OG&E Tower

[HangryHippo]

Where has anybody been seriously advocating saving/preserving Stage Center in this thread for many months and probably dozens of pages? I think most people have come to terms with the demolition. Why all of the hatred? Don't worry; it will be gone soon enough and it will no longer have such a devastatingly horrific impact on your day-to-day life.

Melodrama, my favorite! Stage Center is ugly and dysfunctional and there is something better waiting on the land. Time to let it go.

[HangryHippo]

we'd easily be looking at a 30+ story tower with amazing street level interaction and public use.

What exactly constitutes amazing street level interaction? Can you show me a corporate headquarters building that has it so I can see what this OG&E proposal is missing?

[soonerguru]

It that REALLY what you want though? There is absolutely 0 point in arguing what zoning laws require. Those are cut and dry. Somebody can post those laws and we can be done with that discussion.

This is about what this property should have. If your ok with somebody developing the most desirable property in OKC at the bare minimum because they are allowed to do it then that is on you and your conscious my friend.

Some of us dream bigger than just ok, and I realize you are old and haven't experienced a renaissance like OKC is going through now. But things are VERY different over the last 5 years then ever before here, so your old ideologies of just accepting whatever is thrown on your plate just because it meets your daily nutritional requirements are an old school of thought around these parts brother.

This is really rude. And you haven't been posting here long because if you had, you would know that Jim Kyle has seen many great periods in OKC history. This makes you come across like a snot-nosed kid.

[jccouger]

What exactly constitutes amazing street level interaction? Can you show me a corporate headquarters building that has it so I can see what this OG&E proposal is missing?

I'm no expert on that. However, I think JTF could answer that and provide you with amazing examples.

The point I was trying to make is, OKC is booming at an incredible rate with a unsatisfied demand (proven by the fact that Steve is following multiple tower projects currently) and the stage center property is so valuable that there is a developer out there that would turn this land in to something that we would all agree is a fabulous project (some people think height is most important, some people think street interaction is most important, some people think public use is most important). There is little to no doubt in my mind this is fact. And there were multiple bids placed on this property to back that theory up.

[jccouger]

This is really rude. And you haven't been posting here long because if you had, you would know that Jim Kyle has seen many great periods in OKC history. This makes you come across like a snot-nosed kid

My reply was to Kevin Pate, not Jim Kyle. I really appreciated Jim Kyle's reply to my post. Keven Pate replied to me saying my argument was completely made up so I did reply with a rude remark. Didn't mean to offend all old people, though I probably did and I'm sorry to those I didn't intend to offend.

I was just trying to say, that passing the bare minimum is no longer good enough for OKC during the greatest economical and cultural boom time in our cities history. It just came off as rude because that was my intention after a rude remark was directed at me. And I'm not sorry for directing that remark and Kevin.

[Jim Kyle]

I have no doubt at all that this was and is an insider deal. My point is that such insider deals are responsible for just about all of the urbanism this city has had throughout its almost 125-year life. And that lifespan is less than half that of such "peer cities" as St. Louis, Dallas, or any eastern metropolis. Plus the fact that we "dreamed bigger" in the 1970s and wiped the slate of history clean so that we could start over -- and what we got was plenty of surface perking lots!

Classen Boulevard came into existence to help Anton Classen sell real estate out in what were then the suburbs. He even went so far as to finance the street cars to make his lots more attractive. That was 110 years ago. Need other examples? Google for "Doug Dawg" (with the quotes) to locate more history of OKC than I've ever seen anywhere else...

[sgt. pepper]

I vote Pete closes this thread completely, this is getting ridiculous.

[HangryHippo]

I'm no expert on that. However, I think JTF could answer that and provide you with amazing examples.

With all due respect, I'm not asking JTF, I'm asking you. You're the one who keeps bringing up how short this project falls. What do YOU want to see? What constitutes the street interaction we're missing?

[OKCRT]

I vote for at least 35 stories on this site or let it sit empty.

[jccouger]

Honestly of all the components of a great development (at least the 3 I listed) it probably does the best job at street level interaction. Which is why JTF and all the other hardcore ubranists appear to actually approve of this development. I was saying that I think there is a developer out there that could incorporate all of the previously listed components.

As far as what I would like to see, It appears in the renderings to have some kind of electronic screen and I like that A LOT. I also think they should imprint the exit ramp and stage to the south in to the box structure to leave the California easement open, much like they did with the screen, or actually return it to an actual drivable street. There should be multiple points of retail and service business on ground floor that interact well with their surroundings. Specifically I'd like to see a restaurant, a business clothing store, a day care (for kids leaving school, but still waiting for their parents), a bike store, a broad range store like a urban target or wal mart. Things of that nature instead of just a wall of parking garage.

[dankrutka]

I vote it has an ice cream shop at ground level or no deal!

[OkieNate]

I vote Pete closes this thread completely, this is getting ridiculous.

What about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (IMO) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all Oklahomans or have a very strong tie to Oklahoma/OKC and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) Pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and I think everyone on here respects Pete too much to let it get carried away.

[OKCRT]

And a big red cherry on top.

Seriously though. 14-16 story building here is just nonsense. Never did anyone on this site think that someone would propose such a preposterous idea. You don't put a trailer house next door to the Taj

[sgt. pepper]

what about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (imo) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all oklahomans or have a very strong tie to oklahoma/okc and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and i think everyone on here respects pete too much to let it get carried away.

progressive thinking!!....lol lol rofl

[OkieNate]

progressive thinking!!....lol lol rofl

pro·gres·sive [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

Sorry, I assumed you knew what progressive meant. Yet, considering you suggested to shut down a public forum, for a reason you refuse to give or do not have, your response is not surprising.

[OKVision4U]

What about progressive thinking and open discussion is ridiculous to you? I honestly mean this with all due respect. For how much emotion people seem to be putting into this thread (including myself), it (IMO) has been discussed respectfully, considering the difference of opinion and that this is a internet forum where respect is few and far between. We are all Oklahomans or have a very strong tie to Oklahoma/OKC and just care and want whats best for our home. (whether we know what that is thats best or we our "dreamers".) Pete does a fantastic job of keeping people in check and I think everyone on here respects Pete too much to let it get carried away.

agreed. a healthy debate.

[kevinpate]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. And if you are young, drop the age silliness. If you are not, all the more reason to do so. the fake is to rail on how the public has a right to demand what goes on this private property in the way of development, and more specifically how it will look how tall it will be, an any other facet that seems to balance out whatever unfairness you have persuaded yourself exists in the acquisition of the property.

This isn't a public roadway where certain constraints are being ignored, which in large part is how the friends of the Blvd. made the headway they did.
This isn't a Devon situation, where a company with strong reserves came in and paid cash, plus loaned money out to make it all happen as fast as possible.
This isn't Continental, which though besides Devon is probably the most able, or at least one of the most able, groups to pull off a Devon size project, has no interest in doing so at the present.

This is a partial block development, that although its height won't make some folks drool on themselves for hours on end, will apparently be a solid addition to downtown.
At some point the remainder of the block, or other partial blocks nearby, may well have what the tape measure crowd needs to dust their wheaties.

Some of us do remember well what the core looked like and was before Norick got real dang serious and put his reputation on the line. And what it was like when we were only in OKC because we tagged along with parents or youth trips. So yeah, it's not merely the younger generation who can see the difference. Older farts, well many of us anyhow, have just outgrown the tape measure mentality and the often all too common sense of entitlement that is can be part and parcel of youthful exuberance.

I would not have an issue with a 30 or more story tower that also had interaction at the street level. I simply don't see where I or anyone else has a right to be demanding it happen or else the guy should have to sell the property or it should just sit until he will.

If it was a sweetheart deal, then it was. fact is, I don't care. If others do, then they should raise the capital and make an offer so damn compelling the owner can not walk away from it and then do what they want. Oh wait. that was tired,well, all except the raise enough money for a compelling offer part.

I'll leave the last word to you or others who think it is appropriate to demand others meet their desires despite having no skin in the game.

[jccouger]

If you have paid taxes in Oklahoma City then you have skin the game.

We have (as a population) invested heavily in all of the areas directly around this property, so therefore we have a right to speak our mind about how this land should be developed. We don't have the right to legally stop it, but we do have freedom of speech to raise our concerns with our investment. We aren't repaid monetarily, but with quality of life. And if this building doesn't improve my quality of life ("make me proud to have it in Oklahoma City" as Mr. Williams would say) then I don't want it taking up a spot that another developer would accomplish.

[BDP]

I want to stick with this question of "world class" - which is something Rainey Williams did promise. So, are we tying "world class" to height? Because if that's so, look down the street and tell me how height makes the 31-story Oklahoma Tower (now there's a mediocre design if I've ever saw one) better than the 22-story Leadership Square.
World class - well heck, that phrase is applied throughout the architecture community internationally to Stage Center.
I'm asking everyone again - do we really know what this development will look like? We know how it will be conceptually modeled and the site plan. But the exterior architectural finish IS NOT shown in the renderings provided so far. So how does anyone know whether it will be world class, unless the definition is set at height as what I'm sensing from many in this thread.
I keep asking, and I'll keep asking ... is DDRC being given enough information about this project to allow for demolition to continue?

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

[HangryHippo]

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

Excellent, excellent post!

[heyerdahl]

Also, can anybody name a city that has a great skyline but an otherwise poor downtown? I can't think of any except for possibly Tulsa. Towers add to urban feel and are excellent for placemaking just as much as good street interaction does from my experience.

I disagree with this premise. There is no correlation between an area's skyline and the quality of the neighborhood- except maybe that it's harder to have a good neighborhood in the presence of skyline-defining buildings. In my experience, you're better off staying away from the parts of cities that have skylines because they tend to be more boring, dead, bland, and corporate. I'd rather find myself in Lincoln Park instead of the Loop, Brooklyn instead of Wall Street, Montrose instead of DT Houston, Uptown instead of DT Dallas.

In contrast, one of the most boring city skylines is probably Portland, a city that is considered extremely unique because it actually has a vibrant and interesting downtown with tons of shopping, unlike almost every other American city. The most coveted cities in the world are in Europe. Skylines are a rarity in Europe, and wherever you do find a skyline, you'll find a part of town that is dead, quiet, and boring like La Defense or Canary Wharf.

It's not that you can't have a vibrant neighborhood with a good skyline- but they certainly aren't natural partners.

[Mississippi Blues]

I don't think we really know anything about this project at all. Whether what we do know is enough for the DDRC to approve demolition, I have no idea. I would actually be surprised to find out that there are any real use or aesthetic requirements for demolition in Oklahoma City, because I don't recall anyone being denied demolition for any reason really. I'm sure it's happened, but it seems every significant demolition request that I've followed was granted. There have been situations where design was an issue and it stalled or killed a project, and, as a result the site wasn't cleared, but I'm sure they could have easily demoed if they wanted to.

And, I don't think height is a factor in being world class. I don't even think tall buildings are needed for a city to be world class. Tall buildings can be world class, but it's never the height alone that makes it so, imo. The reality is that, when visiting cities with "world class" status, it's usually the neighborhoods, often comprised of mid rise and low rise buildings, along with the arts, services, and business community that contribute more to a city's standing and appeal to visitors and residents. San Francisco and LA were world class before they ever had a building over 250' and it's really the efforts of San Francisco to limit height and preserve buildings that makes it one of the most beautiful cities in the country. In fact, I'd say that its financial district skyline is the least appealing part of that city, with many skyscrapers of mediocre design. Boston doesn't have a single building taller than the Devon Tower and only a handful over 500', but it's neighborhoods kick ass. Even in Chicago, which has my favorite mix of high rise architecture, I usually find I'm spending most of time outside of the urban canyons of the loop. I mean, when I go there I spend a lot of time looking at the buildings and my favorite thing to do is the architecture tours on the river, but if that was all there was to do, I doubt I would have made more than one trip.

I certainly appreciate height, but I don't think Oklahoma City's shortcomings are due to its lack of tall structures. It's the gaping holes in its urban fabric and disconnected layout that are keeping it from really getting over that last hurdle. I feel like of some those areas are being addressed though. Honestly, when I hear people talking up Oklahoma City and how it's changed and what it's like to live here now, it's not the Devon Tower or the new larger hotels that people talk about. It's the stuff that actually adds to their lives like the emergence of Deep Deuce, Midtown, Plaza District, Uptown, and the Paseo. And, like many areas in many cities that are actually worth spending time in, none of these owe their appeal to a cluster of tall buildings.

Of course, I'm not going to complain if it ends up being taller, but, really, one could make a case that height limits not minimums would actually help fill out and connect downtown faster. If Williams builds a large spec building, there would be less need to develop other parts of downtown, as the square footage wouldn't be justified, unless a company just wanted to put their mark on the downtown landscape and completely customize the space for their needs. So, taller buildings could actually just mean more empty lots for longer, epseically in this case where you just shuffling people around and not actually adding people to the area (though the hotel and/or housing tower would add some people). Just something to think about.

However, based on what we know now (which is nothing), this development could be an iconic world class structure in both design and integration. It could completely change the way we think of the west side of downtown by serving as an anchor and a gateway with a unique design, nice shops, restaurants and an elevated green space open to the public. And I don't think it needs one more inch of height to do that. It could even be shorter. Of course, if could also be a cold and detached corporate super block that, for the public and adjacent downtown development, only serves as yet another large barrier from one part of downtown to another. And, in that case, making it taller would actually compound, not lessen, those negative effects.

Best post to date in this thread. Brilliantly said, BDP.

[Bellaboo]

On multiple occasions, I've walked my butt off all over old Rome. It's about 2 miles square. There's not a building over 6 floors high. Monuments and history galore, but not a tall building.

It's also where everyone wants to be.

This is an apples to oranges comparison, but the point is the height of buildings just are not that important.

[Bellaboo]

Originally Posted by bchris02
Also, can anybody name a city that has a great skyline but an otherwise poor downtown? I can't think of any except for possibly Tulsa. Towers add to urban feel and are excellent for placemaking just as much as good street interaction does from my experience.

Easy, New Orleans..... downtown is a bit dangerous, everyone goes to the French Quarter.

And they have a 60 story building too.

[Urbanized]

Melodrama, my favorite! Stage Center is ugly and dysfunctional and there is something better waiting on the land. Time to let it go.

Direct response to the post above mine. My post was not calling for preservation or retention. Why the need to reinforce how badly you want it torn down?