OG&E Tower

[Richard at Remax]

Something like penzoil place in Houston wold be pretty cool

[bchris02]

It's sad that the subject of that excellent post was about mediocrity.

I agree. BDP put it in a way I hadn't thought of before. The standard of mediocrity around here compared to almost anywhere else is mindnumbing and hits the nail on the head of why I've had such a difficult time adjusting to it here from Charlotte. All of my complaints about OKC can be summed up by that. Question is, why is that? What makes OKC different from Tulsa, Austin, Kansas City, Albuquerque, etc that the majority has so much lower standards?

[hoya]

We've basically been told of the most stripped down version. At the minimum, we are looking at a 20 story box. That is not very exciting at all. I would say that's probably not what people were expecting when they did their own internal balancing to come to peace with losing Stage Center. It feels underwhelming. If this is just going to be a 20 story box then they can put something like that anywhere. I don't want another Oklahoma Tower there.

Now if this later proves to be a 40 story, 700 foot tower with a beautiful design, I'll be able to stomach the loss much more easily. What we as a city need to say is that the minimum is not enough.

[bluedogok]

Agreed. And this is a piece of information that could be "leaked" without revealing any other specifics on the height, floor count, tenants, etc.

I am curious, though -- does it have to be a famous out-of-town architectural firm for the building to be world class? Certainly I will be thrilled if I find out that Pickard Chilton or someone else of their reputation is designing the tower. But is there no local architectural firm that would be capable of creating a truly first rate building design? I'm not trying to be cute or sarcastic... I really don't know.

There is plenty of talent in OKC that are capable of doing a tower and not just the CD's. Most have never had the opportunity presented to them but that doesn't mean they don't have some towers floating around in their head or on a board somewhere.....I know that I do.

People in OKC always seem to have the mentality that someone from out of town is always better than someone at home so talented people don't get that chance because of location. I work with a guy who worked for SOM in Chicago for many years before moving back to Denver and another one in Austin, you never really know what someones experience is based off of what the office produces because most offices don't have the chance at doing that kind of work. We can only do the type of projects that we can get contracted for and in many cases the client and/or budget dictates poor design, most architects are not trying to design a bad looking building. I worked on a lot of I.M. Pei and PeiCobbFreed towers in Dallas, most of them are horrible and poorly designed but they have a rep for them, the SOM towers were much better.

Also about mediocrity, you have a large segment of the population who thinks that anything other than a Star metal building is spending too much money, they aren't frugal, they are cheap. It doesn't matter whether it is a private or public building, they just don't seem to like anything, period and they tend to be a noisy minority when it comes to public buildings. They don't want to have to get outside of their comfort zone, anything modern challenges that so if there is money to be spent on "adornment" they think it needs to be some neo-classical style because that is all they are comfortable with. That has been OKOC's make up for a long time, design is not appreciated by the masses but then that could also be said of many places.

[zookeeper]

There is plenty of talent in OKC that are capable of doing a tower and not just the CD's. Most have never had the opportunity presented to them but that doesn't mean they don't have some towers floating around in their head or on a board somewhere.....I know that I do.

People in OKC always seem to have the mentality that someone from out of town is always better than someone at home so talented people don't get that chance because of location. I work with a guy who worked for SOM in Chicago for many years before moving back to Denver and another one in Austin, you never really know what someones experience is based off of what the office produces because most offices don't have the chance at doing that kind of work. We can only do the type of projects that we can get contracted for and in many cases the client and/or budget dictates poor design, most architects are not trying to design a bad looking building. I worked on a lot of I.M. Pei and PeiCobbFreed towers in Dallas, most of them are horrible and poorly designed but they have a rep for them, the SOM towers were much better.

That's true and really ironic isn't it? You have to leave your home city to get a job and then, maybe some day you'll have the chance to design for your home city!
Very strange.

[CaptDave]

Also about mediocrity, you have a large segment of the population who thinks that anything other than a Star metal building is spending too much money, they aren't frugal, they are cheap. It doesn't matter whether it is a private or public building, they just don't seem to like anything, period and they tend to be a noisy minority when it comes to public buildings. They don't want to have to get outside of their comfort zone, anything modern challenges that so if there is money to be spent on "adornment" they think it needs to be some neo-classical style because that is all they are comfortable with. That has been OKOC's make up for a long time, design is not appreciated by the masses but then that could also be said of many places.

I would add there are many people that know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Spartan]

I would be happy with something like this to replace Stage Center, both 20 stories:

Towers like this, set so far back from the street and focal point, can go anywhere in downtown. It can even just as well go on the Northwest Expressway. This rendering above doesn't absolutely command the Stage Center site.

We have so many sites that are ripe for development. Look at our downtown, pot marked with brownfields and parking lots and vacant sites still:


To say that a nondescript, non-iconic, new 20-story office development absolutely commands the Stage Center site is ludicrous. I would literally rather just leave the Stage Center as a non-functioning monument to architectural modernism, removing the trees, add some fountains for kids, clean up the exterior, and then just let it sit there for people to enjoy. That would be far more valuable on this site than what has been announced to date.

[Popsy]

I would add there are many people that know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

That is a harsh thing to say about our urbanist posters.

[soonerguru]

Also about mediocrity, you have a large segment of the population who thinks that anything other than a Star metal building is spending too much money, they aren't frugal, they are cheap. It doesn't matter whether it is a private or public building, they just don't seem to like anything, period and they tend to be a noisy minority when it comes to public buildings. They don't want to have to get outside of their comfort zone, anything modern challenges that so if there is money to be spent on "adornment" they think it needs to be some neo-classical style because that is all they are comfortable with. That has been OKOC's make up for a long time, design is not appreciated by the masses but then that could also be said of many places.

This is the utilitarian mindset in effect. Perhaps it's a Depression-era mentality. Don't forget the hostility you face if you try to suggest OKC become more of a world city. You'll be greeted with sneers and derision and comments about how OKC "will never be a New York or San Francisco so just give it up."

The facts are there were no standards in OKC for a long time. We didn't even employ a city planner until the 1990s, and he got run out of town. We didn't have zoning that was conducive for public beautification. Now we at least have a planning department, a big step forward, but it would seem they are not often consulted on big projects.

Our business community has been convinced that we need to raise the stakes on public art, beautification, and planning simply to compete with other cities. They can understand making money. But when the discussion becomes more esoteric, we lose them. A good example of this is Larry Nichols' comments about the "ugly" streetcar. Another would be this discussion. There would probably be a lot of surprise among the business community that people aren't more excited we're tearing down that "ugly albatoss that has outlived its use" for a shiny new skyscraper. There isn't a lot of sophistication there.

I would argue that OKC is growing up in many ways in the cultural department. We have a thriving art scene at this point. Our food scene is better than it has ever been. Events like H&8 are wildly well attended, and the hottest neighborhoods in our city are Paseo, Midtown, Plaza, AA, and downtown. Clearly there is a large segment of people who are looking for more authenticity, less homogeneity, and fewer chain-related restaurants. There also is a growing and obvious demand for more urban experiences.

It is sad that OKC has a legacy of destroying virtually every significant landmark, be it Classen Circle, Belle Isle Power Plant (nice tradeoff for the ugliest Wal-Mart in the US), thousands of buildings, many of them with historical significance, wonderful theatres like the Criterion and others, its interurban transit system, the list goes on and on. It's another punch to the gut to see this happening yet again with the Stage Center; it is a very disheartening sense of deja vu.

[bluedogok]

I would add there are many people that know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

So true....just because you saw a residential grade item at Home Depot/Lowe's for 1.29/SF doesn't mean that it is appropriate for a commercial installation. They also seem to think these items magically install themselves without a labor cost being involved. A labor cost that includes having to pay income taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, insurance, etc. and other fees that the government and unions (if there is a union trade involved) heap on top of contractors. A big problem is many people only value their labor and expect to be paid but they don't value the labor of others.

This is the utilitarian mindset in effect. Perhaps it's a Depression-era mentality. Don't forget the hostility you face if you try to suggest OKC become more of a world city. You'll be greeted with sneers and derision and comments about how OKC "will never be a New York or San Francisco so just give it up."

I heard a lot of the same talk from long time Austinites who are resistant to the changes happening there. They want Austin to remain the sleepy, little hippie town that it was in the 70's when they moved there to go to college. Sorry guys, that Austin died long before the recent boom, they just didn't notice because the Armadillo World Headquarters and the Liberty Cafe were still open.

[Spartan]

Yes, OKC is changing just like Austin did, but Austin evolved into a city that was still liberal-minded. It just traded rustic hippie for cosmopolitan.

OKC is changing from bland and soulless into something we don't quite know yet, but it can only be better. It's won't be as cosmopolitan as Austin, but it stands a chance to be more human-centric than Dallas. I have said it a lot of times, that if we do this right, OKC will be surprisingly similar to Denver when it's all said and done.

As for this Stage Center site, because no renderings were provided nor is the announced project all that impressive as far as we know at this point, these developers are going to face the worst possible outcry as they try and tear Stage Center down. If they had more to announce, especially renderings and financing in place, they would have had no problem in tearing it down. I would have supported tearing it down.

But I've been watching the outcry evolve to a fever pitch over this weekend, not just on OKC Talk, but on NewsOK, facebook, twitter, and other outlets, as well as with some preservation friends of mine. Not one to get over-excited, but I think these developers badly mishandled this and may have just walked into a hornet's nest. The only thing that will get them out of that hornet's nest is either producing renderings (or a better project) or agreeing to sit on the Stage Center until a later date.

[zookeeper]

I would literally rather just leave the Stage Center as a non-functioning monument to architectural modernism, removing the trees, add some fountains for kids, clean up the exterior, and then just let it sit there for people to enjoy. That would be far more valuable on this site than what has been announced to date.

Agreed. This is very typical in Europe where things still stand from the 1500's with no real "use" besides the historical or artistic value. In fact, the American willingness to put up one throwaway thing after another is viewed as short-sighted and wasteful by many in other parts of the world. Everything here has a price-tag as to how it's valued at this very moment. (Stage Center site! Valuable! Can pay X dollars and in 5 years it's worth...ad infinitum.) What's wrong with public, honored, acclaimed art, simply for the sake of art? Everone immediately thinks what the LOT is worth. It's a shame.

As I said in another thread, ALL acclaimed pieces of art, whether it be architecture or not, is loved and hated. I'm one that believes Johansen's building should continue to stand and be loved (or hated) for future generations.

If anybody here still hasn't watched the short ten-minute film on YouTube about Stage Center, you owe it to future generations to take a peek and just think for a bit.

Edited: To make it even easier, here it as again so you don't have to hunt it down in this growing thread.

[mugofbeer]

Too bad they couldn't swap the SC site for the elementary school site. A school would need a theater and other parts could be converted into school space of some sort while the rest of the site could be built for the remainder of the school needs.

[Plutonic Panda]

Charlotte had their building boom in the 2000s but today it has come nearly to a halt. I doubt they get any new towers any time soon with their local economy the way it is. I am not sure what you meant by this comment.

I was saying this tower announcement is likely something that you are used to. I wasn't aware that Charlottes building had entirely come to a stop.

[Plutonic Panda]

I would be happy with something like this to replace Stage Center, both 20 stories:

Now this would be cool

[Jim Kyle]

Oklahoma City, in general, has a very narrow definition of what constitutes art or creativity, and it does not have a big enough constituency that value out of the ordinary works or aesthetically challenging art and design for it to exist here. The result is that anything that does not manage some sort of mass appeal struggles, disappears completely, or simply never shows up.

Looks as if most everyone (except me) agrees that this is an accurate observation.

Why, then, has there been such an uproar over possible loss of the Gold Done? It's also very much an "out of the ordinary work" even though it's never received an architectural award or been featured in an East Coast museum, yet enough of the city's population seems to value it enough to assure that it remains not only in existence, but functional.

Perhaps the public perception of Stage Center could be better understood by knowing a bit of its history, as well as that of its original patron, the Mayde Mack Mummers. The Mummers began as a true community theater, and financed its winter season by doing tent shows at Will Rogers Park all summer. I happened to participate somewhat in that summer activity one year, due to my friendship with one Art Johnson (we roomed at the same boarding house near OU's Campus Corner). He played the villain in some of the old-time "mellerdrammers" while I stayed backstage and took photos from the wings.

These summer shows were always quite well received, and provided enough income (the cast members got no pay, nor did anyone else involved except for the professional director) to allow winter seasons. The winter productions were always rather avant garde, but thanks to the subsidy from the tent show and to volunteer casts, managed to be somewhat successful.

So successful were they, in fact, that the group caught the attention of the Ford Foundation and qualified for a grant to establish a permanent home for themselves. The result was what is now Stage Center, and the tent show was no more. All productions became like the winter season, and "theater in the round" was so unfamiliar to our general public that attendance dropped off significantly. It's worthy of note that other venues and touring road shows remained quite popular.

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

[AP]

Looks as if most everyone (except me) agrees that this is an accurate observation.

Why, then, has there been such an uproar over possible loss of the Gold Done? It's also very much an "out of the ordinary work" even though it's never received an architectural award or been featured in an East Coast museum, yet enough of the city's population seems to value it enough to assure that it remains not only in existence, but functional.

Perhaps the public perception of Stage Center could be better understood by knowing a bit of its history, as well as that of its original patron, the Mayde Mack Mummers. The Mummers began as a true community theater, and financed its winter season by doing tent shows at Will Rogers Park all summer. I happened to participate somewhat in that summer activity one year, due to my friendship with one Art Johnson (we roomed at the same boarding house near OU's Campus Corner). He played the villain in some of the old-time "mellerdrammers" while I stayed backstage and took photos from the wings.

These summer shows were always quite well received, and provided enough income (the cast members got no pay, nor did anyone else involved except for the professional director) to allow winter seasons. The winter productions were always rather avant garde, but thanks to the subsidy from the tent show and to volunteer casts, managed to be somewhat successful.

So successful were they, in fact, that the group caught the attention of the Ford Foundation and qualified for a grant to establish a permanent home for themselves. The result was what is now Stage Center, and the tent show was no more. All productions became like the winter season, and "theater in the round" was so unfamiliar to our general public that attendance dropped off significantly. It's worthy of note that other venues and touring road shows remained quite popular.

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

Thanks for this. I feel like it's such an easy way out to say that OKC has a "very narrow" definition of creativity. How stereotypical and insulting, honestly.

[Doug Loudenback]

Although my present opinion is not fixed, I am presently inclined to join those of you who say that Stage Center can bite the dust.

Surely, it does represent something in Oklahoma City's recent past that is bold and daring and possesses unique features not to be otherwise found. Your thought, Nick, strikes a chord in me that finds some resonance ... leave the building there and make something of a monument out of it. That said, I'm less sure of what it might be a monument to ... to a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright, John Johansen, I guess. With respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright. More, aside from this single building, I'm not aware of any other connectivity that Johansen has with Oklahoma City.

As to property itself, it certainly does not possess the beauty of the Price Tower in B'Ville, done by none other than Wright, himself ... not by a protege, but the master himself. It is important to B'Ville because it was done by Wright. Were the Price Tower to have been done by Johansen instead of Wright, I doubt that B'Villians would see it to have the same significance to their city.

Other than the building itself and just "being there," it's hard to see that Stage Center has any connectivity to Oklahoma City's history, beginning with the Land Run and coming forward (I'm not talking about the Mummers history, but the building itself as a piece of architecture). The one possible exception is that it does have connectivity to the Pei Plan which, of course, didn't turn out so well for all kinds of reasons. In its style, the building's design connotes nothing which captures or involves the city's spirit or heritage up to the point in time that it was built ... at least, nothing that I can presently see. And I don't suppose that many, if any, would see Stage Center as something the city would want to emulate as a model of the Oklahoma City which is yet to be or become.

As to its practical design, had the property been engineered to embrace practical and survivability issues in an urban environment, it might be different. Were that to have been done, the property's potential uses might have been broader than have proven to be the case ... more, its intended use could have been more welcomed than the theatrical tenants who occupied the space seemed to say that it was. Perhaps it could be repurposed and put to some beneficial use other than just "being there." But, apparently, that is not the case, or so it seems.

As far as saving Stage Center as "monument" is concerned, if Johansen has/had the same stature as Wright, again, I might see the matter differently. But, with respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright.

A case in point is the Robie House at the University of Chicago, it having been preserved at that locale. I've been there and enjoyed a tour of Robie House several years ago. In it are the items of furniture that Wright also designed and built. If you've ever sat in one of his chairs, YOU KNOW that, given a choice, you would not to sit in such a chair in your own home. They are just too damned uncomfortable. But, again, since Wright designed Robie House and its furniture, and since Wright has had such an influence on architecture, you might want to have one of his chairs in your home, just to put it on display and say you have one. If you did, you would perhaps warn your guests that, "you will probably be uncomfortable while sitting in that chair, but you will also get a taste of architectural history when you do." Or something like that.

I just don't presently see that Johansen's work, award winning that it is, falls into the Wright category.

On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

[Cocaine]

That video really reminds me how much I'm gonna miss this building. I'm pretty sure I went on field trips to the stage center every year during elementary school. I don't think the stage center can saved mostly because of the fact that I don't think much can be done to oppose the new owners of the site. They can always say well we could just f-ing leave and build this in another city (even though they could build it like 3 or 4 blocks away).

[adaniel]

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

I agree with this. I was quite surprised in the rather negative reaction I received from the person I know who works in a local theater group when I told her it was to be demolished. She wasn't really all that upset, and her group really did not care for the layout or use of the center at all. Furthermore, lost in all of this is that should the Stage Center be saved and made into something else, it will require millions in land work to remedy the constant flooding of the site. If I am correct, this was not included in the $30 million estimate.

But you bring up a good point. Great buildings must look nice and function. The reason the Stage Center doesn't work is it does not function well. It must have something to sustain itself. Its the cold hard truth. The Film Exchange could be renovated into offices an income generating museum. The Gold Dome can be cleaned up and made into offices or event space. The Stage Center? Well, if the theater groups don't want it or can't use it, then what? I guess some of it could be disassembled and moved somewhere else; but to leave it as a work of "public art" and nothing else is just silly and part of the reason its in the shape its in.

On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

Just short hand real estate talk for speculative tower; meaning the space is being built to be marketed for lease on the open market. Of course we all know that this will likely not be 100% spec space.

[Spartan]

Although my present opinion is not fixed, I am presently inclined to join those of you who say that Stage Center can bite the dust.

Surely, it does represent something in Oklahoma City's recent past that is bold and daring and possesses unique features not to be otherwise found. Your thought, Nick, strikes a chord in me that finds some resonance ... leave the building there and make something of a monument out of it. That said, I'm less sure of what it might be a monument to ... to a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright, John Johansen, I guess. With respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright. More, aside from this single building, I'm not aware of any other connectivity that Johansen has with Oklahoma City.

As to property itself, it certainly does not possess the beauty of the Price Tower in B'Ville, done by none other than Wright, himself ... not by a protege, but the master himself. It is important to B'Ville because it was done by Wright. Were the Price Tower to have been done by Johansen instead of Wright, I doubt that B'Villians would see it to have the same significance to their city.

Other than the building itself and just "being there," it's hard to see that Stage Center has any connectivity to Oklahoma City's history, beginning with the Land Run and coming forward (I'm not talking about the Mummers history, but the building itself as a piece of architecture). The one possible exception is that it does have connectivity to the Pei Plan which, of course, didn't turn out so well for all kinds of reasons. In its style, the building's design connotes nothing which captures or involves the city's spirit or heritage up to the point in time that it was built ... at least, nothing that I can presently see. And I don't suppose that many, if any, would see Stage Center as something the city would want to emulate as a model of the Oklahoma City which is yet to be or become.

As to its practical design, had the property been engineered to embrace practical and survivability issues in an urban environment, it might be different. Were that to have been done, the property's potential uses might have been broader than have proven to be the case ... more, its intended use could have been more welcomed than the theatrical tenants who occupied the space seemed to say that it was. Perhaps it could be repurposed and put to some beneficial use other than just "being there." But, apparently, that is not the case, or so it seems.

As far as saving Stage Center as "monument" is concerned, if Johansen has/had the same stature as Wright, again, I might see the matter differently. But, with respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright.

A case in point is the Robie House at the University of Chicago, it having been preserved at that locale. I've been there and enjoyed a tour of Robie House several years ago. In it are the items of furniture that Wright also designed and built. If you've ever sat in one of his chairs, YOU KNOW that, given a choice, you would not to sit in such a chair in your own home. They are just too damned uncomfortable. But, again, since Wright designed Robie House and its furniture, and since Wright has had such an influence on architecture, you might want to have one of his chairs in your home, just to put it on display and say you have one. If you did, you would perhaps warn your guests that, "you will probably be uncomfortable while sitting in that chair, but you will also get a taste of architectural history when you do." Or something like that.

I just don't presently see that Johansen's work, award winning that it is, falls into the Wright category.

On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

Doug, I'm not saying this has anything to do with John Johansen. To be honest I couldn't tell you another one of his works, and not many people could, because Stage Center was his masterpiece. This is about an architectural movement, about OKC's struggle with high design, about how OKC is displayed in New York museums, and building an environment of creativity and culture. Stage Center is more OKC's than John Johansen's.

Doug, I think OKC's younger generations, including your grand children and the family members we all want to come back to live in Oklahoma, would appreciate the Stage Center in the future. This building adds creativity and intrinsic value to the surrounding cityscape.

As for a spec tower (as in market speculation), that would be a real estate development that instead of being built for a client or by the owner (like Devon Tower), this is being built by a developer who will solicit several different tenants. Rainey Williams will be involved in the Enogex-Centerpoint MLP formation in determining whether OKC or Houston will win the HQ, but in the event it goes to Houston, Williams will still build a spec tower to avoid the specter of public rejection for OKC. It's a smart plan for the ED play, but I don't think anybody wants to see the spec tower we'd get if the deal falls through..

[stlokc]

This has been such an interesting thread to read. I wish all the threads on this board were as intelligent, reasoned and respectful as this one.

[bchris02]

I was saying this tower announcement is likely something that you are used to. I wasn't aware that Charlottes building had entirely come to a stop.

Yeah, I actually wasn't living in Charlotte during the boom. In the Late '00s there were some towers that were started but never finished and simply abandoned and left unfinished when the financial crisis happened.

[G.Walker]

I honestly think this project was not ready to be announced. But with the sale of such a controversial piece of property, and it being public information, it could not be kept a secret any longer. Rainey Williams had to say something to let the public know, and probably somewhat pressured in making comments on the plans. With the announcement being so vague, a lot is still up in the air, I would rather have waited another 90 days for more solid information. It's easy to take shots at the developer without seeing finished plans, so let's give Mr. Williams the benefit of the doubt and see what he comes up with before we are so quick to write off his development.

[bchris02]

Now this would be cool

I am not sure. It's too NW Expresswayish for my tastes. The towers are nice but I would rather see them up against the street with retail/dining on the ground floor.

I think it would be cool to get a tower, no matter the size, with a pointed crown. That would do wonders for our skyline.