Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[jn1780]

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.

[jn1780]

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'.

[David]

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.

[Pete]

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!

[Richard at Remax]

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.

[Bellaboo]

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 ?

[jn1780]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[jccouger]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[Mississippi Blues]

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

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[Ryan]

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!

[bombermwc]

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.

[Ryan]

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

[bamarsha]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[jn1780]

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!"

[TheTravellers]

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

Just now you're wondering this?

[Anonymous.]

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.