Imagine if the Founders light east of 235 was like the batman beacon but had a cowboy silhouette. Or the canal was shaped like a lasso. Or all our streets were named after famous indians... There is a place for this stuff, it's called the Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum, and I think everything fits in fine there. Things are in museums because they are old and in the past. So lets leave them there.

Passing through Cincinnati, Ohio, yesterday, I saw a tower at Kings Island amusement park that was very neat looking. It reminded me of a cross between an oil derrick and Eifel tower. Maybe something like that could work.

The key words, however, are "at an amusement park."

OKC Focus, Sorry the words "at an amusement park" did not set right with you. I was just trying to offer up some constructive information on a talk/message board.

Good poing Peter!

I think $100 million is relatively inexpensive for this type of tourist attraction.

Let's pass the collection plate.

I was simply poking some lighthearted fun, since I am obviously against the idea; I was merely playing off the idea that amusement parks are often cheesy theme-type places. Don't read too much into it; there was nothing meant by it, I assure you.

I personally think that it would be great for Oklahoma. I don't think there's any way it would do us any harm. Oil may be on the way out, but there's no reason we can't commemorate our history. Oil is a very important part of Oklahoma's history.

Plus it would be a step closer to a more urban and modern Oklahoma

Well hell, what looks good really tall and will compliment us, but is not too abstract to make us look like everyone else.... Ever been to Australia?

If oil is on its way out (which I seriously doubt), maybe we could have the world's largest wind generator. It would look like a giant pin wheel. Maybe we could paint it multi-colored. That would satisfy those who think we need to look to the future, and it plays to one of our most recognized state features - wind.

Here is an example of a Santiago Calatrava work in Barcelona. It is iconic, abstract, as well as functional (it is a communications tower), and I know it attracts tourism (because I was there and there were tons of tourists there to see it).

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1294/...e37948ea_b.jpg

Whether or not you specifically like this tower is irrelevant since obviously a tower in Oklahoma City would not be identical; I am merely providing an example of how a tower does not have to look like something to attract positive attention.

The problem I have with the oil tower is that it specifically looks like an oil tower. If any of you ever study architecture, one of the first things you learn in a design studio is that making a project look like something specific on a larger scale is a half-hearted (or half a--ed) attempt at making something significant, is considered a no-no, and almost always results in a project that is ridiculed and rejected by the architectural community. Examples include:
Grand Guitar building in Tennessee
Longaberger Basket building in Ohio
The Elephant building in New Jersey
The mortar and pestle pharmacy in Kentucky
Th book shaped library in Dubai
The peach shaped water tower in South Carolina
The coffee pot tower in Iowa

and tons and tons of other examples. In every case, the structures have attracted tourists...but is that really our number one concern? Lots of things can attract tourists and if it comes at the cost of having a giant oversized derrick that spits water out the top "just like a gushing derrick!" : I think we could come up with something different.

If incorporating our oil history is a necessity (which I still don't understand), instead of making it look like a derrick, we should follow good design principles and rather take inspiration from an oil derrick, and create a tower that does not look like an oil derrick, but rather evokes an oil derrick.

This is difficult to explain in the scope of a post, but it is called abstraction and is the primary tool used by architects to create good architecture instead of mimetic architecture. Many people who are not architects or architecturally-minded do not understand the process or think that it is weird but I assure you it is the best way to go about it.

Most people do not even realize that abstraction occurs. They think architects just design a building to meet needs and that's it. But that is not the case. For example, here are just 2 local instances of abstraction where an architectural piece has a specific reason for being the way that it is without literally mimicking whatever it is evoking:

--The chairs of the National Memorial are arranged in the concentration that they are to evoke the blast cavity left by the bomb.
--The Chesapeake boathouse is supposed to evoke the shape and form of a racing shell, but it does not literally look like a giant boat.

The process of creating this metaphorical connection is called creating the concept of the project, and is one of the most important steps in a project's development. Bad architecture results when you skip the concept and instead decide to make your project a facsimile of something. Just remember: the giant ball of twine is a tourist attraction, but at the end of the day, citizens still have to live next to a giant ball of twine.

I don't know if my statements have made enough sense; I wrote this in a rush. But I think people need to be aware of the abstraction process and just how much meaning goes into a lot of projects that the general public never even realizes, and the fact that a lot of these projects go on to be heralded as architectural successes, while mimetic architecture draws a lot of attention...but are viewed as aesthetic failures. The correlation is not a coincidence.

OKC Focus, I get it. I think you have explained very well what you are trying to get across. I am in total agreement with your point. Good job.

Great job, OKC Focus. In many ways, that's what I was trying to get across in my post #36 about what makes something "iconic."
I agree with your point completely. I hope others finally see the light. Thanks for your erudition.

Ok, so I noticed you've made your point. Now how about some suggestion that would work for Oklahoma. You talk about "meaning" in something, but you offer only pictures of an architect who has nothing "meaningful."

Nothing meaningful????????????? Do you know of Calatrava and the reputation that precedes him? All his works have meaning and are meaningful. You should study about him before you make assumptions.
And as far as a suggestion; I already provided that in my first post in this thread, you just have to look. I again cited Calatrava (though it wouldn't have to be by him) and suggested that the pedestrian bridge over the river incorporate a tower that would be iconic, modern, and attractive...something that could come to represent Oklahoma City without paying unecessary homage to an archaic land-run past.

I'm still laughing at the fact that you said Calatrava's works have no meaning. FYI, the communications tower I posted a picture of was built for the Olympics when they were in Barcelona and evokes an athlete holding the Olympic torch.

Still think it has no meaning?

Meaning...

The way you spoke about our Bombing Memorial, that's the type of meaning i'm referencing. It has emotional significants.

Not every site has an emotional tie to the people. It's a bit hard to create an emotional tie to a site out of nowhere, and it is equally tough to have every square foot of public land have some sort of emotional meaning.

The Memorial's emotional significance is a direct result of the magnitude and kind of event that transpired, not of the architectural result. The architectural result merely takes that emotional significance and attempts to give it it's due.

Creating a tower with the same sort of emotional tie as that would take some sort of corresponding emotional event to happen in order to spur an architectural response. That really only happens in cases such as the bombing and other catastrophic events.

In other cases, such as the examples I gave, the architect merely tries to incorporate significance of other kinds (whether it be regional, historical, or tribute) in order to add meaning.

But you bring up a good point. To perhaps add to the emotional (and overall) significance of a tower in downtown Oklahoma City, a tower could be designed which is a tribute to those lost and affected by 4/19. The Oklahoma City National Memorial is far from being the only memorial already in existence to the event, with small markers, plaques, tributes, and memorials all over Oklahoma City and the state paying homage to the tragedy. A tower could be seen as a monumental and significant tribute (perhaps with a perpetual flame?).

However the emotional significance which inhabits the Memorial and all bombing-related issues is a double-edged sword. An attempt to incorporate the bombing's significance into a proposed downtown tower could also spur an opposite effect, with the argument that the Oklahoma City National Memorial being the only necessary and appropriate memorial to the event.

It's a difficult issue.

But I still cannot see how else one would achieve the specific emotional magnitude you are looking for in a tower without an emotional event of equal magnitude. Perhaps you can explain better? It's possible I am simply misunderstanding you.

Misunderstandings come with the medium of communication.

I'm just trying to understand why with all of the ideas being thrown out and some the lack there of, are we trying to convey a message in an iconic structure memorizing either our past or future and the mode at which we attempt it.

I don't believe a "designer" structural architect would be able to convey something that has a significants to us as oklahomans. As you can tell by this thread, we're already picky.

I do like a perpetual flame, my Alma Mater has a Lamp of Learning that burns continuously. With nearby landfills, I believe we could have the fuel to do it.

OKC Focus...

Here, a peace offering...

About Calatrava

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.

I've embraced being a "Lahoman" and not an "Okie".

I'm glad to be born in a state with such a rich western heritage, but I don't want to cling to the past and have it influence our future. No one here on this forum who really cares can say that they want to go back to riding a horse and buggy or living in TP's but that's how the world fairs us. I remember the days of chat rooms on AOL. You meet a lot of interesting characters from all over the world, when the question is posed ASL [Age, Sex, Location] and you mention OKlahoma, you get responses like "Oh, you live in TP's?" "Ever been attacked by an indian?" "You guys till hunt buffalo?" Just the most ridiculous responses, but that's how we are perceived. I believe we need to change this perception. I"m thankful for the national attention we've been getting. It shows we're not backwards inbred crackers who live in the woods hunting buffalo and warring off indian attacks. We're not the wild west anymore. I also feel that some people try to cling to this because it's what they are familiar with and you will find those are the people who hate and/or make fun of the newer generations coming up who want a modern city. Who don't know much about the western heritage. It's the newer generation who has to take the reins so to speak and be the future of our city.

The fact that there is something like this in Ohio should immediately tell you that (cheesy or not) it's not ICONIC or ORIGINAL.

It is a 1/3 scale replica of the Eifel Tower.

Kings Island | Family Rides - Eiffel Tower