Could OKC eventually have the tallest tower in the nation?

[JOHNINSOKC]

Since there has been a great deal of talk about a new signature tower for OKC, I was pondering the question of whether or not having the tallest tower in the nation could happen here in the future. Is it possible? Yes, but maybe not for another decade or two. Back in the early 20th century, OKC was the fastest growing city in the nation, and I've heard some say that OKC was going to be the New York City of mid-America. I think the growth of the DFW metroplex has kept that from happening, but you never know what is in store for this city in the future. I figure that if Nashville can build the third tallest in America, why couldn't OKC do something similar? The sky is the limit!

[Kerry]

I think Signature Tower in Nashville will be the 3rd tallest residential building. Still at over 1000' it will it will be a tall building. However, it will make the rest of Nashville seem small in comparison. For OKC I would prefer a building that was more in line with what we already have. Maybe 650' max.

[John]

I don't think it'd be appropriate to put a limit on how high anyone can build...

DTOKC could get in on the campaign: Build UP

[bombermwc]

Um...no. It really would look silly to have something that would be 5 times taller than anything downtown now. Besides, the one in Chicago is about to be the tallest in the world for the 5 minutes that always lasts. So why reach that goal if you know you won't keep it for very long anyway?

You really have to balance how well something will fit in with a magnificent vision like that. It's one thing to stand out, but to stand out like that would be more of an eyesore than cool.

[metro]

I don't know if I'd want it to be the tallest in the US, etc. It would make it a prime target for terrorists. While I do want several new towers, I am with the rest and say don't build it too much higher than the rest of ours. I say 750 would be nice, until we get more infill and a few other new towers.

[oudirtypop]

Not to sound pessimistic, but i dont think any new tower is headed to OKC and i dont think it will for a while. Towers come when space is limited. If you have driven anywhere around OKC, space is not even close to limited. 650 feet, 750 feet, over 1000 feet, i dont care. i think any tower would be awesome for OKC, but i dont think that kind of economy is here. Chesapeake has their campus, Devon doesnt want a 70 story building, and kerr mcgee left the city. There are some great corporations here, but we need a large national corporation for something to be serious.

Just my thoughts.

[Midtowner]

dirty,

While a tower may be more expensive to build than an expansive corporate campus, it is at the same time far more cost-effective (if you can get a good deal on parking which doesn't seem to be a problem for any large company in the downtown area). With campus facilities, overhead and maintenance are HUGE. One must hire an army of groundskeepers, maintenance workers, etc. For a tower? It's all right there under one roof. Everyone is right in the same spot. Interdepartmental activities require far less coordination. Having someone give the same presentation to 7 groups of employees in 2 hours or so isn't an impossibility.

Also, towers make a company far more visible than expansive corporate campuses do.

I don't think we're set to get the tallest tower in the nation anytime soon. I really wouldn't want it for that matter. I'd like something to compliment the other buildings in our skyline.. not to make them look smallish.

[OKC PATROL]

I think building a tower that size is obviously silly like others have mentioned....The BOK tower in Tulsa would be an appropriate example, not architecture but size, to start with. Then we step up to a 60 story and so on.

Does anyone think its a bit odd that our towers are all almost the same height?

I have always thought WHY? Why didnt our companies wake up and realize that putting another 10 stories of office space is NOT that big of a deal ...especially when you build a major tower that changes the skyline of a city and represents YOUR company. Forget about filling up office space??? . Kerr tower should have been 40 stories. Oklahoma tower should have been around 45 and chase tower(Liberty I say) should have been 55. Just goes to show you that an artist with a MFA should be in charge of SIM CITY DESIGNS. I mean come on...MIX IT UP A LITTLE MORONS.....

[OU Adonis]

Does anyone know how much a 60 story tower would run?

[redland]

Back in the early 20th century, OKC was the fastest growing city in the nation, and I've heard some say that OKC was going to be the New York City of mid-America.

Yes, following World War I it became apparent that there would be a major metropolis between Kansas City and the Mexican border. At that time Oklahoma City and Dallas were roughly the same size (in 1930, for instance, Dallas was ahead by only about 50,000), but Dallas had the salesmanship that OKC at that time lacked and we all know what happened.
As for any new tower (and I fervently hope for one), I would rather have one that is only moderately taller than Chase rather than one that would be completely out of proportion---skyline is partly about shape and not just about height.

[HOT ROD]

I think Signature Tower in Nashville will be the 3rd tallest residential building. Still at over 1000' it will it will be a tall building. However, it will make the rest of Nashville seem small in comparison. For OKC I would prefer a building that was more in line with what we already have. Maybe 650' max.

Yeah, Chicago alone has 5 skyscrapers taller than that, with at least 3 more under costruction that will be taller, and at least 3 or so that are approved/proposed that will be taller (including the 2000 foot Chicago Spire, which would be the world's tallest - return BACK to Chicago), and countless others who are JUST below 1000'.

but yeah - nevertheless, kudos to Nashville.

As for OKC, I think we should focus on the state and region first b4 we try to tackle Chicago and New York. We need MUCH MORE DENSITY and a functional downtown to compete!

As for OKC's tower hopes, KMG tower was just purchased by SandRidge and FNC is getting updated and no doubt will fill with law firms, accountants, and specialty service firms - just what downtown needs. This will put the squeeze on Devon and other corporation(s) the city is dealing with to build towers downtown (or at least lease from one/some built by a developer). I anticipate at least a new tower u/c by 2010.

As for size, I thing OKC needs a new signature tower. 600 feet does not appear too much taller than 500 feet (compare Chase at 504 feet vs. FNC at 425 feet - not too much taller or out-of-whack). And I think even a 700 foot tower would be perfect for the city (and take the title back for the state) - it would be only 200 feet taller than chase, and hopefully would be architecturally significant. Im hoping it will be a glass tower with reflective glazing (neon outline at night). This alone would do WONDERS for downtown and Oklahoma City without taking away from the existing urban expanse that downtown is.

A 700 foot, 63 storey tower would take all of the titles away from Tulsa (highest in the state and highest number of floors) but I'd settle for highest in the state if there were a choice (Tulsa can keep the 62-storey record). Like I said, 700 feet is only 200 higher than Chase, it would look like a monument moreso than an out-of-whack skyscraper. After this one, we could shoot for 800 feet or so. I dont think OKC would go too much higher than that without a tremendous influx of jobs.

I have an idea for the aformentioned, team up and market OKC to Chicago and New York - as a back-office city. These surely are office jobs, where data is maintained and a 2nd headquarters of sorts exists in case of "problems!!" OKC is perfect for this, Tampa has benefitted and so has Atlanta - both were backoffice cities that now hold their own. OKC's central location and "cheap" land downtown (and white collar educated workforce) should be a sure fit selling point. The city should run with this, gear up the educational circles, get developers in line with master plans for towers downtown (and maybe a few more in the NW Business District also since we have 2 downtowns in OKC), and develop synergy between the academic and economic resources that exist at OCU/OU/OCCC/OSUOKC/SNU so on vs. the business community (and hopefully rapidly expanding at that). With this approach, OKC grows and becomes a more important business location - resulting in more flights, more people residing in OKC, more people doing business in OKC, more conventions, more things to do in OKC - possibly getting another major league franchise to 2nd the NBA's soon impending arrival, once the metro population reaches 2M.

I see great things, build it - and they might come. But market the city, and they surely will come!!!!!! At least an office (which is better than nothing). Heck, we could even "steal" offices away from DFW and Houston due to their 'saturation'. Now that would surely be a huge renaissance.

[OU Adonis]

We need something. I would love to see the OKC population grow like PHX or some other cities.

[bombermwc]

I read an article the other day about how high rent was getting in big cities....now is the perfect time to try and attract companies here to our cheaper rents, lack of traffic, and cleaner air! Those reasons are exactlly why that software company is moving into 50 Penn Place from NYC. We just need to get some more effort going on attracting more groups like that.

If we get some more of this sort of development moving, then I bet we would see a surge in the need for more space...ie new tower!!

[Pete]

The way Dallas, Atlanta and Phoenix all became boom towns were they suddenly had critical mass to start luring companies from larger, colder, more expensive cities.

Critical mass meaning good airports and air service, cultural amenities, perception of being a 'big league town', lots of relatively inexpensive office space and housing, etc.

I think OKC is getting close to being in a similar position. You have to ask yourself, which city will be the next Charlotte or Las Vegas? I don't think there is anyone better positioned than Oklahoma City, especially with the constant buzz being generated.

[jbrown84]

Yes, it's an exciting time for OKC.

[dismayed]

We can boast the lowest rent or lowest taxes in the nation and that still won't bring the companies to this state. We need technologically skilled workers to attract more companies.

I was in Silicon Valley a few weeks ago. Many companies there are in the process of closing up shop and moving to... Austin, TX. I think we would do well to ask ourselves why that is.

[Midtowner]

Well said dismayed.

[dismayed]

Well darn. I edited the text because I thought I came on too strong. Perhaps I should have left it.

[Midtowner]

You were right in what you said. Oklahoma in general is seen as a very backwards state. This is primarily due to the fact that the state seems to produce some very backwards lawmakers. When they could be focusing on ways to really improve the economy, you have nutters like Tim Pope out there making robocalls about his client's opponent's support of the "gay agenda."

If those guys are allowed to set the agenda for Oklahoma, we'll have problems.

[AFCM]

Does anyone know how much a 60 story tower would run?

If it's in Oklahoma City, not nearly enough. Studies have shown that the average OKC resident doesn't get the recommended 20 minutes of exercise, three times a week. 60 stories seems a little big and you certainly don't get that large without sitting in one place for a long time.

[OU Adonis]

You were right in what you said. Oklahoma in general is seen as a very backwards state. This is primarily due to the fact that the state seems to produce some very backwards lawmakers. When they could be focusing on ways to really improve the economy, you have nutters like Tim Pope out there making robocalls about his client's opponent's support of the "gay agenda."

If those guys are allowed to set the agenda for Oklahoma, we'll have problems.

You can't be serious to think that companies don't come here because there are lawmakers that don't support gay rights.

[Midtowner]

You can't be serious to think that companies don't come here because there are lawmakers that don't support gay rights.

There have been studies which have reached that conclusion. Ever hear of the "creative class"?

Is it any coincidence that cities which are generally known for their tolerance are growing faster and growing richer at a much quicker rate than cities who are known for intolerance?

This idea is certainly nothing new. A city that wants to grow needs to embrace diversity instead of be threatened by it.

[dismayed]

To bring up what I edited out of my last post in this thread, basically what I was saying was that no large company is going to relocate to OKC because we have lower taxes, a cheaper economy, or tasty drinking water. It just doesn't happen. If you look at the movement of "high tech" companies over the last several years, it almost always boils down to one of two reasons: 1. a merger/buyout ends with one side having to relocate to the other, or 2. a company moves to get closer to its customer or supplier, to its competitors or collaborators, or moves to get closer to a base of people that it can potentially employ. That's really pretty much it.

If you look at that list, the only thing public policy can really address is stuff relating to creating industries here or bases of people that industries will want to take advantage of. So the big question OKC needs to ask itself is this: how do we attract "high tech" (be it software, aerospace, or biotechnology) workers? If you look at the cities these people inhabit, they are pretty forward-thinking places. How do you get people who are used to a certain quality of life and open minded society in Seattle, Portland, San Franscisco, Boston, or other places to want to follow their company and relocate? It's very difficult.

I mentioned that I was in Silicon Valley and companies were moving to Austin and their people were actually following them. Why? Austin has a reputation for being a very fun, modern, and cool city.

So long as this city remains the ultra conservative cornballfest that it is you are never going to see someone from any of these other places relocate here. Am I saying the city needs to change its political affiliation to attract high tech workers? Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that this city has to find a way to diversify itself, its interests, and its attractions to attract a wide range of people. We need a city that is intellectually challenging if we are to attract people whose job it is to create intellectual property. Art, music, film, etc. are all important to workers of these industries... that's why companies are moving to places like the "live music capital of the world."

I've worked for a few companies that tried to relocate folks from other places out here to the plains states. If you can't get people to move here, you end up having to hire locally for a job. When you do that, at some point you completely tap out the available workforce. Without cross-pollination from people from other places in the country, your company won't be able to sustain the collaboration that intellectual properties need now days, and eventually things either end in disaster or you remain isolated forever.

So OKC, how do we become a place where people from all over, from all different viewpoints and ideas will want to come to?

[Midtowner]

dismayed,

I'm very optimistic that the people attracted to this city by the core-to-shore and other downtown developments will be the forward thinking sorts we need to create an environment to really incubate a creative class enclave on the great plains.

Aside from developers' dollars, I think this is why city leaders place such a high priority in the success of this project. OKC is in a unique position in that we have the opportunity to build a really awesome place to live, work and possibly raise a family. We can either half-ass it or we can do something truly world-class.

I want our city fathers to choose a core-to-shore option that makes the people of this city exclaim "That's crazy! That'll never work! It's too ambitious!"

I want them to choose something which makes MAPS look comparatively suburban. I don't care what it costs. Oklahoma City has shot itself in the foot over and over again over the last 50 years. To reverse that trend, we have to do something pretty radical.

[BDP]

You can't be serious to think that companies don't come here because there are lawmakers that don't support gay rights.

You'd be surprised at what gets discussed in relocation deliberations. These people know that 1) some of them will have to live where the company relocates and 2) that the company's image will be associated with the market to which it relocates. Most companies do not see any merit to locating in an area that is known for intolerance and bigotry. Not only can it superficially hurt its image, but it can also REALLY hurt its recruiting. Cost savings are great, but if you don't have the talent, you will get killed in the marketplace.

Now, this isn't to say that this is the deciding factor for any company out there, but it doesn't help us at all, especially in a close race. Companies usually have dozens of viable choices of where to locate their corporate offices. Why would they want to locate in an area where the legislature is more concerned with restricting the rights of their potential work force than fostering a well rounded economy that welcomes all qualified workers? You know, they could just as easily go elsewhere where they don't have to worry about that crap and get on with business. And guess what? They usually do.

This is actually been proven over and over and no study is needed to make it obvious. You don't have to be a genius to look at the years of cost of doing business advantage Oklahoma has held over much of the nation and notice that something else is making these decisions for the businesses. Everyone is kidding themselves if they think businesses make these decisions on cost savings alone. Oklahoma City would have been attracting companies from all of the country years ago. Lifestyle and available talent in the local work force seem to win out more often than not.