That sounds great. I think it would be awesome if he would design something here (though it's probably a long shot).

As far as he goes though, I am merely pointing out that he is not a "designer" structural architect. His designs, indeed, are very engineering-oriented, but the great thing about "great" and well-known architects such as Calatrava is that they are "great" and well-known not because of the outlandishness of a design, but rather at their very-real ability to relate to the context of a project and of a community, whether they be Oklahomans or not.

I think the point you raise about whether we are memorializing/commemorating our past or looking to the future is valid. Indeed, the original oil derrick that brought up this thread seems to be almost exclusively directed at commemoration of a past, but are they mutually exclusive? Is it possible to design something that nods to our heritage while still looking to the refreshingly blank possibilities of our future? I think so; though it is nevertheless a daunting task.

However, my opinion regarding our past remains, and I think you may agree mmonroe, based on your post at the very top of this page: our past is a rich heritage and a mixture of many influences. It is to be remembered and celebrated. But as Oklahomans we seem to have this weird fascination with incorporating this land-run/oil/western settlement heritage in almost every public architectural manifestation...why? Why, I ask. Every place has history....and almost every place commemorates it in one way or another. But many locales have found it perfectly acceptable to appreciate their past while simultaneously being willing to embrace modernity.

There seems to be some sort of natural tendency to think that Oklahoma is somehow innately behind-the-times (to be fair, in some ways we are) and that we are somehow "unable" to be considered a modern city....why? Modern cities were not born with a sense of modernity.

I have a theory: and that theory is that people associate "modernity" and "moving toward the future" with the Urban Renewal movements of the 1960s and 70s which used similar language. We saw how those programs turned out and are somehow afraid that by using similar language in more contemporary revitalization/jump-start efforts we may just end up like them.

But I think we've learned from our mistakes, the architectural community (and to a bit lesser-degree the planning community) realize the blunders of said era, and that modernity can be achieved amongst heritage with success.