(PROJECT) One Place Tower

[Kenosha]

That is as an uninspiring piece of architecture as I have ever seen.

[Urban Enthusiast]

FYI. . . Oxblue has a construction webcam, so you can keep abreast of this development.

[Townsend]

FYI. . . Oxblue has a construction webcam, so you can keep abreast of this development.

Appreciate the heads up.

[Conan71]

FYI. . . Oxblue has a construction webcam, so you can keep abreast of this development.

What's the big roll of duct tape across the street?  Is that what they are using to construct the new tower?

**ducking for cover**

[Hoss]

What's the big roll of duct tape across the street?  Is that what they are using to construct the new tower?

**ducking for cover**

In the same manner that OneOk field was, this construction project has a webcam that will track progress on it.  Pretty neat.

http://oxblue.com/pro/open/oneplacetower

[tulsabug]

Damn that's an ugly building. Maybe they thought they were in OKC?

[TheArtist]

Damn that's an ugly building. Maybe they thought they were in OKC?

Even more "ironically tragic" is that OKC got Devon tower which is beautiful.  The world has gone topsy turvy lol.  Unfortunately this kind of thing is going to continue unless Tulsa stops piddling around content with just getting by and existing, and decides it wants to work hard and push itself to become something great again.  Otherwise with at best our usual mediocre forward momentum we tend to stand perilously at the edge of not just holding the line, but of sliding back.  Occasionally we do something, like Vision 2025, but then we seem to go back to sleep thinking everything will be fine.  But everything is not fine and apparently not fixing itself on its own.  We must remain diligent in our efforts to succeed and compete as a city.   Whatever happened to our push to become a materials science hub and our Vision 2025 investment to help jump start that at OSU Tulsa? ( noticed that the Tulsa campus enrollment is up double the rate of what the Stillwater campus is, too bad the investment isn't any where near comparable)      

[carltonplace]

Your larger point may be somewhat valid, but in this case the banal tower architecture is not an indictment of the city; it just means the architects were working with a short budget.  Precast concrete is cheaper than glass--that's pretty much the beginning and end of it.  I suppose you could wish for a city that demands that significant new developments meet a certain aesthetic baseline, but that would mean that projects like this never get off the ground in the first place, and we stare at the old Towerview site for many more years.  That's just to say you can't put this one on the city.  It's on the developers.

I do agree, the design is exceptionally disappointing.  I kind of also wonder how Cimarex feels.  Architecture is part of marketing, and typically new tenants want their buildings to make a statement... or at least not look like a hospital.

Well stated Floyd, I agree with you. Is a building better than an empty parking lot? Is momentum better than stagnation? Is increasing density/downtown population better than a decaying core? I'm not going to complain about how plain this building is, I'm happy its going up: It will beget other new construction projects and hopefully they will be more attractive. What it lacks in beauty it will make up for in seeding new projects.

[Red Arrow]

Well stated Floyd, I agree with you. Is a building better than an empty parking lot? Is momentum better than stagnation? Is increasing density/downtown population better than a decaying core? I'm not going to complain about how plain this building is, I'm happy its going up: It will beget other new construction projects and hopefully they will be more attractive. What it lacks in beauty it will make up for in seeding new projects.

And when it reaches the end of it's useful life, no one will feel guilty about tearing it down to put up something nice.

[SXSW]

I think the design is alright.  Not exceptional but not ugly either, IMO.  It's Post Modern (like a lot of Miles' work) and many don't appreciate that rather minimal style. 

[DTowner]

I suspect stacking a building on top of an above ground parking garage limits the options design wise.  While I would prefer something with more "wow", I'm more disappointed in the lack of retail/connectivity on the side fronting 2nd St.  Earlier in this thread there was discussion about whether 3rd St. should be the focus, etc.  The problem is, this building will not front 3rd - it only covers half the block between 2nd and 3rd.  This is way better than the surface lot it replaces, but I think it will become a "what could have been" in future years.

[SXSW]

I see elements of Michael Graves' Portland Building, which is a widely known example of Post Modernism.  But you're right it's more modern than post-modern because of the apparent lack of ornamentation and utilitarian style.

Another view..some trees will improve the 2nd St streetscape

[erfalf]

Looking at this picture the first thing that pops into my head is "Why does Tulsa not widen the sidewalks?" Do they really need a dozen lanes of traffic in every direction. jk

I for one think the building is fine. Is it what I would do? No. But that's the beauty of living in America. If you want to build let's say the Price Tower like we have here in Bartlesville, go for it. If you own the land and get the permits, it's all up to you. Although this building has all kinds of historical significance, it is one of the most unusable spaces I have ever witnessed in my life and somewhat unusual to look at. But hey, it is what it is. Mr Price wanted a show stopper, Mr. Price got one.

Cimerex needs office space and parking for their employees. What do they do? The build an office building downtown (where everyone would like), with structured parking (which everyone seems to want). So what's the big freaking deal? Did they want a show stopper, no. Are they interested in remaining a going concern, obviously or we would see a building far more ornate and expensive.

[TheArtist]

Looking at this picture the first thing that pops into my head is "Why does Tulsa not widen the sidewalks?" Do they really need a dozen lanes of traffic in every direction. jk

I for one think the building is fine. Is it what I would do? No. But that's the beauty of living in America. If you want to build let's say the Price Tower like we have here in Bartlesville, go for it. If you own the land and get the permits, it's all up to you. Although this building has all kinds of historical significance, it is one of the most unusable spaces I have ever witnessed in my life and somewhat unusual to look at. But hey, it is what it is. Mr Price wanted a show stopper, Mr. Price got one.

Cimerex needs office space and parking for their employees. What do they do? The build an office building downtown (where everyone would like), with structured parking (which everyone seems to want). So what's the big freaking deal? Did they want a show stopper, no. Are they interested in remaining a going concern, obviously or we would see a building far more ornate and expensive.

I think part of it was that we were indeed hoping for a little more of a show stopper as this building will be one of the first things people see when exiting our "show stopper" arena. That prime location along with the fact that we have all been watching Devon's show stopper tower go up in OKC, added up to many a hope of seeing more finess in the design.  

And good design doesn't require being ornate, or even that expensive.  Clean, elegant simplicity can be quite stunning.   Having said that, my concerns are more oriented to the street/pedestrian level.  The smaller building nearer the arena and in front of the taller office building could be quite nice with the right fenestrations. And from that angle will act as a de-facto "podium" for the tower behind it.  Whats above isn't really that important.  I often see fantastic looking towers that people ooh and aah over in images seen at a distance, but then when I look at how the tower meets the pedestrian, it's sometimes a horrible affront.  When you work, shop, and live downtown, the sidewalks, what your walking past and along, are important. The second street side of this building is ghastly in that respect. Though one can argue that 2nd street is piece by piece being relegated to being a pedestrian no-go zone. Basically 2nd st. in that part of downtown is becoming, well already is, nothing more than a large alley, and thus any practical concern at this point for having a connected downtown for the pedestrian must move to 3rd street.  Any real tragedy would be if your the property owner across the street and you had hopes for something that would do well with good pedestrian traffic.  That would not be likely to happen now.  

 A similarly "dead for the pedestrian" strip is just North of Holy Family Cathedral where the tall white building and its parking garage are. A great pedestrian strip is down Boston Ave and along 5th street.  Both of which I hope will continue to get better pedestrian wise.  But what one would hope to see are some ways to make "loops" around downtown.  You want to be able to start in one area then be able to go down streets that are obviously pedestrian friendly, enjoyable streets to walk down, and be able to make a loop around the block or several blocks and then get back to where you started.  You don't want to constantly have to backtrack down the same street once you hit a boring strip (makes for a very small feeling and lame downtown experience when that happens). And you want to be able to enjoyably walk from one "district" to another as well.  

 When I have been in other cities, even the biggest and greatest pedestrian friendly cities, there are indeed streets you look down and can obviously see are dead and without a lot of activity.  You naturally travel down the pedestrian friendly streets, leading in the general direction of where you want to go, that have lots of activity on them.  Lots of shops and stores, buildings with good street level "personality", etc.  It's great for people, and great of course for the businesses that rely on the pedestrians to visit them.  

What I worry about with our downtown as it grows and wants to become an enjoyable, liveable, walkable area, is that we already have a profusion of streets, or sections of streets, that are not going to be places people will want to walk down.  All it will take is one or two structures in the wrong place to cut off yet another area from another, and possibly precluding any enjoyable "loop" walk, or enjoyable walk from one district to another.  You can lose your pedestrian friendly, critical mass, and keep yourself a more car oriented downtown and city.  A downtown that is alive only during lunch, or during an event, or on a Saturday night, etc. and a downtown that will not ever be able to have efficient, cost effective transit.  Not a future I would want for Tulsa.  We still have good bones that can be built on, but due to past design mistakes, we are understandably wary and unnerved when we see yet another non-pedestrian friendly building going in, even if its along a strip that is at this point likely to not be pedestrian friendly one anyway.  

[DTowner]

Unfortunately, from this rendering it looks lke the 15 story tower is turning its back on the BOK Center (at the street level) when it could be part of the action along 2nd street.  I thought the intent of Place One was to take advantage of the BOK Center, not ignore it.  Again, this is better than the surface lot/apts. it's replacing, but is a missed opportunity to make something great instead of just good with a few better thought out details and connectivity at the street level.