Devon Tower in OKC Unveiled

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.

What parallel universe do you live in?

That statement is just dumb, dude.  Sorry, but you're wrong.  We can't all be Hong Kong.  The only "shock" I know of that people get looking at our skyline is the shock of how large and elegant it is for a city of Tulsa's size.  

Jeez, such a pity party.

Just trying to point out in a "visual" manner the fact that you can tell a lot about a city by its skyline. When you travel a lot and see lots of different skylines you really notice what cities are growing, or when a city stopped growing. Even when a city had its "heyday" by the prevalance of a certain era of buildings. When you go to Austin, Fort Worth, Denver, Omaha, etc. you see contemporary buildings cropping up and dominating the skyline. I remember going back east in the early 90s and seeing the rustbelt cities. You could easily see when the cities boomed, and when they stopped growing.  You can see that with Tulsa today. Yes the skyline is impressive, especially for a city its size. But,,, its also a "dead" skyline. And that does give you an idea of whats going on, or not going on, in the city versus those cities that do have plenty of new structures going up. And Hong Kong isnt the only city growing and getting new buildings lol.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

+1 on the skyline.  Everyone I know from near or far is impressed with Tulsa's skyline for a city our size.  Then I dread actually having them go downtown to see the empty streets and parking lots between the buildings.  [B)]

Per the State helping Tulsa, just the old adage about Tulsa kicking in $1 and getting back 50 cents.  OKC has government employment (more per capita than anywhere else in but DC) and cooperation on projects.   Want to move your freeway for aesthetics?  No problem.  Meanwhile Tulsa's I-44 expansion is decades in the making, we fight to keep a medical examiners office, and remain the largest city in the US without a public hospital.  Bah!  Nothing against OKC, it's against Tulsa really.  We can't get our **** together.

There are definately government jobs in OKC no doubt about it and the AFB has a huge influence there as well.

But I think the state and OKC for that matter wants tulsa to succeed.  I know I grew up in OKC and now live in Tulsa county and work in Downtown Tulsa.  I want this town to succeed

As for OKC moving the crosstown for aesthetics that couldn't be further from the truth.  The crosstown is consistently 160% of its intended capacity and on really busy days it is 165 to 170% of capacity.  Couple that with its elevation, its a maintenance nightmare, and an ice rink in the winter time.  That is long overdue to be moved to the south and drastically widened.  

As for Tulsa's skyline, the skyline for a metro of about 850k is actually not too bad at all when driving by.  Spend time down there and the empty space and the north section of the IDL especially is pretty gloomy

[Breadburner]

lol...Cities Service did the same thing....lol...

[inteller]

why do all new buildings have to look phallic these days?  Why can't they just build a regular building in the International style and be done with it?

You know though, a building that big could probably hold Chesapeake and Devon []

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

why do all new buildings have to look phallic these days?  Why can't they just build a regular building in the International style and be done with it?

You know though, a building that big could probably hold Chesapeake and Devon []

I personally am glad its not just a rectangle.  

They'd have to restructure the building to get 7,000 employees in it.  I dont really think that would be possible actually.

[MichaelBates]

I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.

We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.

Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.

Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.

We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.

Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.

Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.

Holy crap, the real michael bates?  I loveyour site and I love listening to you on 1170 when you're on with PC


I had no clue you posted here.  As someone who has only been in the area for 3 years I do a ton of reading online about the metro and not to keep plugging your site but its great.

Now to address your points.  I tend to agree.  I'd like to see tulsa get another tower or two but I'd also like the space downtown to be used more wisely.  Looking out of the windows to the north it is quite depressing to see the crappy buildings and development in the northern portion of the IDL.  I'd like to think that Tulsan's are at a tipping point and that things will change in 2010.  We can't have elected officials blatantly looking after their own interests (see mayor taylor) and squising already planned developments because they're across the street from the beloved ballpark.  The plans I saw were pretty good and basically the poor guy got the boot for doing nothing more than trying to bring some nice development to downtown that was not affiliated with the political in crowd.

[TheArtist]

Now for the obligatory, show you mine if you show me yours, whose is bigger comparisons lol.



And just so we dont get too full of ourselves.



But I also agree with Bates, "its not how big it is, its how you use it" philosophy.



Here is the thread on Skysraper page forum. Has some better pics and diagrams.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=156332

[MDepr2007]

I bet they can build it before Tulsa can get a ballpark built [B)]

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

I bet they can build it before Tulsa can get a ballpark built [B)]

They may be able to build it; question remains will it suffer 'Oneokitis' and wind up being 24 stories instead of 54, especially with it being all glass.

[AMP]

And just where is the parking for this new Tower?  Trust the parking is better than what was planned, err provided ooops left over for Brick Town.

Ever walked in the "33 degrees and raining" Oklahoma winter, or on ice and through snow from a fair distance when parking to access a venue?

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.

We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.

Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.

Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.

I agree completely.  Tulsa really has MORE skyscrapers than it should for it's size.  To build more would be wasteful, and would make the 3-4-5 story buildings we really need even less likely to happen.  While I understand that some of the posters here are getting "new building envy", we do have the BOK, we COULD be getting a stadium, and with those things, we will start to see more infill, hopefully pedestrian oriented.

[Hometown]

Well to boil things down as much as possible I would say that as of about 1975 Tulsa turned her back on oil and we have been reaping the consequences of that decision for some time now.  OKC is more of an energy town that we are.

Hold onto your seat Inteller because I'm going to look at the stars here.  Tulsa is a Capricorn and Capricorn is the most ambitious sign and in the lives of cities 30 or so years is a drop in the bucket.  

My point is we'll get back on track and we will vanquish our competitors.

Bates, you can build towers and pay attention to the street level at the same time.

Downtown Tulsa strikes me as being a lot like downtown Oakland:  It is a developer's dream.  There's room for plenty of towers.  Big fat ones by name architects.

Tulsa1603, you can throw in the towel.  Not me.  And I don't think Tulsa is ready to give up either.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

And just where is the parking for this new Tower?  Trust the parking is better than what was planned, err provided ooops left over for Brick Town.

Ever walked in the "33 degrees and raining" Oklahoma winter, or on ice and through snow from a fair distance when parking to access a venue?

One of the good things about OKC is that tunnel system.  The walk isn't so bad if you are in that system.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Well to boil things down as much as possible I would say that as of about 1975 Tulsa turned her back on oil and we have been reaping the consequences of that decision for some time now.  OKC is more of an energy town that we are.

Interesting observation about 1975, and I'd like to know more. How did that back-turning manifest itself? (Maybe this ought to be a separate topic.)

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Bates, you can build towers and pay attention to the street level at the same time.

Yes, you can, and it was done all the time before WWII -- e.g., the Empire State Building has street-level retail -- but I'm hard-pressed to think of an example from the last 40 years of a skyscraper that conforms to the Three Rules for generating urban places, which are:

1. Build to the sidewalk

2. Make the building front "permeable" -- connect the inside to the outside with doors and windows.

3. Put the parking behind the building.