's going to try to turn this political and turn it even more into a circus. "I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't that dang FAA!"

... I'm wondering now if anything at all is ever going to be built.

Just now you're wondering this? :)

Almost exactly a year ago is when the supertall was added to the project. In this thread, back on page 34 (if you have default posts per page) reading the posts is pretty funny because they are identical to here on page 90. The tower instantly made the entire project a joke.

This forum bought the original project, but as soon as the supertall came about - most everyone here sold.

Almost exactly a year ago is when the supertall was added to the project. In this thread, back on page 34 (if you have default posts per page) reading the posts is pretty funny because they are identical to here on page 90. The tower instantly made the entire project a joke.

This forum bought the original project, but as soon as the supertall came about - most everyone here sold.

And the people that didn't sell were saying there was a still a good chance the original project would still happen. I'm sure they were under the impression that these towers would be under separate proposals and not all packaged together.

Just now you're wondering this? :)

I'm starting to wonder if we really deserve this after all :(

Again, the FAA received 22 letters of objection from airports and airlines.

The FAA wouldn't be doing the work "to just go around", it would be those entities.

Read the report.

I would argue that the corporations dont want to do anything that cost them money and require effort. Their lobby to the FAA is definitely at play. So their complaints fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. It's isn't a safety issue in any way/shapre/form, it's about how it would cost more money (fuel) to take the different flight pattern and they would basically have to eat it.

Now if they had some legitimate concern about it being a safety problem, then 'lo and behold someone would figure out a way to make it work. The data in said report is just corporate whining. zzzzzz

And the airport concerns, well those aren't really valid either. Again, it would be too close to the core to make that big of an issue. You're not flying near it today anyway. It's just about expanding that buffer for the traffic a bit. Tinker....well they love to say anything is a problem in the name of keeping Tinker. And those of us near Tinker get tired of that excuse from preventing anything from being developed. If you were going to fly so close to this thing that it was a problem, then you're also too close to Devon and anything else downtown, regardless of the height.....you aren't supposed to be there unless you're up there cruising at 10k ft.

I'm not saying all of this to be snarky really, it's just that saying there were 22 letters against it and to go "read it"....well that's also a over simplifying who those letters are from and what the story behind them are.

Regardless, we all agree that it will just be the excuse he needed to not build the tower. The tower that was never going to happen in the first place and was absolutely unnecessary. I'm still happy with the rest of the project, if it even gets built. I can at least cross my fingers on those elements though.

I would argue that the corporations dont want to do anything that cost them money and require effort. Their lobby to the FAA is definitely at play. So their complaints fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. It's isn't a safety issue in any way/shapre/form, it's about how it would cost more money (fuel) to take the different flight pattern and they would basically have to eat it.

Now if they had some legitimate concern about it being a safety problem, then 'lo and behold someone would figure out a way to make it work. The data in said report is just corporate whining. zzzzzz

And the airport concerns, well those aren't really valid either. Again, it would be too close to the core to make that big of an issue. You're not flying near it today anyway. It's just about expanding that buffer for the traffic a bit. Tinker....well they love to say anything is a problem in the name of keeping Tinker. And those of us near Tinker get tired of that excuse from preventing anything from being developed. If you were going to fly so close to this thing that it was a problem, then you're also too close to Devon and anything else downtown, regardless of the height.....you aren't supposed to be there unless you're up there cruising at 10k ft.

I'm not saying all of this to be snarky really, it's just that saying there were 22 letters against it and to go "read it"....well that's also a over simplifying who those letters are from and what the story behind them are.

Regardless, we all agree that it will just be the excuse he needed to not build the tower. The tower that was never going to happen in the first place and was absolutely unnecessary. I'm still happy with the rest of the project, if it even gets built. I can at least cross my fingers on those elements though.

People keep saying they aren’t flying near it anyway. The flight path right now takes planes landing on 17L within half a mile and sometimes much closer. This is a building more than twice as tall as anything else downtown. Sure the FAA could change the flight patterns but to act like this wouldn’t potentially be in the way as things stand isn’t right.

I have personally flown directly over the top of the downtown central business districts multiple times on approach. It’s quite common.

Where there is a will, there is a way... all it takes is money and effort. This project has neither (only talk), so it's a moot point. But, I am sure it COULD be done (given the financial incentive for all involved).

Where there is a will, there is a way... all it takes is money and effort. This project has neither (only talk), so it's a moot point. But, I am sure it COULD be done (given the financial incentive for all involved).

Which would be a multi-year effort even if they agreed to do it.

you aren't supposed to be there unless you're up there cruising at 10k ft

None of the approaches are that high. Even for OUN 18, the initial fix has a 4K minimum near Wilshire and MLK.

Even the top of the Charlie for both OKC and TIK is 5300. There's a nice little corridor between OKC and TIK where the Charlie doesn't start until 3K that allows uncontrolled traffic to transit through, including over downtown. Higher up, that same corridor is used by OKC to limit traffic interference with TIK.

Commercial flights into OKC from the east go nearly to Arcadia to allow clearance for Tinker approach when landing 17. Flights from the S and SE would have to go E to around McLoud before looping back in.

People keep saying they aren’t flying near it anyway. The flight path right now takes planes landing on 17L within half a mile and sometimes much closer. This is a building more than twice as tall as anything else downtown. Sure the FAA could change the flight patterns but to act like this wouldn’t potentially be in the way as things stand isn’t right.

To further this point, on approach around downtown, you are generally at 3,000 to 4,000 ft and often under a half mile from the core of downtown.

None of the approaches are that high. Even for OUN 18, the initial fix has a 4K minimum near Wilshire and MLK.

Even the top of the Charlie for both OKC and TIK is 5300. There's a nice little corridor between OKC and TIK where the Charlie doesn't start until 3K that allows uncontrolled traffic to transit through, including over downtown. Higher up, that same corridor is used by OKC to limit traffic interference with TIK.

Commercial flights into OKC from the east go nearly to Arcadia to allow clearance for Tinker approach when landing 17. Flights from the S and SE would have to go E to around McLoud before looping back in.

This.

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

Expanding the CBD to the east is not the issue. The issue is expanding it by adding a building that’s over 1000 feet taller than the tallest building downtown. 1907 feet is a lot closer to interfering with the flight pattern than 850 feet. With everything as is, who says something that tall would be approved anywhere in the CBD?

The thing that surprises me about these concerns from local airports and the FAA is that our airspace is not crowded relative to a lot of cities, especially NYC, Chicago, Dallas, etc. Just a slight adjustment to the approaches from the south would seem to be all that is needed. Anytime I've flown into OKC from the south, I've never flown over downtown or Bricktown. It's usually been right along I-235 and then the plane curves to the west once it's north of downtown, probably 23rd street or so. One thing that I haven't noticed being brought up is the antenna farm in north OKC. Wouldn't those towers, which are roughly 1000-1500ft tall, be a hindrance to takeoffs and landings also?

I just dont buy that either. Yes things might need to change, but it's not an impossible or altogether difficult thing to do.

We do it in New York and in Chicago (and other places around the world).

Don't get me wrong...this thing was never gonna be built anyway. But I'm not ok with airlines and the FAA dictating what development happens in my city just because it makes things more complicated for them. Cry me a river there.

Remember, Matteson has the right to appeal and must do so by Jan. 13th.

If there are easy workarounds he should have no problem obtaining an exception for the tower. Let's see how that plays out.

Even if Legends Tower has to be shortened to say, 1200 ft, it would still be VERY iconic and be a game changer for our city! Just the first three towers would be amazing, but Legends would be the icing on the cake. Great times to be in OKC!

This building in Seattle was reduced in height due to the same sort of FAA concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4/C

Even if Legends Tower has to be shortened to say, 1200 ft, it would still be VERY iconic and be a game changer for our city! Just the first three towers would be amazing, but Legends would be the icing on the cake. Great times to be in OKC!

Based on all the information we have, I would say the chances of Legends Tower topping 1 foot are close to zero. It's the same odds there have been since the announcement was made. I think it would be a miracle if just one of the smaller towers was built, but that also seems highly unlikely. I don't say this to be cynical, but because all the evidence has always pointed this way.

I really hope we get at least the Ruby and Emerald, as they are calling the first two towers. What about the $200M TIF money from the city? If they don't build a single building, they shouldn't get that TIF money, correct? The TIF money alone would seem to give us hope for something getting built.

I really hope we get at least the Ruby and Emerald, as they are calling the first two towers. What about the $200M TIF money from the city? If they don't build a single building, they shouldn't get that TIF money, correct? The TIF money alone would seem to give us hope for something getting built.

Correct, TIF is only payable upon completion of the first phase, so the City has no real money at risk here.

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

This building in Seattle was reduced in height due to the same sort of FAA concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4/C

Yes, and downtown Seattle CBD DOES lie in the flight path for not only SeaTac International Airport but also King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is closer to the CBD. Planes regularly fly from Capital Hill to the E (by a mile) of the CBD toward White Center then to SeaTac. Boeing Field pattern is on the W side of the CBD over puget sound, much lower near downtown. There is also a THIRD airdrome near downtown Seattle which is a seaport at Lake Union. All of this, yet if anybody's been to Seattle you see lots of towers (yes, height restricted) and lots of airplanes - FAR more than KOKC and KTIK.

Also consider that Downtown Seattle is not flat like OKC, it is on hills rising up sharply from Puget Sound, effectively adding 200-300 feet to any towers built depending upon the location - thereby giving Seattle a dramatic skyline presence in the process as the towers appear much taller than they are.

Downtown Seattle HAS height restrictions, Downtown Oklahoma City does not. Seattle was a bad comparison for Oklahoma City.

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

It's not like this tower isn't going to happen purely because of the FAA ruling, it's not going to happen because it was a lie from day one.

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

No one needs to amend anything for a building that isn’t going to happen or the guy who doesn’t have the funding to build it.

If you think the FAA is what’s holding this back then you may be going senile.

The entire point of these posts is that it COULD be done IF enough money changed hands and the required work was put in (may not be easy or quick, but it could be done). All that would take is a legitimate project that has the funds, political power, was a lock to go through.

This project has none of that, so this particular project is irrelevant and won't be able to force the issue.

So I, like many others on this board, have plenty of doubts about the super tall tower coming to fruition. But, what is a height that they could get to without any sort of push back? Devon is at 825? Could they go to 1,000 without issues? Or is it more about the location? Again, not saying this will happen at all, but curious what they could drop it down to.

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and it's economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and its economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

I’m pretty sure someone here or Pete has already blown his Miami development apart for one reason or another. I’m very bullish on OKC too and that carries about as much weight as Matteson’s bullishness.

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and it's economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

The Miami project has been covered in depth earlier in this thread.

He may have had some very small role in the land speculation a long time ago, but I have not been able to find any evidence he's had anything to with any of that development, regardless of his claims (which is a huge red flag).

The entire point of these posts is that it COULD be done IF enough money changed hands and the required work was put in (may not be easy or quick, but it could be done). All that would take is a legitimate project that has the funds, political power, was a lock to go through.

This project has none of that, so this particular project is irrelevant and won't be able to force the issue.

Actually, it would be a huge uphill battle even if the tower seemed like a realistic possibility.

I doubt any of the armchair aviation experts actually read the report.

1. The building would be so tall that it would affect navigation equipment and radars. The report mentioned there may need to be an additional radar site to handle a blind spot and there would be an increase in false positives.
2. Losing VFR corridors. VFR's use natural landmarks like highways, roads, rivers, mountains, etc. These are important for the smaller planes and allows them to have to not contact ATC. If you don't have VFR corridors you have to have more ATC personal. The report mentions Westheimer (OUN) would be heavily impacted.
3. New IVR corridors would result in the airlines to make more significant climb rates and maneuvers that would put more stress on the vehicles.

I think you guys seem to forget that Will Rogers is not the only airport in the metro area. There are 5 with runways that each require flight paths.

Calling the aviation interests NIMBY's is gross oversimplification. Its not like the FAA doesn't agree with the comments, they just used that as confirmation on what they reported.

I think it's more of a matter that he's the only one really looking into the claims surrounding the developer. I'm sure if there was an 1100 ft building in Miami that Matteson spearheaded, Pete would have gladly shared that information with us. But not only did Matteson not develop such a building, no such building exists. It's not "negative/skeptical" to refute bogus claims. it's just factual reporting.


Right, and once you catch someone in an obvious lie, they have invited scrutiny.

I was suspicious before this was even announced in its far more humble scope. I had talked to several local people behind the scenes who had been approached about this project and all felt like it was unrealistic. And this was back when it was three towers, two hotels, and infinitely more modest. All of them passed and to this day I haven't heard of anyone in OKC who has opted in.

Then, I immediately started to research Matteson. I would have been thrilled to find all these amazing projects with his role clearly defined, but I couldn't find anything recent at all and then he started to claim projects as 'his' when he was clearly taking credit for the work of other people.

That is a lot of red flags long before things got really crazy.


Here is something else from that Journal Record article:



This is the project: https://miamiworldcenter.com/.

If you go through that website and research the entire project, there is nothing approaching 1,100 feet built, under construction or planned.

But more importantly, there is absolutely no reference to Matteson or Centurian Partners since 2011. It seems Centurian was involved in the initial purchase of the land in 2008, then a big equity partner (CIM) entered the picture in 2011, and that's the last Centurian is mentioned in 13 years of subsequent press releases, in any capacity.

Matteson certainly has not developed anything at the Miami World Center (I've read all 14 pages of press and press releases on their website) and it seems he and Centurian have no involvement since the initial land purchase.

Matteson keeps bringing up this big Miami project as proof of his development experience and seems to be purposely lying about his involvement.

Here it is from Pete. The Miami project was a product of bad journalism.

Yes, and downtown Seattle CBD DOES lie in the flight path for not only SeaTac International Airport but also King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is closer to the CBD. Planes regularly fly from Capital Hill to the E (by a mile) of the CBD toward White Center then to SeaTac. Boeing Field pattern is on the W side of the CBD over puget sound, much lower near downtown. There is also a THIRD airdrome near downtown Seattle which is a seaport at Lake Union. All of this, yet if anybody's been to Seattle you see lots of towers (yes, height restricted) and lots of airplanes - FAR more than KOKC and KTIK.

Also consider that Downtown Seattle is not flat like OKC, it is on hills rising up sharply from Puget Sound, effectively adding 200-300 feet to any towers built depending upon the location - thereby giving Seattle a dramatic skyline presence in the process as the towers appear much taller than they are.

Downtown Seattle HAS height restrictions, Downtown Oklahoma City does not. Seattle was a bad comparison for Oklahoma City.

This makes zero sense.

The FAA report clearly states that Legends Tower would be in the flight path of several airports.

And what on earth do you mean 'downtown Seattle has height restrictions and OKC does not'? The only issue with the Seattle tower was from the FAA, which is why they specifically agreed to lower the height.

FYI, the Seattle airport is 10 miles from the center of their downtown; Will Rogers is 6 and Tinker is 7 miles from downtown OKC.

The FAA issues are exactly the same between these two towers, which is why I posted it as an example. There are many more.

Nm