AT&T Proposes 125' Cell Phone Tower in SOSA

[Just the facts]

I for one don't mind streetcar wires (in fact - I prefer them as a visual reference), but most urban places don't have exposed electrical infrastructure unless it is in a 3rd world country. If an urban area is dense enough even a 125' cell tower would only be visible from a handful of location. Now having said that, it isn't really productive to fight the inevitable, the effort should be spent trying to make the inevitable better.

[bombermwc]

OK, so I have to ask here, if you're going to 125', why not utilize the Fred Jones water tower? You can install the antenaes on the lower struts rather than the top face so it's doesnt detract from the historic view of the tower, but still provides the benefit of the thing. Or even better yet, there is a what 7 story office tower even closer to the proposed location that would serve it even better. Or how about this...you're near SOSA, so why not utilize St Anthony itself, it's already tall.

As said before, they would prefer to use the tower because it's cheaper and easier. It's up to us to help convince the city that cheaper isn't always better. The global crapfest known as AT&T can just pull a few pennies out of its own pocket for all I care.

[Urban Pioneer]

Can someone answer this: aren't things like electrical substations, cell phone towers, "brutalist" architecture, graffiti inspired building exterior "art", overhead wires on streetcars, etc, part and parcel of what defines "urban"? Part of the urban experience is embracing the what some would consider the uglier side of City life?

Generally speaking, yes. Particularly when your talking about old "grit". But these "monopoles" have nothing going for them at all. In my opinion, there is nothing there to love in terms of their form.

I remember a big discussion on this forum about the old microwave horns on the old AT&T building downtown. Those don't offend me. They are interesting looking in a way and even then, in the 60's, AT&T had enough pride in it's work to try to cover them up and integrate them into the building, thus the period "harvest gold" metal latticework surrounding them.

There is no attempt to do anything here. Not even bushes at pedestrian level.

[Urban Pioneer]

Now having said that, it isn't really productive to fight the inevitable, the effort should be spent trying to make the inevitable better.

Exactly. We need cell phone towers. They just need to invest a little more a build something that isn't so obtrusive or at least attempt to mount the antennae on an existing building. I'm sure Ok County would love the extra revenue if those were mounted on the roof of the jail, for example.

[Larry OKC]

What is the diameter for a 125 foot pole? Guess I am just not seeing the huge difference between it and the various other poles we see every day, what makes it so objectionable. Any objections to even the modified co-use as a giant flagpole as someone posted?

Would think that cost would be mitigated somewhat if they built it on top of an existing structure. Are there optimum heights for cell phone towers? Can they be too tall (like on top of the new Devon Tower as an extreme example).

Again, I am not saying it can't be done in a better or more attractive/useful way at all. I am not advocating either way on it, am rather neutral as I think it is rather utilitarian.

[Just the facts]

The problem Larry is that in their basic design they are ugly. They don't even have a good utilitarian/industrial look to them. A lot cities require them to resemble trees. Other require a more artisitc touch. The point is, go ahead and build the tower, just make it look nice. Why be junkie if you don't have to be?

[Larry OKC]

JTF: The giant tree is certainly interesting but I am sure some would find it just as objectionable LOL. I am sure there are those that would find the first one as "ugly" just as there are those that don't find the paint job that one building got (the Womb?) as particularly attractive either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What about this is going to set development back? The "unattractive" part is 100 feet or so in the air. Out of most folks line of site. Unless you are talking about building a 12 story building right next to it and having to look out of your office or condo directly at it. On this it seems rather neutral, don't see it as helping or hurting the area. At least not in the sense of say that particular building. Some may love it and want to develop something just like it next door or hate it so much to avoid developing anywhere in the area. Or even the opposition to the Goodwill donation location. I can see that. I just don't see it with this and hard to get excited about it one way or another. Trying to understand why someone would get excited about it (either way).

[Rover]

Why do people who go ballistic over HOAs move into areas that have them? They have to know they are there and choose to buy there anyway and then gripe about them. Can't be a very smart decision.

I would think cell phone or other tower erection would be subject to more scrutiny and restrictions these days with so many required and so many carriers. It sounds as if our restrictions need to be brought up to date.

[anniemae]

Hmmmm, I remember when OKC was covered with 110 ft oil field derricks....if we noticed them at all we associated them with jobs, oil and progress. Personally I have no quarrel with cell towers, any more than water towers, large building towers, electrical transmission towers etc. What one person views as art I might well view as junk...it's all in the minds eye of the beholder, I admire technology on full display and view it as an industrial art in the truest sense. Someone posted a pic of an antenna disguised as a very, very tall tree, it was so much taller than the trees around it that it looked weird to me. Another pic was of "something" that begs identification....actually looked hideous to me, but some may call it art.

[RadicalModerate]

I think that the (implied/subliminal) suggestion to make it look like an old-timey oil derrick is genius.
Not one of those old "There Will Be Blood" or "Col. Drake's" wooden derricks, but one of the more modern, 1950's-Style derricks.

On the other hand . . .
Maybe incorporating some of that red brick, vaguely Monopolyboardhotelesque, Chesapeake Village architecture might do the trick.

[OKCTalker]

"125 foot cell phone tower is actually shorter than most that are 140 feet." I've got to write that down.

Seriously, wouldn't installation on the Saints tower or parking garage be a better alternative? I think that this could be done without interfering with the approach/departure corridors to/from their helipad.

[RadicalModerate]

Sorry . . .
I'm laughing too hard to type.
(Well . . . almost too hard).

So: LOL.
(And that was a serious LOL rather than a sarcastic one.)

[Urban Pioneer]

I think the oil derrick is a brilliant and probably reasonably cheap solution. Totally relevant to our history downtown. Heck, there is probably a capped well nearby. lol

But seriously also, there is a church by Saint Anthony's that could house the antennae in it's spire, there's the jail, the AMR building on Classen, and parking garages around.

I drove by Saint Anthony's today and there are already antennae mounted on their medical tower building by some other telecom outfit I guess.

[bluedogok]

OK, so I have to ask here, if you're going to 125', why not utilize the Fred Jones water tower? You can install the antenaes on the lower struts rather than the top face so it's doesnt detract from the historic view of the tower, but still provides the benefit of the thing. Or even better yet, there is a what 7 story office tower even closer to the proposed location that would serve it even better. Or how about this...you're near SOSA, so why not utilize St Anthony itself, it's already tall.

As said before, they would prefer to use the tower because it's cheaper and easier. It's up to us to help convince the city that cheaper isn't always better. The global crapfest known as AT&T can just pull a few pennies out of its own pocket for all I care.

The Fred Jones location may not be in the optimal service ring area and you might also have part of the building blocking the desired service point. Also, is the future of that building in doubt since the OCU Law School backed out? Not that it is going to be torn down but what type of use. The owners may not be interested in a cell site lease agreement depending upon the type of use they are marketing it towards.

What is the diameter for a 125 foot pole? Guess I am just not seeing the huge difference between it and the various other poles we see every day, what makes it so objectionable. Any objections to even the modified co-use as a giant flagpole as someone posted?

Would think that cost would be mitigated somewhat if they built it on top of an existing structure. Are there optimum heights for cell phone towers? Can they be too tall (like on top of the new Devon Tower as an extreme example).

Again, I am not saying it can't be done in a better or more attractive/useful way at all. I am not advocating either way on it, am rather neutral as I think it is rather utilitarian.

The antennas are at a certain height to provide the desired service ring, the higher they are, the larger the service ring but you can create a dead zone right next to the antenna based on the tilt of the antennas. That is why most along rural interstates are much taller (250-400 feet tall) lattice towers. Lower call volumes allow for a larger service ring from a single array than the more crowded urban areas where call volume is greater, hence the need for more towers and lower arrays for a smaller service ring.

I have done the pine tree towers out in California along I-5 in the Sacramento area.

One other issue is if this an AT&T owned tower or a leased tower owned by another party like American Tower. If it is a lease arrangement then you would have a multiple antenna array situation like the last picture posted above. Most that I did seven years ago were adding to leased towers or AT&T selecting a location but contracting in a lease with American Tower to build the tower. That way you get first dibs on the elevation of your array.

[CuatrodeMayo]

[OKC@heart]

JUst my two cents but there are several issues here. Yes AT&T could invest some additional dollars and install a 125' flag pole that seems extremely out of proportion, and thus actually draws more attention to it. Monopole means that it is a galvanized steel pole that is self supporting. It has a slender profile and the coaxial cables run on the inside of the tower. The fact that it is 125' tall and its located position indicates that it is the closest and most ideal location that the company could get leased to work with in the RF engineers requirements or the system. Changes in height might instead require two tower sites in the area to provide the needed coverage. The cell towers are noticable for about a month to most people even those who live there and then they become a part of the background and rarely do folks notice them. The tower represents some significant income on a per month basis to the landowner who leased the property to AT&T. As far as zoning issues, go even if there are height restrictions, the company will seek a varience and will most likely get it. The FCC and the Federal Govt, mandated that the local municipalities are to cooperate with the Wireless telecom providers to allow for a more complete network to be used and to provide more complete e-911 service to areas as an alternate means of increasing saftey. There is actually legislation that mandates it and the Wireless companies can cite it if need be, and rarely is this needed. There typically has to be a compelling reason for a Wireless carrier to pony up the additional money for a "Stealth" installation, such as a historical district etc...and I have to tell you that other than the antennaes being mounted on or within church steeples or bell towers, the stealth solutions often are far worse than the standard tower.

Where the biggest difference can be made is how they treat the enclosure and the requirements for screening the equipment enclosure and fencing. I would hope that the installation is to the back of the property not easily visible from the street. I would also hope that the fencing is screened by a tall wooden and quality built privacy fence with specified landscaping planted to conceal the compound.

Please do not misunderstand I am not trying to say they are great and everyone should put one in their backyard. I just wanted to shed some light on some of the issues before you light the torches and head to the meeting. Having worked as a project manager for Sprint PCS responsible for building our the Network of towers in the Houston market, and then as a land acquisition agent responsible for leasing land for the construction of tower sites I have some fairly extensive experience with regards to the subject and what is possible. I use to make the presentation to the City Councils and Zoning Boards of Adjustment both in Texas and upstate New York on the wireless carriers behalf, answering the oppositions questions and presenting the plans and seeking the approvals.

The tower was going to go somewhere, and typically folks get worked up about the tower, but also complain that the coverage is not good enough...it is one of those situations where you can't have both, but you can compromise and try to improve the outcome and most carriers who are decent are willing to do extras to try and be a good neighbor. Would you have a similar reaction to a property owner putting up a 125' wind mill to generate electricity? Something to think about. Good luck in the meeting, and I hope that a workable and positive solution comes out of it so that it is good for the neigborhood and works for the carrier as they are trying to improve the service that they are providing to those in SOSA. One final thought, Wireless companies are under tremendous pressure ever since 9/11 to improve the completeness and capacity of the Cellular system to be able to better handle emergency loads, in times of natural disasters etc...this has been brought to even greater heights recently with Hurricane Irene and the capacity failures of the innundated system on the east coast. They will have a lot of leverage to apply in their favor becuase they can demonstrate that this is one of they ways that they can accomplish this is to add more towers and improve existing coverage.

Again just some thoughts, to consider...for what it is worth.

[Urban Pioneer]

Great post!

[shane453]

The people of Bozeman, MT are not too happy despite the pine-tree Verizon cell tower planned for the town.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...cc4c002e0.html

[BDP]

It's so awesome that there are so many people that wouldn't mind this stuff on their property easements. I'll let AT&T know public land adjacent to your properties is available for, well, for whatever they want to do, because who are we to tell anyone what to build? This will give us awesome coverage, too. Very community minded of you all!

[White Peacock]

The proposal was rejected. Interestingly, AT&T states that over the last 18 months, traffic on their network in the OKC area is up 3000%.

[Bunty]

Why don't they simply paint the cell towers sky blue to blend in better with the environment? Or is that totally out of order, because it would cost far too many thousands of dollars? And then the extra cost later to repaint when needed.

[Thunder]

The proposal was rejected. Interestingly, AT&T states that over the last 18 months, traffic on their network in the OKC area is up 3000%.

Wow! Why would OKC be so stupid? Now the rest of the United States of America, including Seattle, will just laugh at Oklahoma City denying the people cell coverages.

No, I am not for AT&T. I am a Sprint boy. But still... OKC's action reflects extremely poor on image and reputation.

[OKC@heart]

Why don't they simply paint the cell towers sky blue to blend in better with the environment? Or is that totally out of order, because it would cost far too many thousands of dollars? And then the extra cost later to repaint when needed.

There have been municipalities that forced the tower companies to paint the towers, but beyond the increased maintenance costs, which are substanital, the bigger issue is that the color of the sky changes from day to day and throughout the day. So what is selected rarely looks and blends in, and the result is that most days it sticks out even more, than it would if it was left with its galvanized from the factory look. The hot dipped galvanized towers while gray have a bit of reflectivity to them and so they actually blend very well.

Its kind of like when you are matching colors for an outfit, you better be right on or deliberately different shades, or it is more noticable that you attempted but missed it.

[Urban Pioneer]

Wow. Just watched the Planning Commission meeting. They raked the AT&T guy through the coals on every site he presented. The other significantly protested site was in May Fair.

[Urban Pioneer]

So... I left the video on while I was working.

The meeting went progressively worse for AT&T until the mood was so sour on the board that calls began to have a moratorium on all cell phone tower construction until the Planning Commission could have a joint meeting with telecommunication companies and potentially update the codes.

The commission was particularly upset that AT&T was looking for "postage stamp" parcels of "commercial" zones that were "accidentally" in housing areas. For example, a former elementary school that was closed and later became a mosque. Now the mosque has carried the "commercial" zone forward and wants the cell phone tower rent and AT&T successfully sought the site out in order to build a tower in the middle of an established neighborhood.

The meeting went on so long and so many people upset that AT&T sent a representative (that was not there initially) to speak at the end of the meeting to try to stave off the momentum for a moratorium.

End result, Planning Commission is showing signs of favoring a moratorium and they have turned industry heads in/during the meeting and I would expect a industry forum with the Planing Commission members very soon. Apparently one was held 10 years ago when the issue was first emerging. Now with the proliferation of I-Phone, I-Pads, and other internet bandwidth gobbling devices, they simply need more towers and the Planning Commission believes it is up to them to make sure that the rules are changed and designs standardized to meet the local sensitivity.

Pretty funny though seeing a AT&T rep speaking as a public citizen trying to defend the industry. What is that Mitt Romney Iowa line, "Corporations are people too!!!"