OG&E Tower

[Urbanized]

The owner of Cotter Ranch Tower believes that raising the profile of his tower means naming it after his ranch in Texas (which he named after himself) and putting a heroic statue of himself out front. Enough said.

[Jim Kyle]

And here I'd thought the name referred to the ancient sitcom that gave John Travolta his start. Do you really mean there's another Cotter that didn't get welcomed back after all?

[tomokc]

Coming immediately to mind is the statue of Emil Faber (founder of Faber College), with the inscription, "Knowledge is Good."

[tomokc]

The owner of Cotter Ranch Tower believes that raising the profile of his tower means naming it after his ranch in Texas (which he named after himself) and putting a heroic statue of himself out front. Enough said.

Coming immediately to mind is the statue of Emil Faber (founder of Faber College), with the inscription, "Knowledge is Good."

[BDP]

There are actually some great pockets of human scale neighborhood vitality that are almost very un-Dallas-like, such as the Bishop Arts District.

What's cool is that Oklahoma City is beginning to have a few un-Oklahoma City districts of its own and, really, I think we'll find that those districts will go much further in "selling the city" than new tall buildings will.

I recently went to Dallas for the first time in a long time. I've never been a big fan of the city (I've always said Dallas is like LA without the upside), but I did go to some neighborhoods outside of the downtown area and was impressed with how livable some of them had become. It seems to be evolving like LA has, into a sprawling mass dotted with urban oases. What's funny is that my friend's apartment was in the newer high rise area north of downtown and, while it had all the shiny new tall buildings, it was very cold with little street life and we left the area every time we wanted to actually go do something.

Now, Dallas kind of has to do it that way and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But, Oklahoma City's downtown is still very much a blank slate with lots of opportunities to integrate people oriented features into even our large scale developments. I honestly don't think Oklahoma City needs to worry any longer about whether we will have urban neighborhoods or urban districts. Deep Deuce, MidTown, Plaza and Uptown, and, yes, even Bricktown are already on their way to being true urban options for Oklahoma City residents and visitors, and they don't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.

I think the thing to watch now and in the next couple of years will be how much developers of new large scale construction downtown will contribute to expanding on this new urban movement in Oklahoma City. Will they tend to be just "postcard" developments, best viewed from afar, or will they be more neighborhood minded developments, best experienced in person? Really, what has yet to happen is a new large development that is strong in both aspects. This one could be the first, but it's still anyone's guess if that's truly the developer's intent.

[Spartan]

What's cool is that Oklahoma City is beginning to have a few un-Oklahoma City districts of its own and, really, I think we'll find that those districts will go much further in "selling the city" than new tall buildings will.

I recently went to Dallas for the first time in a long time. I've never been a big fan of the city (I've always said Dallas is like LA without the upside), but I did go to some neighborhoods outside of the downtown area and was impressed with how livable some of them had become. It seems to be evolving like LA has, into a sprawling mass dotted with urban oases. What's funny is that my friend's apartment was in the newer high rise area north of downtown and, while it had all the shiny new tall buildings, it was very cold with little street life and we left the area every time we wanted to actually go do something.

Now, Dallas kind of has to do it that way and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But, Oklahoma City's downtown is still very much a blank slate with lots of opportunities to integrate people oriented features into even our large scale developments. I don't honestly don't think Oklahoma City needs to worry any longer about whether we will have urban neighborhoods or urban districts. Deep Deuce, MidTown, Plaza and Uptown, and, yes, even Bricktown are already on their way to being true urban options for Oklahoma City residents and visitors, and they don't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.

I think the thing to watch now and in the next couple of years will be how much developers of new large scale construction downtown will contribute to expanding on this new urban movement in Oklahoma City. Will they tend to be just "postcard" developments, best viewed from afar, or will they be more neighborhood minded developments, best experienced in person? Really, what has yet to happen is a new large development that is strong in both aspects. This one could be the first, but it's still anyone's guess if that's truly the developer's intent.

Soonerguru had the back-up of the year, but I'd humbly submit this as the post of the year, and it's just January.

[BDP]

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Probably for another thread, but this is a good point. No doubt, if we'd spent an equal amount in upgrading the actual level of education in our public schools over the last 20 years as we have on infrastructure through MAPS, we'd be seeing some serious returns on it right now as the first few classes benefiting from a higher standard of education would be graduating right about now. Promoting Oklahoma City as a cheap place to do business would actually be about value, not just the cost.

[Pete]

We just did Maps for Kids, which was exclusively for education.


Also, absolutely no one is going to disagree with the idea that we need to better develop our urban districts.

But in terms of this project, that is a completely separate and unrelated issue.

This is going to be one block of 2 or three mid-rise buildings instead of one tall one. General density and urban districts won't be impacted one way or another.


With all due respect to the intelligent discussion here, people keep bringing up this density vs. height issue and it's a complete red herring in the context of this project.


And I will say once again, that height isn't the only thing but it is important in lots of ways.

Postcard views and the vistas of most citizens who rarely go downtown go a long way towards building/changing perceptions and that's an area where OKC and it's downtown still has lots of work to do.

[soondoc]

Pete, you are right on the money. Can you please run for office or city council? Do you have any influence or know who people can contact to express our opinions. We are happy with OKC and its progress but disappointed at the small time mentality and bare minimal constructions and projects. I just wish they could see the big picture ahead instead of simply not getting it and being content. I just can't imagine what it's like for people to have average aspirations rather than striving for greatness. What I have learned is that their are a lot of people on here that are just that and it is a reflection of too many other people in our community as well as our leaders.

[Pete]

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Maps for Kids spent half a billion on education.

If you are talking about public schools, the quality of education is almost exclusively tied to the socio-economics of the neighborhoods that feed each individual school, with the exception of magnets.

I suspect the new downtown elementary will be pretty good based on this alone; while pouring tons of money into others will not have a significant impact on test scores or API ratings -- or even attracting better teachers.

Given the constraints of a system that is completely in-bred (the only industry that truly is) and thus the complete protectionism by teacher's unions and just about everyone else in the educational system, no real change is going to happen, which is why it hasn't happened yet.

This problem is not in any way unique to OKC and it is easily solved by simply moving to a "better" neighborhood or getting your kid into a magnet school. It's really always been that way and sadly, I resigned myself to the fact it probably always will.

The other tactic would be to help improve your own neighborhood but it's unlikely a big change could be made before the kids were ready to move up to the next school.

[Teo9969]

If it is a world-class building, it won't matter how it affects the skyline, it will get its due.

But the amount of gold in a European cathedral is worth more than what Rainey is dropping on this project, so I'm not holding my breath…

[Pete]

And I say, with all due respect, the most loved cities in the world aren't necessarily tall. To say height really plays a major role or even a significant one is kind of funny. Because of postcards?

The world is not an appropriate corollary.

The focus should be on the U.S. and particularly, newer cities in the middle of the country.

OKC has no more in common with Seattle, San Francisco or Boston than it does with Berlin or Paris.

[s00nr1]

Hey Pete, any chance we could blow this thread up and start all over?

Saying it has lost focus would be an understatement.

[Pete]

And BTW, to try and claim that height and an impressive skyline in newer, emerging American cities isn't major or significant at all detracts greatly from the broader and generally wonderful new urbanism agenda.

The general populace -- those all new urbanists hope to educate and influence -- will reject that idea on the surface and thus the entire message will be lost.

You can see exactly that happening on this thread, along with a fair bit of preaching to the already converted.

[Pete]

All of that money went into the school buildings. A lot of money but spread out a lot. I'm talking about raising taxes and paying top of the market wages for education professionals. Top of the market is what every other industry pays if they are looking for the best. We need to take that approach.

It's not about the teachers, it's about the families and neighborhoods.

There are plenty of cities that pay their teachers a lot more and it doesn't translate into a better education.

I used to work in LAUSD schools (for a nonprofit) and lots teachers made over $100K and the schools were still atrocious due to lack of parental involvement and that the kids came to school with problems no amount of education could ever solve.


One area where increased funding really does help is in creating more magnets, specialty schools and university funding.

I would much rather see OU, OSU and the rest of the public colleges get a lot more funding; that to me would be a good investment of tax dollars, as it gets repaid through a skilled workforce, increased innovation, etc.

[Pete]

The skyscraper infatuation is a little weird, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely done in a way that lends to great street activity -- which IS what we should be wanting more of. More than tall buildings, we lack serious street life.

Again, these are two completely separate issues.

NOT building tall in no way ensures street activity, while at the same time there are lots of tall buildings that do a very good job of this and lots of shorter ones that are terrible.

Height and district quality are in no way mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to the project we are discussing.


And all things held constant, tall DOES do something for a community.

[OKVision4U]

Pete, I'm aware of what tier OKC sits in. Which is in fact, exactly what I'm talking about. OKC shouldn't be losing sleep over the lack of skyscrapers. I've been in a ton of cities similar in size to OKC. I'd be hard pressed to draw you their skyline. It would be easy for me to tell you though what districts were vibrant and attractive for visiting and potentially even living in.

The skyscraper infatuation is a little weird, especially considering the fact that it is so rarely done in a way that lends to great street activity -- which IS what we should be wanting more of. More than tall buildings, we lack serious street life.

OKC is lacking both. We do need serious street life, and we are getting there, slowly. Our skyline is now being seen by everyone that watches a Thunder game on national TV, serveral times each night. With the DEVON building drawing more attention to the skyline, it needs help. Our have room for 8-12 towers w/ plenty of priced friendly real estate. It's not either / or, but Both.

[OKCRT]

Man, I can't agree with this enough. Skyscrapers or no skyscrapers, these districts, if done right, will do FAR more to attract and retain quality citizens to OKC for many years to come.

The next big project in OKC should be about education. We can't build our future on single millennials. One of the reasons we returned to Seattle was for the schools. OKC needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with itself and figure out how it is going to fix them. Right now, they are acting against all the great work being done in OKC.

Do what Colorado is doing to help fund their schools. There should be enough pot heads in Ok. to double the teachers pay the 1st year.

[Jim Kyle]

It's not about the teachers, it's about the families and neighborhoods.

I have to differ with you about that, at least in part. The district bureaucracy is at least as much, and I happen to believe more, to blame than are the families and neighborhoods -- and it's been like that for almost 50 years to my personal knowledge.

When we moved from northeast 44th street to northwest 24th, specifically to escape the Longfellow school area and get into Cleveland, my sons were the only "non-minority" students left in Longfellow (and that single year had more adverse impact on their racism quotients than my years of trying to train them to be color-blind ever did). Come enrolment time for Cleveland, the school officials could find absolutely no record at all that one of them had ever attended Longfellow although they did find his older brother's files. We battled the school board for several weeks but the bottom line was that he had to repeat Third grade again at Cleveland.

Later, my eldest son's ambition to go into engineering was blocked by administrators at Northwest Classen who refused to allow him to enroll in prerequisite classes because they were available only at Northeast that year; instead, he was involuntarily placed in what amounted to a basket-weaving class for student athletes. He totally lost interest in his studies as a result, and maintained only a C average during his highschool years -- but at UCO, with competent teachers and administrators, that same young man placed on the dean's honor roll each of his four years there!

We've had a few good administrators in the Oklahoma City system, but most of them appear to have quit fighting their not-so-hot bosses and the ones I've known personally have simply retired to get away from it all. I have no knowledge about the current top leadership, and hope it's better than most in past years -- but I'm not really optimistic yet.

Sorry to me so off-topic, but I think it's germane to the general discussion of making OKC more attractive to non-natives...

[heyerdahl]

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

[Spartan]

Portland is one of the most sophisticated urban environments in the world. They don't compare themselves to Dallas, but rather Paris and Berlin. They are a real example of American exceptionalism, a term which has actually come to mean crappiness that we like. SLC is also a dynamic, new urbanist stronghold. Completely Republican, very comparable culturally, and their downtown skyline is basically the NWX with a Temple. They like it that way to preserve the sight lines of mountains and the Temple.

We just did Maps for Kids, which was exclusively for education.


Also, absolutely no one is going to disagree with the idea that we need to better develop our urban districts.

But in terms of this project, that is a completely separate and unrelated issue.

This is going to be one block of 2 or three mid-rise buildings instead of one tall one. General density and urban districts won't be impacted one way or another.


With all due respect to the intelligent discussion here, people keep bringing up this density vs. height issue and it's a complete red herring in the context of this project.


And I will say once again, that height isn't the only thing but it is important in lots of ways.

Postcard views and the vistas of most citizens who rarely go downtown go a long way towards building/changing perceptions and that's an area where OKC and it's downtown still has lots of work to do.

A long ways to go? OKC has a phenomenal skyline for a metro of 1.3 million. Probably the best skyline in class.

[Snowman]

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

Those cities skylines while are changing, would not be instantly recognizable to most Americans if given an unlabeled photo of them

[Spartan]

Again, these are two completely separate issues.

NOT building tall in no way ensures street activity, while at the same time there are lots of tall buildings that do a very good job of this and lots of shorter ones that are terrible.

Height and district quality are in no way mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to the project we are discussing.


And all things held constant, tall DOES do something for a community.

The problem is that this is OKC. All things aren't held constant. Towers will be designed by national firms that have more capacity than local firms, but are still dictated by local clients.

[OKCisOK4me]

Take this list of the typical contenders for fast-growing, progressive mid-sized cities: Portland, Austin, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Antonio.

The cities in this class that have really tied their image to a changing skyline are Charlotte and Austin. The rest have short and/or forgettable skylines that certainly are not the first thing you think of when you imagine the city.

...and both Austin & Charlotte have had 50 years or more to make mistakes and learn from them as compared to OKC.

Need to dig up a list of cities comparable to OKC in size and incorporation. So let's look at 1889 and on. Any takers?

[Spartan]

...and both Austin & Charlotte have had 50 years or more to make mistakes and learn from them as compared to OKC.

Need to dig up a list of cities comparable to OKC in size and incorporation. So let's look at 1889 and on. Any takers?

Huh?

Austin used to be a lot smaller than OKC before it took off. Charlotte was once smaller, too. Charlotte in fact has practically no historic building stock.