Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[HOT ROD]

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.

[HOT ROD]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[stlokc]

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.

[JOHNOKC25]

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.

[bison34]

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.

[JOHNOKC25]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Laramie]

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.