OG&E Tower

[coov23]

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!

In the words of the great Ron Burgondy, "my that escalated quickly!"

[OKCRT]

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!

No we don't have to do that Steve. But if we are going to tear down a structure on a PRIME PIECE of property downtown then we should get a world class tower in it's place. The project that they are proposing doesn't do that and this type of project fits better out on NW Expressway or maybe up by the Regency.

[catcherinthewry]

All I am saying is we need sine skyline changing buildings that are significant.

I think you went off on a tangent there.

[pw405]

I think you went off on a tangent there.

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

[UnFrSaKn]

Let's also tear down the Civic Center Music Hall, City Hall, Courthouse, Skirvin, Oklahoman Building (NW 4 and Broadway) and the old U.S. Post Office. They're not tall enough for the folks at OKC Talk! If these buildings aren't at least 40 stories high, they're crap!

[catcherinthewry]

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

[Steve]

Isn't escalation and erection the topic at hand?

[Snowman]

Maybe if Raney had a cosiner he could get a loan for a 400 ft tall tower!!!!!!!

Realistically if he thought he had a market for that kind of space, there is a good chance it would be more efficient to add a third tower in some of the rooftop garden space than stack all the new space on what is already the larger of the two towers

[Spartan]

^ This...you can't make up your own definition for supertall...it already has a definition: any building 300 meters or taller. Neither midland, Nashville, Austin, nor Charlotte have one.

supertall building - definition | meaning | description | PSC #4198457539 - Phorio Standards

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :P

[OKCisOK4me]

Mudland, math & Viagra. Boy this thread has derailed big time. Where's Torea so he can toot some horns? Lol

[PhiAlpha]

This is the US and we don't talk metrics.

Anyways,this Tower "not really a tower IMO" will not even be as tall as the regency. Scrap it and start over on this prime area. This is simply not good enough. A couple of small buildings will add nothing to the skyline. Move it to NW Expressway and they will fit right in. Rainey needs to stay out of downtown with this crap.

Ah, well let me take the next step and google the conversion for you....

Let me google that for you

Still doesn't change my point.

[soonerguru]

I drove past the Stage Center site today and have concluded I would rather have two > 20 story towers as opposed to one 40-story tower. For one, a large tower there would dwarf the new elementary school. As Steve has pointed out numerous times, the concept we have seen is not the actual design. I'm going to choose to remain optimistic that Mr. Williams' comment that this construction will be "world class" is going to happen. I will remain optimistic until proven otherwise.

[architect5311]

It's not that Rainey isn't living up to the expectations of OKCTalk members. It's the fact that he isn't living up to what he said he was going to do when the tower was announced back in July. If he's scaled it down this much between then and now, how much more is he going to scale it down AFTER the demolition of the Stage Center?

Scary thought...

Rememeber this project in Tulsa?

Proposed





Built

[Steve]

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

[bchris02]

Scary thought...

Rememeber this project in Tulsa?

Proposed


Built

That really reminds me of Lower Bricktown.

Proposed:



Built:



Let's hope the Stage Center Tower doesn't turn into something like this before all is said and done.

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe someday we'll be as world class as Mudland and then Plutonic Panda will be happy. Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he will actually be able to see the Mudland Energy Tower from Edmond (if he goes up to his treehouse), which alone should placate him/her especially knowing that the tower in no way will contribute to street riffraff.

Sorry that was mean, but it's after Christmas so I can be a douche :P

Oh boy, you sure know how to make a statement, huh? I wish I cold be as mature as you, ah shucks, who am I kiddin'..... maybe one day though

[Plutonic Panda]

Anyways, my point is made. This building should at least be 25 stories tall in my opinion. I love height and tall buildings; I know, I know, I'm a horrible anti-urbanist person and the anti-spartan(unless we're playing Halo).

[catch22]

What's the difference between 24 stories and 25?

What is the qualification for where the line is drawn.

For me (and other realistic folks) the line is drawn at street interaction and site plan, as well as architectural style blending in to the surrounding area.

If they wanted to build a 60 floor building with horrible street interaction, I'd be furious. We'd be replacing a horrible site plan with another horrible site plan, further walling off the west side of downtown.

[Spartan]

Oh boy, you sure know how to make a statement, huh? I wish I cold be as mature as you, ah shucks, who am I kiddin'..... maybe one day though

You're the guy who doesn't like any urban development not visible from Edmond

[bchris02]

I don't necessarily understand what is so bad about wanting another tower that has a prominent position on the skyline. I know skyscrapers aren't really something you can simply wish for and they happen but I still think it would be nice. Our skyline from the south and west really needs another tower to balance it out. The future of downtown can be both skyscrapers and midrises with excellent street interaction. Too many times it seems like people think it always has to be one or the other.

[Pete]

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article today:

Developer Rainey Williams, president of Kestrel Investments, said he knew he might face resistance to tearing down Stage Center when Kestrel purchased the theater property, but he believes the building has outlived its purpose.

“It's reached the end of its useful life,” Williams said. “We're excited to be building something that will be an active, useful space that everyone in Oklahoma City can enjoy.”

The Downtown Design Review Committee is slated to consider whether to approve the theater demolition at its next meeting Jan. 16. As of last week, the city has received no formal protest to the demolition, according to the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.

[Pete]

Tulsa does not have Downtown Design Review statutes. That's why I keep asking - will Williams be required to show actual architectural finish renderings, and not conceptual modeling renderings, before demolition of Stage Center is permitted. Because that's what would prevent a situation like the one you cite with Tulsa (and earlier with Randy Hogan in Lower Bricktown, which also did not fall under any design ordinance).

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article today:

Developer Rainey Williams, president of Kestrel Investments, said he knew he might face resistance to tearing down Stage Center when Kestrel purchased the theater property, but he believes the building has outlived its purpose.

“It's reached the end of its useful life,” Williams said. “We're excited to be building something that will be an active, useful space that everyone in Oklahoma City can enjoy.”

The Downtown Design Review Committee is slated to consider whether to approve the theater demolition at its next meeting Jan. 16. As of last week, the city has received no formal protest to the demolition, according to the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.


If Williams is not even planning on breaking ground until 2015, there is no rush to demolish this building -- which should only take a couple of weeks -- before specific plans can be developed and submitted along with the demo application.

[betts]

It's a very good point, especially since they are talking about demolishing a significant structure.

In Brianna Bailey's article today:



This is absolutely not what is shown in the preliminary plans, so if a big part of his proposal and promise is that Stage Center will be replaced by "an active, useful space that everyone in OKC can enjoy" then we need to know what exactly what he means by that. Because as of now, all that is shown is a smallish retail/restaurant area on the first floor of the east building.


If Williams is not even planning on breaking ground until 2015, there is no rush to demolish this building -- which should only take a couple of weeks -- before specific plans can be developed and submitted along with the demo application.

Thank you for bringing up these points. Also, we've seen plenty of planned developments not come to fruition. All we need is another sad surface parking lot. I wince every time I go past the site of the Hale building, and that was nothing compared to the Stage Center building.

[Spartan]

Betts is spot on about a VALID concern. We are still stupidly clearing sites just for fuzzy notions of redevelopment. What happened there is some fuzzy LLC basically cleared an iconic small scale historic building just so that they can sell the site to someone else for more. We need to demand for people to put up about their real intentions by only issuing demo permits w construction permits, after financing is proven to be in place.

How do we know RW isn't just planning a parking garage venture here? The tower does seem to be an excuse to build the largest public parking garage yet in downtown, which isn't what I had in mind for this land.

Pete is also right that we need to take a critical inventory of what is the real mixed use space included in this development. Is this second tower legit? How much parking again does he want to build? And so on.

I don't necessarily understand what is so bad about wanting another tower that has a prominent position on the skyline. I know skyscrapers aren't really something you can simply wish for and they happen but I still think it would be nice. Our skyline from the south and west really needs another tower to balance it out. The future of downtown can be both skyscrapers and midrises with excellent street interaction. Too many times it seems like people think it always has to be one or the other.

It's kind of whimsical to see this perspective now attempt a negative equivalency argument: "I don't see what's wrong with another skyscraper on this site geez."

Except "another skyscraper on this site" wasn't proposed, you're the ones with an issue over pen...sorry tower size, not us. I am getting so sick and tired of this mystery tower phenomenon and all of these naive, unintelligent people coming out of the wood work and shrouding the real, serious issues here. There I said it.

[Urbanized]

Weren't there some concerns regarding a very tall structure on the (in this case) west side of MBG blocking sunlight? Was this possibly a factor in the design and the decision to pursue multiple shorter towers rather than a single very tall one? Is it possible that this is the case but at this point has been poorly-communicated publicly? I don't have any insight here; merely wondering.