Sorry okcustu, the buildings from Kansas City are fine, but those boxes from Louisville are monstrosities. ; ) To me, they're very clumsy looking and will not age well. Similar to some poorly conceived buildings from the late 60's / early 70's.

To each his own, huh........

Museum Plaza Louisville, Kentucky

I think you are confusing this with a photo of one of Devon's off-shore drilling rigs.

Steve's blog certainly is intriguing...

There is an underground service/loading dock (similar to what Oklahoma & Corporate Towers have), but there is also hundreds of parking spots on 2 levels.


Out of curiosity, what are those?

Devon's $750M HQ Build Reflects OKC's Progress

dammit luke, i was fixing to post that.

hahah

I've added a follow-up Devon article, "Height is fleeting - Beauty Endures" at Doug Dawgz Blog: Height Is Fleeting - Beauty Endures

This article shows what was meant by other articles when they said, compared to buildings actually completed today, were the Devon Tower to exist today, it would be the 20th tallest US building ... the map below identifies the handful of other cities presently having taller buildings.

Larger image: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49.../usacities.jpg



But, that's not realistic. If other buildings already under construction are included, the Devon Tower would be 25th, and if other proposed buildings included, the Devon Tower (also at this point a "proposed" building) would be 35th. Links to articles on each of the other buildings are included.

It was also interesting to discover that, when the 33 story 1st National and Ramsey Tower buildings were finished in 1931, the tallest building in Los Angeles appears to have been only 15 stories -- the point being that our ancestors were doubtless experience much the same sensations then as we are today.

However, it's just as Jon Pickard said, "Height is fleeting. Beauty is not." The article tries to put that truth into perspective without diminishing our present joy.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Very few people have been above the 29th floor of First National.. Rain leaks down to the 30th :/

I hope this new tower stands the test of time better.

Once again Doug, thanks for the information. This is the kind of thing I just love to see. 35th tallest is still not bad for a place like OKC.

I'd love to "know" how you "know" this stuff. I realize there is underground parking there now, but I was relaying what was actually stated in the meeting.

List of tallest buildings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this there are about 27 built, under construction, approved, and proposed buildings that will be taller than Devon Headquarters. So yes, height is not everything.

I agree.

But, frankly, were I guessing, I'd expect it to be better than 35 since I'll be very surprised if the complete group of "planned" buildings happens. As I said at the end of the 3rd set, see this link: Empire World Towers developer faces default judgment - South Florida Business Journal: as to the pair of Miami projects which are included. On the other hand, I have no reason to have a lack of confidence that Devon will do what has been proposed, or better. Compare what Larry Nichols said in March with the actual proposal submitted on Wednesday. If anything, it seems as though he tends to "understate" rather than "overstate" things, and that is good.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Somehow, I perceived that the source utilized by Business Week, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, was a more credible source than Wikipedia, but that's just me. I do acknowledge that I didn't look at the Wikipedia list, much less track down anything in its list -- which I did do with each item contained in the information located at the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat database files.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

I agree. I am a native of OKC now residing in Dallas and the DMN is very biased against Oklahoma in general. It seems to only print "negative" stories coming out of Oklahoma and nothing really positive. Even the news stations in Dallas mention Chesepeake as a Fort Worth based energy giant. When I met people in Dallas and we strike up a conversation, they usually ask where are you from, I tell them and most of them are very forthright and say how could anyone live there? I can see why you moved to Dallas. Dallas is not very fond of Oklahoma as every newspaper, newstation and a vast majority of people living in Dallas will attest to.

Infrastructure, mostly: plumbing, A/C issues, poor air circulation, lots of roof issues (it leaks non stop after rain, and always in a different place). It even leaks into the basement areas down through the walls.

If I recall correctly, the a/c and air handling units are in the white metallic "clouds" at the uppermost part of the structure. Remember, these are isolated from the rest of the building, and are attached only by the long exterior ducts and tubes through which they have to circulate the air. That air has to blow down through the tubing structure and into the two main theatres and lobby areas. Not very efficient at all.

On top of that, the interior is in need of a significant upgrade - new carpets, lighting, bathroom facilities, seating, just new interior everything.

And it is NOT AT ALL by any means ADA accessible. Of course, there wasn't such a thing as ADA accessibility when it was built in the 70s, so that was not at all taken into consideration.

From those I've spoken with about it, they realize it will be a pretty costly "fix," but at the same time, there is no push, at least from what I have heard, to make any kind of renovation that would compromise its current exterior architecture. They recognize that as something unique to OKC, and that for many, it is an architectural treasure, even though for others it is another "gold dome."

I certainly hope that whatever is done to it does not alter the structure significantly. Isn't there sort of an elevator thing in one of the stairways that will raise a wheelchair up to the Cabaret Bar?

I think Devon would be classified as "Approved". At least it is at Emporis.com. Perhaps your source doesn't distinguish between proposed and approved.

I would assume that it was not mentioned at the meeting, hence why it hasn't been mentioned in articles or by anyone else.

i'm sorry, my brother, but (with the exception of that one in boston) i'd rather none of those buildings be built in okc. especially that weird thing that everyone rags on in louisville.

Probably, it's exactly the opposite. The Wiki article mentioned earlier in this thread mentions many more "proposed" buildings than does the Chicago source. My guess is that for a project to be listed on the Chicago source as "proposed" that a threshold element is that it BE approved before it would be included in the "proposed" list ... but I didn't check that out ... but will.

I'm not certain what it takes to get listed on the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat but I expect that it's more than it takes to get listed in the Wikipedia article list, and I would assume (but do not know) that to make the "Chicago" list that "approval" is a given, even if an item is "proposed," else it would not be listed as "proposed" ... as well all know too well, anyone can "propose" something but it never gets approval, or even if it does, it may never happen.

I'm guessing, but do not know, that for a building to be included in the "proposed" category in the Chicago list that it must be "approved." But, for a building to be listed in the next group, construction status (there are 2 subdivisions in that category, buildings that have "topped out" and those that haven't), it would have to have actually started construction.

To illustrate, I'd suppose that, even though the twin Miami "Empire World" projects, each at 93 stories, since they have been "approved" by local governing people, that doesn't qualify them to get to the "next level" since construction has not begun. "Approval" for this project doesn't necessarily give it more credence (since ... I said that I'm guessing ... "approval" is likely required to make the Chicago "proposed" list. But, such "approval" doesn't mean at all "approved" projects will get done, particularly when ugly stuff rears its head as it has in that instance. See Empire World Towers developer faces default judgment - South Florida Business Journal:.

You do raise a good point ... "terms" need to be clarified ... your "approved" point may well explain the difference in the number of projected buildings between the two lists, Wiki and Chicago lists ... I'll see if I can find clarification about what it takes to get "listed" on the "Chicago" list and, if I find something, modify my article as needed, as well as make further comment in this thread. But, as for Wiki, my guess is that editing that list has much lower standards. But that's just a guess. And, since you apparently prefer Emporis, it would be good to check out each of the buildings in both the Wiki and Chicago lists to see how they compare. It would take some time, but that would be a good project! Maybe we can collectively find a "list" that is the "most reliable." But for the Emporis listing of the Devon Tower, relative to the # of "proposed" or "approved" buildings to have any meaning, the various buildings in the lists would need to be cross-checked with each other to see what pops out in the analysis.

In the end, we're all just working with various internet resources. I've not yet found one that is without flaws of some kind. I chose the "Chicago" database since (a) it was utilized in the earlier mentioned Business Week article and since, after looking at it, (b) it looked professionally well done. Of course, appearances can be deceiving!

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

well... with all the OU bumper stickers and what not all over dallas, i could see how it would piss off the native texans. anyways, i lived in dallas for 6 years and always made sure everyone knew i was an okie. sure, they'd congratulate me for wearing shoes and ask if i've slept with any cousins lately, but now i constantly get hit up by dallasites seeking dj gigs in okc.
regardless, as far as the chesapeake thing goes... let's barrage them with emails about where they are really based.

Someone needs to make a page like this.
List of tallest buildings in Tulsa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you place such reliance upon the accuracy of Wiki posts? They can be helpful but they are often inaccurate and need to be read with a very critical eye.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

It does piss me off to no end that Chesapeake is building a sleek, modern high rise office tower in Fort Worth, and we're left with a sprawling neo-Georgian campus in the outer ring of our city here.

So make one that's accurate and doesn't need to be read with a critical eye.

Is Chesapeak building a new tower in Ft. Worth or did they just buy the one they have been renting space in? I thought they just bought the existing one. Either way, I am not a fan of the campus atmosphere. I agree with Larry Nichols when he said spreading employees across a lot of building is not the best way to run a company.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Chesapeake only purchased the building. They are NOT building a new one.