OG&E Tower

[DenverPoke]

That photo is a little dated, but yes Denver isn't exactly a skyscraper mecca. There is a law preserving sight lines to the mountains from the Capitol building, but it doesn't really hinder development as the CBD isn't between the mountains and the building.

I think Denver is a good model for OKC to follow. In the 60s the Skyline Renewal Authority cleared 27 city blocks in the urban core, destroying hundreds of lowrise structures, some historically significant, so downtown has had to rebuild its character slowly and organically. While the revitalization of downtown has been ongoing over the last 20 years, momentum has really picked up over the last 5 years. There are tons of low-to-mid rise residential structures being built that are bringing bodies downtown, which create great vibrancy. This has had a far larger impact on downtown than adding a skyscraper or two that alter the skyline. Though I would certainly kill to have a Devon Tower in Denver.

[Pete]

Denver, btw, actually has very few skyscrapers that would be tall enough for the posters in this thread. Maybe 5 would be acceptably tall enough. The skyline is exceptionally garnished and built-up with mid-rises and legit DENSITY. I could be wrong on this but I think they actually had a law on the books preserving sight lines of the mountains from the Capitol.

Denver has 32 buildings over 350 feet; OKC has 6 (Charlotte 15)

Denver has 7 buildings over 500 feet; OKC has 1 (Charlotte 6)


And the Denver MSA is only twice the population of OKC's (and just barley larger than Charlotte).

[Plutonic Panda]

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

Well at least someone enjoys my post lol

Anyhow, I have heard of it, but I just don't fully believe it. Look at the Crosstown.... it was becoming extremely backed up before the new 10 lane I-40 was opened, but now since the I-40 is open, I have never seen it back up. Instead of just widening it one lane, we widened it by two making it 5 lanes each way. The new 635 in Dallas should be a great example and disprove induced demand. Just adding one lane to an already backed up highway won't solve anything.

I am sorry to say, but I just don't see the evidence supporting induced demand.

[blwarch]

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade. There are numerous surface parking lots in the vicinity that would better for downtown OKC's future development by eliminating open space and increasing density where it actually matters. The Stage Center, with it's park-like setting is a great counterpoint to the new Elementary School and an appropriate link to the Myriad Gardens.

If anyone is interested, we have over 750 signatures on a petition urging preservation of this iconic structure. The link to sign is here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/okl...e-stage-center

[bchris02]

Well at least someone enjoys my post lol

Anyhow, I have heard of it, but I just don't fully believe it. Look at the Crosstown.... it was becoming extremely backed up before the new 10 lane I-40 was opened, but now since the I-40 is open, I have never seen it back up. Instead of just widening it one lane, we widened it by two making it 5 lanes each way. The new 635 in Dallas should be a great example and disprove induced demand. Just adding one lane to an already backed up highway won't solve anything.

I am sorry to say, but I just don't see the evidence supporting induced demand.

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.

[AP]

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.

That's a very simple explanation to the complex debate of induced demand. I don't think it's as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

[bchris02]

That's a very simple explanation to the complex debate of induced demand. I don't think it's as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

I definitely see the point in that if there is better highways out to exurbia, then more people will choose to live out there and commute. It would seem like that would be the case, but then again I highly doubt anybody who would choose to live in Guthrie would live in downtown OKC if there wasn't a highway taking them to Guthrie. People are going to live in the environment of their choice as long as its economically feasible.

Fuel prices and trendiness are the two things pushing people towards denser environments today.

[AP]

Yet more "OKC sucks" narrative from bchris02. Its getting old, frankly...why are you even here?

Once again. OKC ranked 12th in the nation in the increase in millennials and 4th in percentage increase.

Thank you. I agree, it get's extremely old to keep seeing talk about perceived problems with OKC, whether or not those perceptions actually exist to any degree.

[catcherinthewry]

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade.

I agree. Luckily, we're replacing a run down eye sore whose design was forced upon us in the first place.

[bchris02]

I agree. Luckily, we're replacing a run down eye sore whose design was forced upon us in the first place.

It's run down, I'll say that. It isn't an eye sore though. I enjoy seeing it every time I drive or walk by it. I will agree though that unless somebody can come up with the money to save it, its time is past and should be replaced rather than letting it sit and rot.

[Plutonic Panda]

I agree. If people want to live out in the exurbs, they are going to do so whether there is a 12-lane or 2-lane highway getting them into the city. When I lived in Little Rock, it was actually very common for people to have 2+ hour commutes, much of that being two lane, winding country roads. If highways to the suburbs are widened its in response to already growing population that has created demand for the wider highways. They don't built 12-lane highways to nowhere and then everybody starts flocking there simply to live by the highway.

Exactly. If I-35 were widened to 8 lanes all the way to Dallas, the highway wouldn't fill up just because it was 8 lanes.

[soonerguru]

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

Give it a rest, dude. I can see how you think that living in the part of town where you do. OKC is fine, and improving. Embrace it and be a part of the change. Being realistic is one thing but you are too negative. Maybe you should move away from here for a while or something. I don't know. No need to be Debbie Downer all the time.

[bchris02]

Pete: While I disagree that OKC can't be exceptional, I agree that Denver is definitely our closest/best model. The vibe OKC is building is very Denver-like. Especially at I-40 and Council, in the shadow of Trash Mountain.



Denver, btw, actually has very few skyscrapers that would be tall enough for the posters in this thread. Maybe 5 would be acceptably tall enough. The skyline is exceptionally garnished and built-up with mid-rises and legit DENSITY. I could be wrong on this but I think they actually had a law on the books preserving sight lines of the mountains from the Capitol.

Denver has a very balanced and attractive skyline. I don't think people are asking for a new supertall in OKC. It would be nice to see more tall buildings to bring balance to our skyline. One or two more buildings over 500 ft would do it.

[pickles]

I disagree with comparisons to Denver. OKC is by far the most conservative large city in the country. The only other city that is remotely comparable is Jacksonville, FL. Denver is very liberal. It's going to be difficult to recreate the kind of culture here that you see in places like Austin, Portland, and Denver. Other major cities are usually liberal or at least modern islands in their conservative states, but OKC tends to align more closely with rural Oklahoma than do most major cities do with their rural areas. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, and I hope I am, but from the perception I've seen, it would seem that the conservatism here is a deterrent to young, educated people relocating here from out of state. Even if its just perceived, there is this perception that if you aren't right wing you don't belong here. This is all going to affect what type of development we see here in one way or another.

I'll stop because I am getting off topic, but its an issue that OKC needs to address for so many different reasons.

Thank you for finally answering the question I posed here Retail Explosion on Memorial Road - OKCTalk

[PhiAlpha]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Every statistic you see these days disagrees with that stereotype, yet it continues to find its way onto this board. I just graduated from KU this last year and will be moving to OKC once my field training is complete. I never once questioned my decision because of the political stereotypes of the city.

I'll also chime in and say that I don't think Denver, or Colorado in general, is as liberal as everyone is trying to make it out to be. Yes, they passed laws to legalize marijuana. But that doesn't make the entire state a liberal safe haven. After all, they are still big advocates of oil and gas development. Something most blue states can't say. Colorado saw legalizing marijuana as a good business opportunity, and it has turned out to be just that so far.

Agree 100%, especially about Denver. Decent sized oil and gas industry there as well as other conservative type businesses in the core. It's more liberal then I would probably ever want OKC to be (too much green peace, PETA, etc for my tastes) but at no point during my time there did I ever feel that it was overbearing. Pleanty of conservatives/moderate types in the core as well. Boulder...that's a different story. Denver is an amazing city, hope we can be more like it someday...and hey, we'll have white water rafting and rock climbing downtown, not the mountains but it's a start.

[PhiAlpha]

Thank you. I agree, it get's extremely old to keep seeing talk about perceived problems with OKC, whether or not those perceptions actually exist to any degree.

+1

[Dubya61]

Replacing a Landmark with an Office building is not a good trade.

Replacing a Landmark that is hemorrhaging funds at a god-awful rate and pays little to no property tax with an Office building that will very likely make money for the owner (or at least be useful if it's not making money) while paying property taxes is a good trade.

[Spartan]

Replacing a Landmark that is hemorrhaging funds at a god-awful rate and pays little to no property tax with an Office building that will very likely make money for the owner (or at least be useful if it's not making money) while paying property taxes is a good trade.

What about a Walmart? Also way better than a stinkin architectural landmark (I kid)

[Spartan]

Exactly. If I-35 were widened to 8 lanes all the way to Dallas, the highway wouldn't fill up just because it was 8 lanes.

Should we do that?

Bchris: you're anecdotes aside, induced traffic is a proven phenomenon. Urbanized provided links that you can read, if you so choose. It's usually a 5-7 year lag. Are you guys saying highways DONT aid and abet sprawl?

[bchris02]

What about a Walmart? Also way better than a stinkin architectural landmark (I kid)

Don't even joke about that...

[OkieNate]

Hey! I know I've been very skeptical of this whole project, but here is an awesome idea that I think everyone could get behind. Wouldn't it just be awesome if the second proposed tower was a modern glass style in homage to the Baum Building! That would set them up to have an incredible LED scheme, and it would soften the blow of losing the Stage Center for some by reintroducing some of our lost history, while being a cherry on top for those who never even wanted Stage Center in the first place. I know this is has zero chance of happening on this project, but it is fun to day dream!

[OkieNate]

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...-building.html

[Chicken In The Rough]

Never, ever said or implied that OKC could not be exceptional -- just that there is more than one path to that goal.

We can also use Dallas and Houston as examples of what we DON'T want.

Outstanding! I lived in Texas for several years. Dallas and Houston have their attributes, but OKC should absolutely not use them as development models. I have never fully understood the irrational allure that Dallas holds for many OKC-ers.

[bchris02]

Outstanding! I lived in Texas for several years. Dallas and Houston have their attributes, but OKC should absolutely not use them as development models. I have never fully understood the irrational allure that Dallas holds for many OKC-ers.

Dallas is the "big city" for people living in OKC. Tulsa has a similar allure for people in Ft Smith and Northwest Arkansas. Memphis is very similar for people living in Little Rock. As OKC continues to grow it will need Dallas less and less (already is far less reliant than 20 years ago) and that allure will fade. I agree that OKC shouldn't try to mimic everything Dallas does but that doesn't mean this city shouldn't strive to offer more of the kind of amenities Dallas offers, albeit in a smaller package.

[Plutonic Panda]

Should we do that?

Bchris: you're anecdotes aside, induced traffic is a proven phenomenon. Urbanized provided links that you can read, if you so choose. It's usually a 5-7 year lag. Are you guys saying highways DONT aid and abet sprawl?

no we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying there are major flaws to induced demand.