Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[PhiAlpha]

I would argue that the corporations dont want to do anything that cost them money and require effort. Their lobby to the FAA is definitely at play. So their complaints fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. It's isn't a safety issue in any way/shapre/form, it's about how it would cost more money (fuel) to take the different flight pattern and they would basically have to eat it.

Now if they had some legitimate concern about it being a safety problem, then 'lo and behold someone would figure out a way to make it work. The data in said report is just corporate whining. zzzzzz

And the airport concerns, well those aren't really valid either. Again, it would be too close to the core to make that big of an issue. You're not flying near it today anyway. It's just about expanding that buffer for the traffic a bit. Tinker....well they love to say anything is a problem in the name of keeping Tinker. And those of us near Tinker get tired of that excuse from preventing anything from being developed. If you were going to fly so close to this thing that it was a problem, then you're also too close to Devon and anything else downtown, regardless of the height.....you aren't supposed to be there unless you're up there cruising at 10k ft.

I'm not saying all of this to be snarky really, it's just that saying there were 22 letters against it and to go "read it"....well that's also a over simplifying who those letters are from and what the story behind them are.

Regardless, we all agree that it will just be the excuse he needed to not build the tower. The tower that was never going to happen in the first place and was absolutely unnecessary. I'm still happy with the rest of the project, if it even gets built. I can at least cross my fingers on those elements though.

People keep saying they aren’t flying near it anyway. The flight path right now takes planes landing on 17L within half a mile and sometimes much closer. This is a building more than twice as tall as anything else downtown. Sure the FAA could change the flight patterns but to act like this wouldn’t potentially be in the way as things stand isn’t right.

[Urbanized]

I have personally flown directly over the top of the downtown central business districts multiple times on approach. It’s quite common.

[bamarsha]

Where there is a will, there is a way... all it takes is money and effort. This project has neither (only talk), so it's a moot point. But, I am sure it COULD be done (given the financial incentive for all involved).

[jn1780]

Where there is a will, there is a way... all it takes is money and effort. This project has neither (only talk), so it's a moot point. But, I am sure it COULD be done (given the financial incentive for all involved).

Which would be a multi-year effort even if they agreed to do it.

[VeggieMeat]

you aren't supposed to be there unless you're up there cruising at 10k ft

None of the approaches are that high. Even for OUN 18, the initial fix has a 4K minimum near Wilshire and MLK.

Even the top of the Charlie for both OKC and TIK is 5300. There's a nice little corridor between OKC and TIK where the Charlie doesn't start until 3K that allows uncontrolled traffic to transit through, including over downtown. Higher up, that same corridor is used by OKC to limit traffic interference with TIK.

Commercial flights into OKC from the east go nearly to Arcadia to allow clearance for Tinker approach when landing 17. Flights from the S and SE would have to go E to around McLoud before looping back in.

[PhiAlpha]

People keep saying they aren’t flying near it anyway. The flight path right now takes planes landing on 17L within half a mile and sometimes much closer. This is a building more than twice as tall as anything else downtown. Sure the FAA could change the flight patterns but to act like this wouldn’t potentially be in the way as things stand isn’t right.

To further this point, on approach around downtown, you are generally at 3,000 to 4,000 ft and often under a half mile from the core of downtown.

[PhiAlpha]

None of the approaches are that high. Even for OUN 18, the initial fix has a 4K minimum near Wilshire and MLK.

Even the top of the Charlie for both OKC and TIK is 5300. There's a nice little corridor between OKC and TIK where the Charlie doesn't start until 3K that allows uncontrolled traffic to transit through, including over downtown. Higher up, that same corridor is used by OKC to limit traffic interference with TIK.

Commercial flights into OKC from the east go nearly to Arcadia to allow clearance for Tinker approach when landing 17. Flights from the S and SE would have to go E to around McLoud before looping back in.

This.

[bombermwc]

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

[PhiAlpha]

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

Expanding the CBD to the east is not the issue. The issue is expanding it by adding a building that’s over 1000 feet taller than the tallest building downtown. 1907 feet is a lot closer to interfering with the flight pattern than 850 feet. With everything as is, who says something that tall would be approved anywhere in the CBD?

[JOHNOKC25]

The thing that surprises me about these concerns from local airports and the FAA is that our airspace is not crowded relative to a lot of cities, especially NYC, Chicago, Dallas, etc. Just a slight adjustment to the approaches from the south would seem to be all that is needed. Anytime I've flown into OKC from the south, I've never flown over downtown or Bricktown. It's usually been right along I-235 and then the plane curves to the west once it's north of downtown, probably 23rd street or so. One thing that I haven't noticed being brought up is the antenna farm in north OKC. Wouldn't those towers, which are roughly 1000-1500ft tall, be a hindrance to takeoffs and landings also?

[bombermwc]

I just dont buy that either. Yes things might need to change, but it's not an impossible or altogether difficult thing to do.

We do it in New York and in Chicago (and other places around the world).

Don't get me wrong...this thing was never gonna be built anyway. But I'm not ok with airlines and the FAA dictating what development happens in my city just because it makes things more complicated for them. Cry me a river there.

[Pete]

Remember, Matteson has the right to appeal and must do so by Jan. 13th.

If there are easy workarounds he should have no problem obtaining an exception for the tower. Let's see how that plays out.

[JOHNOKC25]

Even if Legends Tower has to be shortened to say, 1200 ft, it would still be VERY iconic and be a game changer for our city! Just the first three towers would be amazing, but Legends would be the icing on the cake. Great times to be in OKC!

[Pete]

This building in Seattle was reduced in height due to the same sort of FAA concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4/C

[dankrutka]

Even if Legends Tower has to be shortened to say, 1200 ft, it would still be VERY iconic and be a game changer for our city! Just the first three towers would be amazing, but Legends would be the icing on the cake. Great times to be in OKC!

Based on all the information we have, I would say the chances of Legends Tower topping 1 foot are close to zero. It's the same odds there have been since the announcement was made. I think it would be a miracle if just one of the smaller towers was built, but that also seems highly unlikely. I don't say this to be cynical, but because all the evidence has always pointed this way.

[JOHNOKC25]

I really hope we get at least the Ruby and Emerald, as they are calling the first two towers. What about the $200M TIF money from the city? If they don't build a single building, they shouldn't get that TIF money, correct? The TIF money alone would seem to give us hope for something getting built.

[Pete]

I really hope we get at least the Ruby and Emerald, as they are calling the first two towers. What about the $200M TIF money from the city? If they don't build a single building, they shouldn't get that TIF money, correct? The TIF money alone would seem to give us hope for something getting built.

Correct, TIF is only payable upon completion of the first phase, so the City has no real money at risk here.

[HOT ROD]

So what I'm reading in all of this is that they could definitely make the change to move that corridor a little bit east.

I mean if we started building the CBD east across into Bricktown, each block they go would mean more of a need to do that anyway. And this is only in the first block across the tracks. Folks are making this out to be a LOT bigger of a deal than it would practically be. One block's difference (literally) doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be a burden to all air travel. That's VERY hyperbolic.

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

[HOT ROD]

This building in Seattle was reduced in height due to the same sort of FAA concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4/C

Yes, and downtown Seattle CBD DOES lie in the flight path for not only SeaTac International Airport but also King County International Airport (Boeing Field) which is closer to the CBD. Planes regularly fly from Capital Hill to the E (by a mile) of the CBD toward White Center then to SeaTac. Boeing Field pattern is on the W side of the CBD over puget sound, much lower near downtown. There is also a THIRD airdrome near downtown Seattle which is a seaport at Lake Union. All of this, yet if anybody's been to Seattle you see lots of towers (yes, height restricted) and lots of airplanes - FAR more than KOKC and KTIK.

Also consider that Downtown Seattle is not flat like OKC, it is on hills rising up sharply from Puget Sound, effectively adding 200-300 feet to any towers built depending upon the location - thereby giving Seattle a dramatic skyline presence in the process as the towers appear much taller than they are.

Downtown Seattle HAS height restrictions, Downtown Oklahoma City does not. Seattle was a bad comparison for Oklahoma City.

[David]

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

It's not like this tower isn't going to happen purely because of the FAA ruling, it's not going to happen because it was a lie from day one.

[PhiAlpha]

^ This!

Especially when you consider that downtown Oklahoma City CBD has NO HEIGHT restrictions. .... And now one block east of the CBD also has none, what's the big deal other than the FAA initially bowing to local airport NIMBYs? Hopefully there's an appeal even if based on this fact. We can't keep legislating change then having the judiciary shooting everything down just because somebody doesn't like it or want change. We voted in the city council who approved this project for Oklahoma City. Should it be vetted? Yes. Do we need to ammend the airspace? Yes, very likely.

But this project should not be held back for this reason.

No one needs to amend anything for a building that isn’t going to happen or the guy who doesn’t have the funding to build it.

If you think the FAA is what’s holding this back then you may be going senile.

[bamarsha]

The entire point of these posts is that it COULD be done IF enough money changed hands and the required work was put in (may not be easy or quick, but it could be done). All that would take is a legitimate project that has the funds, political power, was a lock to go through.

This project has none of that, so this particular project is irrelevant and won't be able to force the issue.

[warreng88]

So I, like many others on this board, have plenty of doubts about the super tall tower coming to fruition. But, what is a height that they could get to without any sort of push back? Devon is at 825? Could they go to 1,000 without issues? Or is it more about the location? Again, not saying this will happen at all, but curious what they could drop it down to.

[JOHNOKC25]

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and it's economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

[PhiAlpha]

Matteson's development in Miami, that is 17 million square feet ,gives me hope that he is serious about doing the Boardwalk project. Ours is supposedly going to be 5 million sq ft. He is VERY bullish on OKC and its economic and cultural future. We are the next big "IT" city and with all that has happened and in the pipeline, we are well positioned for even more growth. As Mayor Holt has said a few times, we are striving to be a city on the global stage, not just nationally.

I’m pretty sure someone here or Pete has already blown his Miami development apart for one reason or another. I’m very bullish on OKC too and that carries about as much weight as Matteson’s bullishness.