OG&E Tower

[sgt. pepper]

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.

6.
Getting all pissed off and crying like a little baby just because we don't get a 1000 ft. skyscraper "as promised".

[OkieNate]

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.

Agreed, best post to date on this thread. If this can be the anchor of the west side of downtown, with everything you mentioned included, then I know I can deal with not being able to see it from the east side of downtown.

[catcherinthewry]

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.

Of course you have the right to speak your mind, but being the owner of the property, RW has the right to completely ignore your opinion.

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.

^Definition of entitlement. I agree with Kevin Pate.

[stlokc]

I'm not going to repost BDP's post again, just want to echo that it's the best post to date on this thread. Ask yourself if Paris and Washington DC are "world class" cities. We should be so lucky in OKC.

[stlokc]

Also....I doubt very seriously there are more than a handful of people in the history of earth that have ever moved to a city specifically and only because of the height of their buildings. And if such people actually do exist, well, we could build 20 Devon Towers and they still wouldn't be moving to OKC.

[bchris02]

I think an urban experience is created by a combination of height and street interaction. I'm sorry, but OKC will never be a Paris or a Washington DC. Paris isn't really a comparison because its a European city and urban planning is different over there, but Washington DC is the only US city I can think of that truly feels urban and world class yet lacks a strong skyline. America's greatest cities, be it Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, etc all have both height AND excellent place-making to give them the complete package. What I am saying here is that in this point in OKC's development, height IS important, as is good street interaction.

[bchris02]

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

And they have a 60 story building too.

The New Orleans I am familiar with has an excellent, authentic downtown with great urban canyons. The French Quarter may be where the life is at, but it is situated much as Bricktown is to downtown OKC so it is still basically downtown. If you want to compare New Orleans' CBD vs Oklahoma City's CBD, New Orleans wins by a long shot.

[Mississippi Blues]

I'm not going to repost BDP's post again, just want to echo that it's the best post to date on this thread. Ask yourself if Paris and Washington DC are "world class" cities. We should be so lucky in OKC.

Berlin as well.

[Plutonic Panda]

No, Kevinpate is just living in the 'REAL' world....... not in fantasy dream land or Sim City.

If you want change, like he said, go to the council and speak your peace. The FBB group was very effective with the boulevard, but they went through the proper channels.

That is an invalid statement and used to twist things and promote someone-that thinks like you- to support your opinion. You know this and I just wanted to state that.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Kevin, I really respect what you have to say, but I must ask, you come across as someone who hates the Stage Center, may I ask why exactly? I've read your posts and got bits and pieces, but can you sum it up in a short(ish) paragraph.

I like the Stage Center, but I would trade it for a 25 story building, but anything less than that is just not worthy, imo.

[Bellaboo]

The New Orleans I am familiar with has an excellent, authentic downtown with great urban canyons. The French Quarter may be where the life is at, but it is situated much as Bricktown is to downtown OKC so it is still basically downtown. If you want to compare New Orleans' CBD vs Oklahoma City's CBD, New Orleans wins by a long shot.

Some of those buildings in the NO CBD are completely boarded up. In fact, I think it's either the 2nd or 3rd tallest has been empty pre Katrina.

[Bellaboo]

That is an invalid statement and used to twist things and promote someone-that thinks like you- to support your opinion. You know this and I just wanted to state that.

Nope, not at all. He knows who owns the property and RW has the right to do whatever he wants to with it as long as he follows the proper guide lines. Nobody has 'rights' to this property just because at one time or another they paid a tax in OKC.

It's great that we all have opinions, and that we express them, but some of this crap about height demanding is beyond compromise.

[kevinpate]

Kevin, I really respect what you have to say, but I must ask, you come across as someone who hates the Stage Center, may I ask why exactly? I've read your posts and got bits and pieces, but can you sum it up in a short(ish) paragraph.

I like the Stage Center, but I would trade it for a 25 story building, but anything less than that is just not worthy, imo.

There was a time I loved SC. Of course, there was a time it was a unique, functional structure. Not the best structure, but functional, utilized and quirky enough to draw some attention.
But then it ceased to be that. Whether that was intentional neglect, bad design, tragic accident, yada, yada, yada, what was once functional, expensive and less than perfection, but functional, become non-functional, and at that point, someone, somewhere made a decision to leave it to rot.

I don't hate the structure. I hate what happened to it. I hate that it wasn't loved enough to generate the funds to keep it functional. I hate that it wasn't maintained. I hate that it became something that rather than contribute to the arts became an eyesore that sucks funds away from the arts just to keep it secure and not become an urban camper man cave. I hate that there was no longer any serious interest to save it. I hate that people who either don't kn ow, or perhaps don't care, would rahter it sit and rot as a failed opportunity than have it removed so something better can take its place.

There was a time I honestly believed that if I hit a lotto I would salvage the place, and if it ticked folks, then it did. It wasn't all that long ago. But then reality struck. Why dump all that money into something, even fi I actually had it, when it wasn't all that appreciated even by those who did you it. Once the love of the memories wasn't enough,a nd it became clear no one had a plan to save it that made sense, then it became a rotting corpse of a structure that needed to be gone so it would not impede development of the space, and would not be an attractive nuisance when the school come in and impressionable kids abound. I grew up near abandoned mines and some dead buildings in se OK. I'm better acquainted than I'll go into on why young minds, false bravado, low common sense and dangerous structures are not a good combination.

So yes, I've made my piece with it going away. It's time. there is interest in the property. It has sold. Sure, it may not be a super tall. It may not even be all that tall. But it is a move forward and it is time. And I meant something I wrote earlier. While it would make me sad personally, I truly would rather see a surface parking lot generating funds for a project in a couple of years, than see a rotting abandoned and unsafe building left standing just because it was once functional.

Finally, I think Devon is a nice, truly nice building. Spectacular even. But tall is not the only thing that is important, nor is it even of major importance to me.

Not short, sorry. But hopefully it helps explain some. I look forward to seeing what happens. Just as SC was an improvement on the dead grassy lot that was once there, I believe what is coming is an improvement on the dead abandoned SC that no longer needs to be there.

[Plutonic Panda]

There was a time I loved SC. Of course, there was a time it was a unique, functional structure. Not the best structure, but functional, utilized and quirky enough to draw some attention.
But then it ceased to be that. Whether that was intentional neglect, bad design, tragic accident, yada, yada, yada, what was once functional, expensive and less than perfection, but functional, become non-functional, and at that point, someone, somewhere made a decision to leave it to rot.

I don't hate the structure. I hate what happened to it. I hate that it wasn't loved enough to generate the funds to keep it functional. I hate that it wasn't maintained. I hate that it became something that rather than contribute to the arts became an eyesore that sucks funds away from the arts just to keep it secure and not become an urban camper man cave. I hate that there was no longer any serious interest to save it. I hate that people who either don't kn ow, or perhaps don't care, would rahter it sit and rot as a failed opportunity than have it removed so something better can take its place.

There was a time I honestly believed that if I hit a lotto I would salvage the place, and if it ticked folks, then it did. It wasn't all that long ago. But then reality struck. Why dump all that money into something, even fi I actually had it, when it wasn't all that appreciated even by those who did you it. Once the love of the memories wasn't enough,a nd it became clear no one had a plan to save it that made sense, then it became a rotting corpse of a structure that needed to be gone so it would not impede development of the space, and would not be an attractive nuisance when the school come in and impressionable kids abound. I grew up near abandoned mines and some dead buildings in se OK. I'm better acquainted than I'll go into on why young minds, false bravado, low common sense and dangerous structures are not a good combination.

So yes, I've made my piece with it going away. It's time. there is interest in the property. It has sold. Sure, it may not be a super tall. It may not even be all that tall. But it is a move forward and it is time. And I meant something I wrote earlier. While it would make me sad personally, I truly would rather see a surface parking lot generating funds for a project in a couple of years, than see a rotting abandoned and unsafe building left standing just because it was once functional.

Finally, I think Devon is a nice, truly nice building. Spectacular even. But tall is not the only thing that is important, nor is it even of major importance to me.

Not short, sorry. But hopefully it helps explain some. I look forward to seeing what happens. Just as SC was an improvement on the dead grassy lot that was once there, I believe what is coming is an improvement on the dead abandoned SC that no longer needs to be there.

Very reasonable and moderated post and thank you for that. I honestly can't argue with any of your points there and it does in fact seem, the Stage Center has truly limped past the point of no return. Maybe if this building is built it will be bigger and better than most think, I would just really like to see at least something that would pack some sort of punch to the skyline.

[ljbab728]

Very reasonable and moderated post and thank you for that. I honestly can't argue with any of your points there and it does in fact seem, the Stage Center has truly limped past the point of no return. Maybe if this building is built it will be bigger and better than most think, I would just really like to see at least something that would pack some sort of punch to the skyline.

Nothing better than a little punch.

[Plutonic Panda]

you.......... YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT ON TELEVISION-it's obscene!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My grandmother don had a hart tack' from the level of violence on there!

[ljbab728]

you.......... YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT ON TELEVISION-it's obscene!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My grandmother don had a hart tack' from the level of violence on there!

No prob, plupan, this isn't television.

[BigD Misey]

Living in Dallas the last 19 years, I'm of the opinion that tall buildings don't make as much difference as density and unique draws the city offers. This city Doesn't hold up to San Antonio or even Austin in my opinion.
I do however feel you want MORE corporate presence and many corps are not large enough nor do they have enough to try and justify so much class a space. Usually density and variety gives you that presence.

Since most on this forum deems either the design or height of this project unworthy at 17 or 18 stories, i thought i would compare OKC to the competition in buildings over 17 stories.
Also, since Devon is the first building over 17 stories built since leadership square in 1984, how would okc stack up there since it would show companies perception of the cities.
I chose 10 cities i thought that okc might compare and compete with:

Kansas city
Charollote
Austin
Memphis
Indianapolis
Louisville
Raleigh
Omaha
Little rock
Tulsa

1. KC has 33 total buildings over 17 stories. (In all of these instances-even with okc, not all but a large percent of the buildings are downtown.) but, since 1984 (when Leadership sq. was built) 11 of those 33 buildings were built.
This puts OKC at a HUGE disadvantage comparatively. While OKC lay dormant for 25 years, KC was becoming home to all the corporations that filled those buildings. That, coupled with the historical value of the city, give it a very unique advantage over OKC.
2. CHARLOTTE is often compared with Okc. They have 26 buildings over 17 stories. 13 of those were built since 1984! Incidentally 13 is only one or two less than OKC has all together.
3. Austin has 29 buildings over 17 stories. 20 of them built while OKC lay dormant. Think of the companies that came over from Cali. But few are in or built the taller towers in austin.
4. Louisville has 25 towers taller than 17 stories. 8 were built since 1984.
5. Indy- 20 total - 11 built since '84
6. Raleigh - 11 total - 8 built
7. Little rock- 9 total - 4 built
8. Tulsa -15 total - one built
9. Memphis - 12 total. - 1 built
10. Omaha -7 total. - 2 built

OKC -15 buildings over 17 stories -Devon is the only tower since Leadership Sq.
So where does OKC really stand comparatively? Making progress yes, but clearly companies are finding other cities with much more draw.

I take pride Being from OKC, even though the year i moved, the city decided to throw a big party and installed the maps program when i left! So many i talk with down here in Texas still have the OKC from the eighties stuck in their heads. They say 'why would i even go to OKC!' I say, you havent seen it lately though!
But don't let the pride become a weakness or worse, a downfall! Give companies too much flack, and the onlooking companies may think twice about coming to OKC, and decide on Little Rock or Tulsa with less resistance. They aren't that far behind. Don't kid yourself.
Being that the second tower will likely be an energy company, and is watching how this proceeds, i would use caution and patience. In Houston, Companies like Exxon, conoco, phillips are building multiple towers less than 25 stories. Maybe this second company would rather go down there?
What if Conoco or Exxon wanted to downsize and sell the second or 3rd (etc) towers? Wouldn't that be an easier sale than one forty story, because you open up to a lager group of buyers.
I think there are more positives to this project than most of us would care to admit because pride...which is what you do and don't want to have.

[bchris02]

Great post, BigD Misey!

Those stats really show how far behind OKC still is compared to its peer cities. It's definitely too soon to start taking any development for granted. Take Louisville for instance, they are of similar population and demographics to OKC, but it will take us 10-15 years of development at the current rate to catch up to them. This Stage Center Tower will only be 14 stories at tops so it won't figure into the count. THIS, however, is OKC's time to do as much catching up as it can do while development in other cities like Louisville, Kansas City, and Charlotte are stalled due to the Great Recession. My mind is starting to change on this tower. Yes, higher would be nice, but right now OKC can't act like a spoiled child and demand it. As long as the building adheres to good urban design principles, I think its something we all should support.

[catcherinthewry]

Yes, higher would be nice, but right now OKC can't act like a spoiled child and demand it. As long as the building adheres to good urban design principles, I think its something we all should support.

Exactly! It seems like most posters here have gotten over the initial shock and disappointed of this tower being shorter than expected and are beginning to support this development. OKC needs to keep the momentum it has going, and this is just another step in the right direction.

[Urban Pioneer]

No, Kevinpate is just living in the 'REAL' world....... not in fantasy dream land or Sim City.

If you want change, like he said, go to the council and speak your peace. The FBB group was very effective with the boulevard, but they went through the proper channels.

We also had some very legitimate political and legal "pivots". Having those pivots enabled us to turn the middle section design around and force it through a proper review. The additional time that it has bought has enabled more people to the table and in theory enabled a better design.

It sounds as though there may be some "pivots" here for the new urbanists to lobby for a great "World Class" design. But saving the existing Stage Center building seems a huge stretch.

What day does the demo request come up before the DDRC?

[Pete]

^

January 16th.

[catcherinthewry]

It sounds as though there may be some "pivots" here for the new urbanists to lobby for a great "World Class" design.

Please expound on these "pivots".

[Urban Pioneer]

Please expound on these "pivots".

Well, for example, the DDRC meeting itself is a major pivot. Both a political and an actual mechanical one.

The only major reason I can think of a developer pressing for such an early demolition permit is if he is assuming the worst possible scenerio. Protests from Save Stage Center folks and the DDRC voting against a demo. Then it would likely go through the "appeals process" involving approval or denial from the Planning Commission and then onward to the City Council. That process can be relatively quick (6 weeks) or up to three months. This depends on the timing of these various meetings.

All are technically political and mechanical "pivots" in the process.

The question of whether these moments "pivot" for or against your cause is the question.

The great things about these moments is that they are great opportunities to directly communicate with the applicant and those involved in the approval process. Usually the more respectful and professional you are, the better.

I have seen the DDRC and the Planning Commission actually tell developers NO. That they wouldn't grant demolition so far in advance without a better defined design and secured commitments. At a minimum, significant discussion was had.

For the New Urbanists out there who don't care about the Stage Center building itself, these are moments are when you can let the developer know what IS an acceptable replacement.

If there is a running narrative among lots of people, that is helpful. FBB was and continues as an actual campaign. Obviously the "Save Stage Center" folks have their narrative in place. So developing a narrative for New Urbanist ideas might be more challenging.

I think the DDRC meeting is a great opportunity to communicate support for a well thought out design however. The developer can still design whatever his group wants but these are moments when they actually are forced to listen. It is much easier to be for a "vision" with defined community expectations before he returns to the DDRC with the plans already drawn.

[catcherinthewry]

I have seen the DDRC and the Planning Commission actually tell developers NO. That they wouldn't grant demolition so far in advance without a better defined design and secured commitments. At a minimum, significant discussion was had.

I think this is a very reasonable policy to have. RW already has the secured commitment in OG&E, now he needs to come out with more concrete plans. And hopefully, since he has no experience in developing towers, he will be open to some outside input. And by that, I don't mean necessarily height. He shouldn't overbuild just because some people are disappointed that they're not getting a 40 story tower on the SC site.