OG&E Tower

[soondoc]

BChris might be the best poster on these boards. His ideas are almost spot on. We just don't have the mentality that we should have to become big time. Also, he is 100 percent correct that our skyline could be dramatically improved at night if just several other buildings would get with the program and do something with their lighting. It doesn't even have to be dramatic like the Devon but it would give the current buildings that look "dead" a more vibrant and alive look.

If we could get a couple more towers and mid rises along with the other buildings doing more, it could look pretty impressive to people in our city and those passing through. Like we said earlier, do our leaders not realize that people wanting to locate here not notice stuff like this. It may not be the catch all but subconsciously it DOES make an impression and leaves them thinking "this city really has something going on" and just might want to bring their business here. Who needs to be contacted or what can be done to get other buildings downtown a part of showing the world a more dynamic and vibrant downtown??

[bchris02]

BChris might be the best poster on these boards. His ideas are almost spot on. We just don't have the mentality that we should have to become big time. Also, he is 100 percent correct that our skyline could be dramatically improved at night if just several other buildings would get with the program and do something with their lighting. It doesn't even have to be dramatic like the Devon but it would give the current buildings that look "dead" a more vibrant and alive look.

If we could get a couple more towers and mid rises along with the other buildings doing more, it could look pretty impressive to people in our city and those passing through. Like we said earlier, do our leaders not realize that people wanting to locate here not notice stuff like this. It may not be the catch all but subconsciously it DOES make an impression and leaves them thinking "this city really has something going on" and just might want to bring their business here. Who needs to be contacted or what can be done to get other buildings downtown a part of showing the world a more dynamic and vibrant downtown??

100% agree. Lets start with the Chase Tower. It's the city's second largest building yet it looks completely dead at night. Outline it in LEDs and it will look fantastic. They could also light the sides of it like they used to in very old skyline pictures. If they can manage to keep the crosses lit on it every night without fail between Thanksgiving and Epiphany, they can do something to boost the appeal of the building in the city skyline.

[Spartan]

Listen Spartan, you are smart and you understand text book urban design more than 99.9% of us. I get that, we get that, you get that.

Your street smarts however, are ridiculously lacking. If a city that has people and businesses flocking to it at rates higher then anywhere else in the world then I'm gonna consider that city a success, and I don't care what anti-dallas website article has to say otherwise. The quality of life there is outstanding, and the entertainment is endless. There have been no urban developments constructed there that has seriously stunted any kind of growth.

I respect your opinion and your input on anything regards to urban design, but I won't always agree with you. I also cuss a lot when I talk, so if I say something like "gtfo" its just who I am. Don't be so sensitive.

Past all this, I don't want us to be compared to Dallas. I want us to be compared to Oklahoma City. I'm tired of all comparisons in general.

Easy enough, we can agree to disagree. I certainly agree with money talks at the end of the day, especially when we're talking about real estate here. I'd even go a step further here and argue that Dallas has a ton more worth in it than even faster growing spots such as Las Vegas, which really is truly a worthless urban environment.

The funniest thing is when we get a wave of new posters, and the process they go through in coming to grips with OKC's development progress. Inevitably that's what we all come to this forum to learn more about and share our interests in, and it's a shame that we get so abrasive sometimes. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive just because I'm on a first name basis and occasionally drink with most of the long-term posters here, a few more than others for sure. But with these newer posters it's funny how they all think their initial phase of discovery involves unique thoughts, and perhaps it's equally ironic that us long-term posters (who generally have grown more as urbanists) ever think our thoughts are unique because admittedly they probably aren't. That said, I too was once a new poster who idolized Dallas and skyscrapers and yearned for skyline changes. This was long before Devon, too, so you can imagine the pain.

Similarly, it's not unusual to get a new transplant over the years (or even a distant poster from Seattle or Texas) who are constantly turning discussions toward the city that they love (seemingly more than OKC at times). So Charlotte is just the latest there, which is cool. That is at least more unique than getting a new wave of bright, young posters who constantly idolize Dallas and quickly accomplish voluminous post counts just by fantasizing over Dallas and Dallas alone.

The thing I've learned, from my own experience, from watching others over the years, and from graduating, leaving, returning, and becoming a community development professional is that Dallas is a phase that fades, much like the city's own boom-bust cycles that are iconic of its culture: big freeways, big skyscrapers, big sky, big houses, big malls, big hair, big cars, big trucks, big signs, big traffic, big, big, big, and more big. At some point I grew up and realized that the key isn't big but rather better. OKC can never out-big Dallas, but there's not much we can't do better.

That's the OKC Talk experience I've experienced myself and seen work its wonders on other posters over the years. The more you stick with us, converse with us, teach us, learn from us, etc - the more we'll make you a believe that OKC can and will do better.

[Paseofreak]

100% agree. Lets start with the Chase Tower. It's the city's second largest building yet it looks completely dead at night. Outline it in LEDs and it will look fantastic. They could also light the sides of it like they used to in very old skyline pictures. If they can manage to keep the crosses lit on it every night without fail between Thanksgiving and Epiphany, they can do something to boost the appeal of the building in the city skyline.

I sure would welcome lighting year round on these buildings if it fit into their business plans well enough that they decided the benefits justified the cost. But I can't for the life of me understand how a group of private citizens feels entitled in any way to direct a private (non-governmental) entity to allocate their resources in any specific way not mandated by any law or regulation. Good luck getting a Minimum Building Decoration Ordinance passed and defended in the courts. Do you understand the operating budgets for these entities? What if a $250,000 expenditure had a negative impact on compensation of the entities employees? What if those operating costs tipped the balance on a new development or facility renovations? How are we in any knowledgeable position to tell them how to run their business? I suppose we could ask nicely, but that's as much as we have the right to do. They are not in any way obligated to comply.

[Plutonic Panda]

Easy enough, we can agree to disagree. I certainly agree with money talks at the end of the day, especially when we're talking about real estate here. I'd even go a step further here and argue that Dallas has a ton more worth in it than even faster growing spots such as Las Vegas, which really is truly a worthless urban environment.

The funniest thing is when we get a wave of new posters, and the process they go through in coming to grips with OKC's development progress. Inevitably that's what we all come to this forum to learn more about and share our interests in, and it's a shame that we get so abrasive sometimes. Perhaps I'm a little sensitive just because I'm on a first name basis and occasionally drink with most of the long-term posters here, a few more than others for sure. But with these newer posters it's funny how they all think their initial phase of discovery involves unique thoughts, and perhaps it's equally ironic that us long-term posters (who generally have grown more as urbanists) ever think our thoughts are unique because admittedly they probably aren't. That said, I too was once a new poster who idolized Dallas and skyscrapers and yearned for skyline changes. This was long before Devon, too, so you can imagine the pain.

Similarly, it's not unusual to get a new transplant over the years (or even a distant poster from Seattle or Texas) who are constantly turning discussions toward the city that they love (seemingly more than OKC at times). So Charlotte is just the latest there, which is cool. That is at least more unique than getting a new wave of bright, young posters who constantly idolize Dallas and quickly accomplish voluminous post counts just by fantasizing over Dallas and Dallas alone.

The thing I've learned, from my own experience, from watching others over the years, and from graduating, leaving, returning, and becoming a community development professional is that Dallas is a phase that fades, much like the city's own boom-bust cycles that are iconic of its culture: big freeways, big skyscrapers, big sky, big houses, big malls, big hair, big cars, big trucks, big signs, big traffic, big, big, big, and more big. At some point I grew up and realized that the key isn't big but rather better. OKC can never out-big Dallas, but there's not much we can't do better.

That's the OKC Talk experience I've experienced myself and seen work its wonders on other posters over the years. The more you stick with us, converse with us, teach us, learn from us, etc - the more we'll make you a believe that OKC can and will do better.

Spartan, I don't idolize Dallas and I think OKC is a better city than Dallas is. OKC is my home and the best city I've ever seen. Dallas is my second favorite city with L.A. right behind it. I like Dallas for many reasons, but I am not a fan of urbanizing OKC except for it core. Anything in between I-40/I-240/I-44.

[Spartan]

Help explain what is wrong with urbanizing?

[Plutonic Panda]

Help explain what is wrong with urbanizing?

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

[Teo9969]

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

No, but certainly more than just the core does as well.

Long term, OKC should target I-240/S.74th to N.63rd and Kelly to Portland and the areas for more concentrated urbanization. It would be preferable if new construction or major rehabilitations from here forward would at least approach urban principles.

[Paseofreak]

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

Well, perhaps it should. The following statistics were provided in the Planokc kickoff presentation. For a period in which OKC experienced a 40% population increase (period not noted on the graphic, but I recall it was since the last plan), there has been a 58% increase in water treated, a 63% increase in utility coverage area, a 97% increase in developed area and 297% increase in roadway lane miles. It appears to me that we need to strongly encourage density, and quickly. The infrastructure costs alone are staggering to maintain services to a more and more remote population.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, perhaps it should. The following statistics were provided in the Planokc kickoff presentation. For a period in which OKC experienced a 40% population increase (period not noted on the graphic, but I recall it was since the last plan), there has been a 58% increase in water treated, a 63% increase in utility coverage area, a 97% increase in developed area and 297% increase in roadway lane miles. It appears to me that we need to strongly encourage density, and quickly. The infrastructure costs alone are staggering to maintain services to a more and more remote population.

Well, I simply disagree with you. All of these percentages can work the same in suburban(an do, Edmond has no problem with their utilities and Edmond Electric has the best rating in Oklahoma for reliability) so it can work. There tons of roads I would like to see widened to six lanes and added medians with turn lanes. This would solve traffic issues outside of rush hour which traffic will always get jammed during rush hour in big cities.

As technology increases, infrastructure will become stronger and last much much longer; might even become cheaper as well. You can encourage density all you want, for me, I see quality of life as living in a suburban neighborhood such houses as this ......

I was going to post a bunch of images from environments I prefer. I will start a thread on it later. As of late, I have been contributing to many off topic post and don't want to veer off any further. I am making a thread about Dallas and I will make one to address your concerns and compare urban and suburban and how I think choice is the best option in OKC.

[Paseofreak]

I look forward to it.

[Spartan]

Nothing at all, in fact I wouldn't mind living in an urban environment soon to try it out, but the entire city doesn't need to become an urban paradise.

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?

[Plutonic Panda]

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?

No. I'll address it and be more specific in another thread though.

[Paseofreak]

So instead it should all remain a suburban cesspool? One or the other?

That's a bit harsh, Spartan. You just pooped all over his preferred lifestyle. Gotta be a better way.

[Rover]

Cesspool? Really? This is how we keep a rational discussion? Spartan, you're better than that,

[Urbanized]

PluPan, I mean this in the kindest way possible as I actually enjoy your posts, but are you familiar with Braess's Paradox, the Downs-Thomson Paradox or the concept of induced demand? I ask because you often post about lane widening, inner-city bypasses and multi-lane, expressway-like streets like they are in some way something to be aspired to or are the solution to a problem. No doubt they are often the RESPONSE to a PERCEIVED problem, but they have actually all been pretty definitively proven to cause more problems than they supposedly solve. Here's another one: law of unintended consequences...

Braess's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Induced demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Downs?Thomson paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Spartan]

cess·pool
ˈsesˌpo͞ol/
noun
noun: cesspool; plural noun: cesspools

1. What the Putnam City area, formerly OKC's finest acres of suburbia, is rapidly becoming, by design rather than accident.

That's Webster's, y'all.

[OKC74]

I know this isn't the right page for this question - so don't attack me! And please direct me to where a better place to post this question would be. However, I keep seeing and hearing in the news that Ed Shadid is trying to get signatures to put a vote out to STOP the new convention center...? Is this correct? I could be wrong, but haven't the citizens of OKC already VOTED on this? How can a simple 6,000 signatures and a vote STOP this project? Any merit to this? Is it possible we won't be getting our new convention center? Or is this just a far-fetched attempt by Mr. Shadid to get more votes swayed his way? Thank you.

[warreng88]

I know this isn't the right page for this question - so don't attack me! And please direct me to where a better place to post this question would be. However, I keep seeing and hearing in the news that Ed Shadid is trying to get signatures to put a vote out to STOP the new convention center...? Is this correct? I could be wrong, but haven't the citizens of OKC already VOTED on this? How can a simple 6,000 signatures and a vote STOP this project? Any merit to this? Is it possible we won't be getting our new convention center? Or is this just a far-fetched attempt by Mr. Shadid to get more votes swayed his way? Thank you.

Here is the proper thread for that subject: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...yoral-bid.html

[Mississippi Blues]

Sooo, since Dallas is such a prominent topic currently, I would just like to let everyone know, I'm in Dallas for the next few days.

[OKC74]

Thanks warreng88.

[soonerguru]

Are you architect2014? About mid-way through I recalled reading something this abrasive in the past and then it hit me...

Dallas is a travesty. There are two really excellent articles I tried digging up, one on Fort Worthology (a great new urbanist website that used to take digs at Dallas/N. Texas, but alas, no longer exists) and another in the Dallas Observer from a Cornell architecture professor critiquing the Dallas Arts District developments. The Cornell professor was a riot, arguing that the wide open-range starchitecture has the subtlety of a bull mounting a comely heifer. Won't forget that analogy for a while, plus he was spot-on.

The Dallas school of thought is to throw ungodly gobs of money at something and then call it world class because of ungodly sums of money. Either it's 800 feet tall (another great article read in the Morning News: the Mean Tower Architecture review: Museum Tower is 'classic mean girl: privileged, superficial, manipulative' | Dallas Morning News) or it was designed by the love child of Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster (starchitecture x 2, take that world, hook 'em!!).

I am actually more familiar (sometimes painfully so) with our beloved #BigD than anyone on here probably realizes. There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District. I also dig the human scale of Knox Avenue and the grittiness of Deep Ellum. Dallas is arguably a world-class city. But it's also an enigma and it's also (read:) NOTHING AT ALL TO ASPIRE TO BE. Dallas is the worst and the best rolled into one weird, psychotic, megalomaniac metroplex.

But then again at times I feel like the point I am trying to make is a little too complex for the collective psyche of this thread (note: the unspoken division in what I just said, juxtaposing this thread against the forum at large where certain posters aren't going nuts in other threads). Just to bring this back to the topic at hand, you can't coherently open saying that Dallas has no flaws and has never failed AND that OKC owes its success to close proximity to Dallas (funny because that shadow has really hurt us, and now that we've made long strides we're finally out of their shadow, and have cities like Tulsa and Wichita in our shadow instead) and then overcompensate later by saying I should "GTFO" if I don't embrace OKC's Middle America-ness.

----------------
Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses.

Post of the year. Masterful work.

[bluedogok]

You need to go work for a bank commercial lending department. I am sure they will love the "build it and they will come" risk attitude and would let you lend lots of money for development. LOL

When I worked in Downtown Dallas we did a lot of work for the large property managers/developers (Trammell Crow Co. was our largest client). I did field surveys of most of the towers in downtown and many out in Las Colinas, I also put the buildings in cad and did the BOMA calculation spreadsheets for all the space. We did the marketing drawings for vacant space and designed many tenant spaces. Remember that this was post oil bust and pre-tech boom (91-93), none of those towers were more than 65% occupied because they overbuilt during the oil boom, some were only in the 20's range. That also led to the statement earlier about 40% of the land in the Dallas CBD was surface parking lots as entire blocks were flattened to never be built on up to that point and many vacant lots still exist but nowhere near that number. The same thing happened in OKC during the same time period (not to the total SF extent) and it has affected the local developers ever since, most in their 20's don't seem to understand why the apprehension to "go big" exists.

OKC doesn't tend to attract the big out of state developers or the money people they use, Austin didn't either until the mid-2000's. The fact that Chesapeake and Devon developed for themselves hasn't attracted them because some of the largest possible tenants have gone owner-occupied. The credit markets are still a bit tight for "unproven markets", even at the rate that Denver has been growing there are many of the huge projects struggling to find financing. The ones that are getting built are the mid-rise type of projects because of the lower investment threshold required. To come back around to Rover's comment, too many of the "big dogs" in the finance market are still licking their wounds from the busts in Florida, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc. and are not willing to "go big" on pure spec projects in unproven markets.

[Urbanized]

Post of the year. Masterful work.

Disagree. The post of the year is in the Bigfoot column. I quote: "R.I.P., Mr. Foot."

[bchris02]

I sure would welcome lighting year round on these buildings if it fit into their business plans well enough that they decided the benefits justified the cost. But I can't for the life of me understand how a group of private citizens feels entitled in any way to direct a private (non-governmental) entity to allocate their resources in any specific way not mandated by any law or regulation. Good luck getting a Minimum Building Decoration Ordinance passed and defended in the courts. Do you understand the operating budgets for these entities? What if a $250,000 expenditure had a negative impact on compensation of the entities employees? What if those operating costs tipped the balance on a new development or facility renovations? How are we in any knowledgeable position to tell them how to run their business? I suppose we could ask nicely, but that's as much as we have the right to do. They are not in any way obligated to comply.

I definitely agree with this, but will add that the fact the owners of the Cotter Ranch Tower would not want to make the second most prominent building in the city skyline look attractive is another example of what is wrong with OKC. People simply lack the drive or the pride to think bigger than the bare minimum. In most cities, a business would WANT an eye-catching tower because it raises their own profile in the city. That is what Devon did with its tower and lighting scheme. The crosses on the Chase Tower are lit as a service to the community. It's been a tradition that goes back to the 1930s in OKC. If they can do that, it isn't much if a stretch to fix the lighting on the building year round.