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 is 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 disagrees with the comments, they just used that as confirmation on what they reported.

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

Wow! I hadn't seen the JR article. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he actually IS serious. Thanks for the clarification, Pete and PhiAlpha!

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

They giveth and they taketh away.

So what I’m hearing is that the FAA doesn’t think OKC deserves such a building.

OKC can have the building. Just a little bit to the west and not have a random supertall sitting by itself away from the downtown core.

OKC can have the building. Just a little bit to the west and not have a random supertall sitting by itself away from the downtown core.

Maybe somewhere like just west of Paycom? Or maybe on the Paycom site in a few years?? That makes more sense than Bricktown any way.

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

The FAA report says precisely that downtown OKC IS in the flight path of 3 different airports, which you can read for yourself and has been summarized here like 10 times.

Before you call other arguments 'stupid', try making the least bit of sense.

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

I dont understand how you are this freaking ridiculous…at least three of us have posted the flight path for one of the runways (17L) at Will Rogers. Downtown is in the damn flight path. Being in the flight path does not mean it has to be directly in front of one of the damn runways.

You may not be senile about where you live but you certainly may be about OKC and reality in general if you actually think this development is going to happen based on any/all of the evidence presented so far. There is wishful thinking and then there is blind stupidity. You have descended to the latter at this point. Jesus Christ.

whether you like what I say or not, Seattle has height restrictions in its downtown CBD due to being in the direct landing path of SeaTac, South Lake Union seaport AND Boeing Field.

AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SEATTLE, I am very aware of the flight paths here. Planes flie directly over the beacon that sits at 20th and Madison in Capital Hill that then points them straight to SeaTac. This course edges them within a mile E of Downtown Seattle, where we have a 900 foot tall building in Columbia Center whose actual height above sea level (puget sound, 5 blocks west) on the highest point of the CBD which increases its relative height to nearly 1300. The new tower is across the street from Columbia Center, which is why the FAA required the reduction.

I pretty sure Im not senile when it comes to where I live, where I see planes fly overhead towards downtown and SeaTac (and Boeing Field) even though Im 14 miles away.

I fail to see how OKC compares when downtown is NOT in the flight path of Will Rogers, Tinker, or OUN. Again, Seattle is in the direct landing path of SeaTac runways whereas OKC downtown is not. The FAA issues are NOT the same and therefore this is a stupid argument.

And Im also not senile that this FAA ruling has so far held up this development, the developer has said he was waiting on the ruling - which makes sense. Now, Whether that's the truth or not, I'm not God to know what's really in his head, nor are you.

It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention that the developer is using this argument as a fig leaf to cover for the delays in the project launching.

The FAA decision on the wishful thinking imaginary "aspirational tower" has no bearing on the developer's ability to construct the three towers in phase one, for which the City of OKC has pledged millions of dollars in TIF funding.

^

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.
Yup. The big tower isn't getting built IMO. But honestly I think that's good for the city.

If that market gets overdeveloped and hampers pricing it'll also hamper growth and turn off other developers. There's nothing wrong with a couple nice towers in the 20-25 floor range and probably prevents overbuilding which will foster additional growth in the medium term.

I'm still questioning, despite recent articles if this project gets down with the 3 mid-rise towers.

Yup. The big tower isn't getting built IMO. But honestly I think that's good for the city.

If that market gets overdeveloped and hampers pricing it'll also hamper growth and turn off other developers. There's nothing wrong with a couple nice towers in the 20-25 floor range and probably prevents overbuilding which will foster additional growth in the medium term.

I'm still questioning, despite recent articles if this project gets down with the 3 mid-rise towers.

If OKC could get this accomplished, it would be a great addition to the skyline. Hope it get completed about the same time as the billion dollar arena.

I think the tower getting built would be great for the city. Just the proposal alone has already put OKC on the map in ways I’ve never even seen since The Thunder. But at this point, I’m just hoping the project even without the tower happens. Of which I’m getting more and more skeptical by the day.

I think the tower getting built would be great for the city. Just the proposal alone has already put OKC on the map in ways I’ve never even seen since The Thunder. But at this point, I’m just hoping the project even without the tower happens. Of which I’m getting more and more skeptical by the day.

The mythical tower hasn’t put OKC on any map. It has just incited a bunch of gossip. On the less than zero chance it gets built as boasted about then it will put a tiny dot on the map for OKC.

The mythical tower hasn’t put OKC on any map. It has just incited a bunch of gossip. On the less than zero chance it gets built as boasted about then it will put a tiny dot on the map for OKC.
I completely disagree. I’ve seen so much content on it on just about every platform you could possibly imagine. It’s definitely brought the words OKC into the mouths of people who would never have spoken of it otherwise and this is just a mere proposal. If this behemoth was actually built, it would absolutely throw OKC on the map.

I completely disagree. I’ve seen so much content on it on just about every platform you could possibly imagine. It’s definitely brought the words OKC into the mouths of people who would never have spoken of it otherwise and this is just a mere proposal. If this behemoth was actually built, it would absolutely throw OKC on the map.

Perspective is needed. While this unlikely project is talked about because of its odd fit conceptually as well as the unlikelihood of it actually being built, Dallas has many impressive developments under way and way more on the drawing boards, as is the case in other places. It is being mentioned elsewhere out of incredulity, or that it is odd - not as a discovery of OKC as a development hub but how out of place it would be here (which it would be) . We will be on the map when something like this actually draws LESS OMGs.

Being talked about is not the same as being "on the map". Right now it's just gossip and and an interesting little story that has died off quickly except the locals. .

I know we've been talking about this development and the chances of it being completed as planned, but what about other possible mixed use proposals that could potentially be revealed in the future? Perhaps a few that could grace our skyline like some of the residential towers in Austin? I feel like once construction is somewhat ongoing with the Ruby and Emerald, there could be other developers who might come in to build as well. Thoughts?

I know we've been talking about this development and the chances of it being completed as planned, but what about other possible mixed use proposals that could potentially be revealed in the future? Perhaps a few that could grace our skyline like some of the residential towers in Austin? I feel like once construction is somewhat ongoing with the Ruby and Emerald, there could be other developers who might come in to build as well. Thoughts?

The best chance would be the REHCO land between the Myriad Gardens and Scissortail Park.

Owned by Midtown Renaissance and Fred Jones, they have the money and commitment to do something grand there, but nothing so far.


The biggest problem for larger projects is that there is no demand for office space in an already over-built market. So, would have to be all residential/hotel/retail/restaurant space.

Hopefully, we will hear something about that REHCO land within the next year. It has SO much potential to be something special. Since the new arena is on its way towards construction and the new multipurpose stadium and district is in the planning stages, it's probably the right time for movement on the REHCO site. It's going to be fun watching all of this construction over the next few years!

I've said from the beginning that this crazy Boardwalk project would only lessen the immediacy of the REHCO site.

There are only so many hotels and residential units downtown OKC can absorb.

The FAA report says precisely that downtown OKC IS in the flight path of 3 different airports, which you can read for yourself and has been summarized here like 10 times.

Before you call other arguments 'stupid', try making the least bit of sense.

Hey there, Plenty of people on this site have more than called me out of my name, consistently, yet nothing is done about it. Interesting when I return in kind, the response. It's VERY clear that you and others go after those of us on this site who have a different opinion.

For the record, I didn't call your argument against this tower stupid (I called it hyper critical, yes and at-times fundameltally flawed, yes). if you read my post instead of skimming it and getting angry, I called you're citing Seattle's downsizing our propsed tower a stupid comparison for Legends tower, since we're completely different than OKC and have significant airspace and geography restrictions that OKC does not have in any way.

...

Anyway, I took the liberty to review the FAA report and the section chart for Oklahoma City, I can't find any approach in the Oklahoma City airspace that goes over downtown, hence why I think there's no height restrictions in the OKC CBD. The FAA report indicated that the tower at the intended location would encroach EXISTING patterns (likely due to factor of safety, not directly). The closest pattern I could find with my unscientific eye, was the 17L approach from the south that circles around downtown. This pattern is still more than a mile from the CBD at any given path and at that time it is 3500', this building would be 3101', so basically giving 400' of vertical clearance if there were overflight.

https://airwaymap.com/preview/KOKC/36773

At 2932 AMSL, 4D,
MURAH THREE ARRIVAL, increase MOCA from MOVIE to IMAGE from 2900 to 4000, NEH 1900 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOKC). Exceeds by 1,032 feet. ###
TSDEL THREE ARRIVAL, increase MOCA from PALMR to ISAKE from 3000 to 4000, NEH 2000 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOKC). Exceeds by 932 feet. ###
WAYMN ONE ARRIVAL, increase MEA and MOCA from PALMR to ISAKE from 3100 to 4000, NEH 2100 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOUN, KTIK, KPWA). Exceeds by 832 feet.

you can see, from the FAA report that the three approach patterns primarily impacted (mainly 17L WRIA) indicate TODAY the pattern would be a risk, therefore THEY recomend increase to 4000'. The report actually indicates might be relatively easy to modify since all three are recommended to a consistent height of 4000 vs the current inconsistency 2900 for one, 3000 for one, and 3100 for the other as they exist today. Might actually be in the best interest for everyone to just bump them all up to 4000'.

If the developer and city could agree, this could be done.

Just to ensure I wasn't senile as Ive been called on this forum, I quickly ran this by my son (a First Officer at United) to see what he thought. He doesn't fly KOKC but he indicated the airspace in Oklahoma City is NOT complicated (hence the FAA airspace rating) and there isn't anything really preventing such a tower to be built based on the current patterns; but he did indicate they would need to be modified as they appear to be established for Devon Tower and the antenna farm (which tops at 2046' and 2758 respectfully). I didn't ask him nor did he have time for anything more technical - but that quick analysis by 'not an armchair pilot' indicated what I was saying all along, the FAA report is motivated primarily by local authorities who IMO are not necessarily agains the tower but are bringing up landing patterns would need to be changed; which can happen. It's up to the city, developer, and FAA whether they will modify them for this tower at this location.

I completely disagree. I’ve seen so much content on it on just about every platform you could possibly imagine. It’s definitely brought the words OKC into the mouths of people who would never have spoken of it otherwise and this is just a mere proposal. If this behemoth was actually built, it would absolutely throw OKC on the map.

Panda, as one of the other posters on here constantly attacked, I wanted to credit your post that I too have heard more about OKC since Legends tower was announced. I'm in the business world mostly not local to OKC, when I am asked about my youth and I mention Oklahoma City - the immediate response is nearly always about Legends Tower and then the OKC Thunder. Sounds like you have a similar experience.

Panda, as one of the other posters on here constantly attacked, I wanted to credit your post that I too have heard more about OKC since Legends tower was announced. I'm in the business world mostly not local to OKC, when I am asked about my youth and I mention Oklahoma City - the immediate response is nearly always about Legends Tower and then the OKC Thunder. Sounds like you have a similar experience.
Yeah, I’ve seen it brought up on a lot of forums, YouTube videos, social media pages, etc. That I frequent where I’ve never heard them talk about Oklahoma City before. Not that it makes this project any more credible. But it is interesting. And I do think if this thing were built, it would absolutely 100% put Oklahoma City in a spotlight. It hasn’t been before other than maybe the thunder in terms of exposure.

The only account I follow that has discussed this (to be fair, I don’t really follow the types of accounts that would be talking about this in general) is the St. Louis urban forum.

I would say half the discussion is: Why can’t St. Louis see these types of proposals, and what us going on in OKC?

The other half is pretty blistering critique about how disjointed the OKC skyline would look and what terrible urban form it would be. These same posters, back in the day, were generally impressed by Devon although they all thought it was a little too tall for our skyline.

You’ve got to remember though that that discussion is urbanists, architects, city planners. Maybe not representivr of the general public.

I visited Austin for the first time back in 2021 and was blown away by all of the growth and construction downtown! I thought to myself, "OKC is growing, but it's not next level growth like what's happening in Austin." I came away impressed and hoping to see the day that OKC has multiple cranes downtown constructing substantial buildings. To me, this Boardwalk project is exactly the type of development that I envisioned as something "next level." Of course, there are other aspects of "next level" growth like major companies moving here, higher population growth, better K-12 education, and perhaps the elimination of the state income tax.

I visited Austin for the first time back in 2021 and was blown away by all of the growth and construction downtown! I thought to myself, "OKC is growing, but it's not next level growth like what's happening in Austin." I came away impressed and hoping to see the day that OKC has multiple cranes downtown constructing substantial buildings. To me, this Boardwalk project is exactly the type of development that I envisioned as something "next level." Of course, there are other aspects of "next level" growth like major companies moving here, higher population growth, better K-12 education, and perhaps the elimination of the state income tax.

I don't want hyper growth like that. Growing way too fast for your infrastructure, so now it's constant traffic and expensive utilities and water services, etc. There are tradeoffs to they growth. Things are hyper expensive there now.

Bison34, I agree with you that we don't want it to be out of control growth and too expensive to live here, but I really think OKC could handle that kind of growth much easier due to our availability of land, much better highway system, and our grid street layout, which spreads the traffic out more evenly. Austin is laid out way different and they have to account for developing on hills and around the lakes that are not far from downtown. OKC can grow in every direction, but Austin is limited to the west.

Yeah, I’ve seen it brought up on a lot of forums, YouTube videos, social media pages, etc. That I frequent where I’ve never heard them talk about Oklahoma City before. Not that it makes this project any more credible. But it is interesting. And I do think if this thing were built, it would absolutely 100% put Oklahoma City in a spotlight. It hasn’t been before other than maybe the thunder in terms of exposure.
If built to the full height it would be a curiosity, not a confirmation. But its a moot point.

Dont mistake for an echo chamber for the sound of the real world.

IIRC St. Louis has height restrictions on their towers. The 'Gateway Arch' at 630' is their tallest structure and the 593' One Metropolitan Square being the tallest tower.

BTW when you look at Oklahoma's two largest cities, we have two impressive skylines (Oklahoma City & Tulsa) for cities our size and population. Got to admit, Tulsa has more taller towers than OKC and St. Louis.

Tulsa - BOK Tower 667' Cityplex Central Tower 648' First Place Tower 516' Mid-Continent Tower 513' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Tulsa,_Oklahoma

.

I visited Austin for the first time back in 2021 and was blown away by all of the growth and construction downtown! I thought to myself, "OKC is growing, but it's not next level growth like what's happening in Austin." I came away impressed and hoping to see the day that OKC has multiple cranes downtown constructing substantial buildings. To me, this Boardwalk project is exactly the type of development that I envisioned as something "next level." Of course, there are other aspects of "next level" growth like major companies moving here, higher population growth, better K-12 education, and perhaps the elimination of the state income tax.

You nailed it, Bro

You’ve got to remember though that that discussion is urbanists, architects, city planners. Maybe not representivr of the general public.

This site is a wealth of information and awesome pictures, but most of the views posted on here are NOT of the general public (OKC and/or Oklahoma general public... not NYC or LA general public), but a very narrow view of how they think it should be here (which often contradicts the general public). I take a beating on this site too, because I am much closer with the general public.

BTW when you look at Oklahoma's two largest cities, we have two impressive skylines (Oklahoma City & Tulsa) for cities our size and population. Got to admit, Tulsa has more taller towers than OKC and St. Louis.

Tulsa - BOK Tower 667' Cityplex Central Tower 648' First Place Tower 516' Mid-Continent Tower 513' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Tulsa,_Oklahoma

.

cityplex is not really in the tulsa skyline .. it is almost 8 miles from downtown tulsa .. (Founders tower is 2 miles closer to downtown okc and no one would consider it part of the downtown skyline) ..

I visited Austin for the first time back in 2021 and was blown away by all of the growth and construction downtown! I thought to myself, "OKC is growing, but it's not next level growth like what's happening in Austin." I came away impressed and hoping to see the day that OKC has multiple cranes downtown constructing substantial buildings. To me, this Boardwalk project is exactly the type of development that I envisioned as something "next level." Of course, there are other aspects of "next level" growth like major companies moving here, higher population growth, better K-12 education, and perhaps the elimination of the state income tax.

There are a lot of problems with all that "next level" development in Austin. There is a ton of vacant office space built just before covid for the tech industry. It will take a long time for this space to fill.

The other is a massive housing glut from speculative over building, the tech slowdown and a near balance of immigration to emigration of people due to housing costs. There are fears of significant housing price deflation in 2025.

OKC doesn't want next-level but it would be nice for reasonable, realistic and consistent downtown development. Building the silly 100+ story tower isn't this.

*disclaimer* I’m not saying this is gonna happen because a lot of these videos are popping up, but I see a new video about this project seemingly once or twice a month. Here’s one example I just saw today that was made two days ago.


https://youtu.be/FksF3RVLnK0?si=OGkKz1YY8UFwKMkj

I need to reiterate, I’m very skeptical. This tower will be built, but it is still cool to see OKC put in the limelight.

but it is still cool to see OKC put in the limelight.

In the limelight, sure, but a comment section full of people talking poorly about OKC.

In the limelight, sure, but a comment section full of people talking poorly about OKC.

Haters don’t realize how deserving we are and are going to hate.

Haters don’t realize how deserving we are and are going to hate.

Lol the guy in the video forgot to say, “Not to mention how much OKC DESERVES this tower.”

In the limelight, sure, but a comment section full of people talking poorly about OKC.
Yeah that’s a pretty common theme for people to talk sh!t about OKC no matter how many puff pieces we get or how much people on this forum say good things about it.

In the limelight, sure, but a comment section full of people talking poorly about OKC.

"Any publicity is good publicity"

This is same level as tulsa trying to get the Olympics

Keep in mind that the average person doesn't usually care about engineering or tall buildings. People viewing that video fell for the click bait sounding thumbnail and they feel like they have to make a comment just to justify their time. They wouldn't usually go out of their way to make a negative comment toward OKC.

That video and all the videos on that Youtube channel scream AI generated clickbait - all the ads, so painful.

This is same level as tulsa trying to get the Olympics

And ironically 10 years later, OKC is getting the Olympics (partially).

*disclaimer* I’m not saying this is gonna happen because a lot of these videos are popping up, but I see a new video about this project seemingly once or twice a month. Here’s one example I just saw today that was made two days ago.


https://youtu.be/FksF3RVLnK0?si=OGkKz1YY8UFwKMkj

I need to reiterate, I’m very skeptical. This tower will be built, but it is still cool to see OKC put in the limelight.
This is like Bigfoot being in the limelight because someone thinks thy saw big footprints in their garden. Its a curiosity and dream

Welp the news we have been waiting for. The FAA denied the application for not just the big tower but the whole thing
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=614791391&row=0

Welp the news we have been waiting for. The FAA denied the application for not just the big tower but the whole thing
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=614791391&row=0

That happened weeks ago.

Matteson swore the first phase is still moving forward.

Welp the news we have been waiting for. The FAA denied the application for not just the big tower but the whole thing
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=614791391&row=0

They were submitted together.

I don't think this project is scrapped by any means. At the very least, we get to see the original towers, but I think Legends will eventually get built, but maybe the compromise on the height would be between 1,000-1,500ft. That is still a big deal.

There has still been no forward movement on any part of this project.

We all hope something happens here but most are adopting the "we'll believe it when we see it" attitude.

I don't think this project is scrapped by any means. At the very least, we get to see the original towers, but I think Legends will eventually get built, but maybe the compromise on the height would be between 1,000-1,500ft. That is still a big deal.

At the VERY LEAST huh?
Besides hopes and wishes and delusion what makes you sincerely believe this?

I don't think this project is scrapped by any means. At the very least, we get to see the original towers, but I think Legends will eventually get built, but maybe the compromise on the height would be between 1,000-1,500ft. That is still a big deal.

Nice. Did Santa bring you everything you wanted for Christmas?

I don't think this project is scrapped by any means. At the very least, we get to see the original towers, but I think Legends will eventually get built, but maybe the compromise on the height would be between 1,000-1,500ft. That is still a big deal.

All the most credible evidence in this thread points toward the most likely outcome being absolutely none of this proposal ever being built. Any other conclusion at this point is just wishful thinking.

All the most credible evidence in this thread points toward the most likely outcome being absolutely none of this proposal ever being built. Any other conclusion at this point is just wishful thinking.
As someone who really wants to see this project, including that massive skyscraper built, I completely agree. The longer this thread gets the less enthusiasm I have for this project.

Honestly I'd rather they just build 2 towers half that size. Having 2 Devon towers for instance would add so much more to the skyline than 1 tall building.

It's not going to happen folks. Move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg8-AG0nM7U
In addition to the YouTube video on the Legends Tower (Posted by Plutonic Panda); there are
a host of others.

Just stop, y'all........... :rolleyes:

I like to think these constant YouTube videos are recognition that we do in fact deserve this.

Keep checking this for updates, and it is just YouTube videos.