I'm sure of that building no longer being safe. Not now, not ever. Look at how much it swayed. Its done. Are they still keeping the tower and using it? I wouldn't trust it. Not now, not ever. If I ever see Devon Tower sway that much in that way, I will never...ever...not now, not ever...walk within dangerous distance of it.

Does anyone know the max millimeter or centimeter the Devon Tower can sway?

I don't know why developers and builders even allow these towers to sway. They all need to be tightly stiff.
Most building have many feet of sway designed into them, I think the World Trade Centers in NYC had something like 36 feet of sway at the top, 18 feet from center in each direction.

Most of the newer tall buildings in Japan have isolation foundations to isolate the effect of earthquakes to minimize the stress on the structure. Some use fluid dampers while others use a ball bearing type of foundation.

Most building have many feet of sway designed into them, I think the World Trade Centers in NYC had something like 36 feet of sway at the top, 18 feet from center in each direction.

Most of the newer tall buildings in Japan have isolation foundations to isolate the effect of earthquakes to minimize the stress on the structure. Some use fluid dampers while others use a ball bearing type of foundation.

I don't see how that is possible. How can totally thick concrete beams move around and not crack? How can windows not pop out or screws come loose? I just don't see how its all done. I know the Devon Tower will have a restaurant on top. I'm just really worried and scared to go up there and be swayed 25+ feet around, because Oklahoma is a Windy State. On that thought, barf bags better be made available up there for all those diners. LOL

Perhaps an LED lighting test is going to happen? Turn the construction lights out for glare/visibility?

Don't think so...

I believe the next one will be done when they can test the crown as well.

I just said that. :LolLolLol

It blended in with your signature, so I didn't notice.

yesir Thunder, Oklahoma is a windy state, but so is Chicago that have MANY MORE skyscrapers much taller than our Devon Tower and of course is nicknamed, "The Windy City." We're going to be just fine Thunder. Just think of Chicago when you get scared and remember that they have some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world and is much more windy than OKC, and have made it through just fine forever.

yesir Thunder, Oklahoma is a windy state, but so is Chicago that have MANY MORE skyscrapers much taller than our Devon Tower and of course is nicknamed, "The Windy City." We're going to be just fine Thunder. Just think of Chicago when you get scared and remember that they have some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world and is much more windy than OKC, and have made it through just fine forever.

I agree that Chi town has some of the tallest Skyscrapers in the World and has 30 times that of OKC,but doesnt OKC have an average windspeed higher than Chicago?

I agree that Chi town has some of the tallest Skyscrapers in the World and has 30 times that of OKC,but doesnt OKC have an average windspeed higher than Chicago?

At the surface but usually as height increases so does the wind. In any case they should have had plenty of records to know what to expect and would have built to exceed that by a safe margin, in cases where it affects peoples lives it is common to be several times more than the minimum necessarily under expected conditions (also in a building this tall redundancy is needed to allow for repairs to key components after it is built).

Chicago is called the "Windy City" because of their long-winded politicians. The nickname has nothing to do with the amount of wind they have. OKC is much windier.

I thought the nickname originated from the cold winter winds off Lake Michigan.

I thought the nickname originated from the cold winter winds off Lake Michigan.

That is incorrect.

I'm sure of that building no longer being safe. Not now, not ever. Look at how much it swayed. Its done. Are they still keeping the tower and using it? I wouldn't trust it. Not now, not ever. If I ever see Devon Tower sway that much in that way, I will never...ever...not now, not ever...walk within dangerous distance of it.

Does anyone know the max millimeter or centimeter the Devon Tower can sway?

I don't know why developers and builders even allow these towers to sway. They all need to be tightly stiff.


You are WAY off here. If a building was designed to be stiff with no elasticity, it would crumble at the smallest of earthquakes.

If you want to know why this is the case, then go to engineering school.

You are WAY off here. If a building was designed to be stiff with no elasticity, it would crumble at the smallest of earthquakes.

If you want to know why this is the case, then go to engineering school.

Gotta agree with you here... for most buildings the size of Devon it's in the building's safety code that it must sway or have some sort of earthquake preventative measure in place, even if that building isn't in an active earthquake zone. Seismic Architecture is basically the study of how buildings absorb/sway with the movement of the earth.. So id be more worried if i DIDNT see a building swaying..

We used to have a lot of meetings at the top floor of the City Place bldg - on windy days, definitely feel the sway, and that building has been there since '36. No problemo.

How much do you think they've allotted for furnishings, artwork, and miscellaneous start-up equipment?
$ystems furniture, if that's what they'll use in the majority of the building, isn't gonna be the cheaper variety. Guessing most of the serious kitchen equipment will be real property/part of construction costs.

Really rough SWAG: $20M-$50M

I thought the nickname originated from the cold winter winds off Lake Michigan.

According to a Barry Popik, who is an historian of American slang and a consultant to Oxford English Dictionary.

"It's a little difficult to state the first citation of "Windy City," but one thing is clear – the New York Sun Charles A. Dana 1893 World's Fair origin/popularization is a myth. About 1871, there's a rhyme in Puck (a popular NYC humor magazine) that included "windy old town of Chicago."

In 1884, however, Chicago held political conventions, and Puck declared that Chicago's nickname is "the Garden City, but nobody knows why." In that year, the Chicago Tribune editor promoted Chicago's cool breeze off the lake as an ideal reason to make Chicago a summer resort.

I checked the nicknames in Sporting Life. In August 1885, that slangy baseball magazine called Chicago "City of Winds." In early 1886, "Windy City" would appear in a Sporting Life list of city nicknames.

The September 1885 "Windy City" in a Cleveland publication is on the Library of Congress's American Memory electronic database, at www.loc.gov. I found other 1885 "Windy City" citations in the Louisville Courier-Journal and the New York Evening Telegram. By 1886, "Windy City" was being widely used.

On September 11, 1886, the Chicago Tribune addressed "Windy City," stating that it was an "awkward" nickname from the wind off the lake, made popular by "The village papers of Michigan and New York."

This is all much before the 1893 World's Fair fight of 1889 and 1890. I have told the Chicago Tribune and the new New York Sun to publish my findings and to clear New York Sun editor Charles A. Dana's name once and for all, but they refuse to even respond.

In his e-mail below, Keith C. Heidorn cites what you would think would be a reliable source. But, as Popik shows, "reliable" sources aren't always that reliable.

Just read your answer to the windiest city and want to let you know what I understand is the reason for Chicago (my birthplace) being called the Windy City. Seems that during the bidding for the World's Fair of 1893, Chicago proponents put on a rather verbose presentation and campaign to win the bid. The choice was down to Chicago, New York, Washington and St. Louis, and the competition before Congress among the cities was fierce. The New York Sun editor Charles Dana wrote: "Don't pay attention to the nonsensical claims of that windy city. Its people could not build a world"s fair even if they won it." (Source: Chicago Days, by the Chicago Tribune staff)

The newspapers began calling Chicago the Windy City thereafter and the nickname stuck. Perhaps, the name is enhanced by the fact that many of Chicago's main streets run west-east and the channeling of winds through the urban canyon from off Lake Michigan can be quite strong, higher than any airport readings.

Keep up the good work. I am amazed how often we parallel our articles and questions.

Keith C. Heidorn, PhD

Gotta agree with you here... for most buildings the size of Devon it's in the building's safety code that it must sway or have some sort of earthquake preventative measure in place, even if that building isn't in an active earthquake zone. Seismic Architecture is basically the study of how buildings absorb/sway with the movement of the earth.. So id be more worried if i DIDNT see a building swaying..

I had several meetings with SOM on the Burj Khalifa/Burj Dubai when it was under development. At more than a half mile tall, you can imagine the stresses on the building. Most would be surprised to know how much engineering work is done for environmental implications and how sophisticated the modeling, testing, etc. is. Modern skyscrapers are incredibly complicated engineering feats and are very safe when done properly. (However I have been at some construction sites in the world where I wouldn't want to stay after they were completed - think China)

On a windy day you can feel the sway at the top of the 22 (I think) story Valliance Tower on NW Expressway near Penn Square. The people working at the Space Needle in Seattle told me that on very windy days water can slosh out of the toilet bowls in the bathrooms. Like others have said, flexibility is designed into tall buildings on purpose. I'm still interested in knowing if there is any type of dampening system on Devon. All I have heard is speculation.

Sigh, trout I hope your not serious, because everyone knows that reference to real wind in the elements for chicago for the windy city. Come on man. Sigh, whatever dude. Let's be real here dude

Thank you Rover. Looks like trout just wanted to be a smartguy and even say that someone is "incorrect" when they mentioned the truth. Sigh

Sigh, trout I hope your not serious, because everyone knows that reference to real wind in the elements for chicago for the windy city. Come on man. Sigh, whatever dude. Let's be real here dude

Yeah, dude. Totally. Right on. Let's get real.

Anyway, the origins of the nickname are heavily disputed and after doing some research I'll admit that I might have been wrong, but some still hold that Chicago is called the windy city because of the "long-winded" politicians that argued for the state fair to be held in Chicago. It is not ridiculous considering Chicago is not a particularly windy city. But... whatever, dude.

Sigh, trout I hope your not serious, because everyone knows that reference to real wind in the elements for chicago for the windy city. Come on man. Sigh, whatever dude. Let's be real here dude

Dude, like seriously dude? I had no idea dude. Wow dude, you're like my hero dude. I'm gonna start callin you dude, is that okay dude?

Just asking though dude, I like, don't wanna hurt your feelings man..... Legalize marijuana muddafudda so I won't be like breaking the law no more, dude. ROCK ON BRO!!!! Tahahaha

I have a question that someone might be able to answer?The cost of the Devon tower is 750$Million Dollars,but that was stated in 2009,so do you guys think it may be way higher or even lower because of the height reduction?

The windiest large cities in the U.S. according to USA Today are New York City, Oklahoma City, and Boston. Chicago is lower down on the list! (#12)

The windiest large cities in the U.S. according to USA Today are New York City, Oklahoma City, and Boston. Chicago is lower down on the list! (#12)

It's odd seeing Oklahoma City and New York City in the same category.

Most wind, as it flows across the plains, goes west to east. With rare exceptions of course. The lake is east of Chicago, so rarely would the wind actually be blowing across the lake into the city. Now if it was blowing straight south, you could argue that kind of does it. But seems unlikely to create a nickname.

I've also always heard it was because of politicians.

The cost of the Devon tower is 750$Million Dollars,but that was stated in 2009,so do you guys think it may be way higher or even lower because of the height reduction?

The $750 million number was after the revisions and has been quoted by Devon several times.

They've also said they have been running on-time and on or below budget.

Most wind, as it flows across the plains, goes west to east. With rare exceptions of course. The lake is east of Chicago, so rarely would the wind actually be blowing across the lake into the city. Now if it was blowing straight south, you could argue that kind of does it. But seems unlikely to create a nickname.

I've also always heard it was because of politicians.

Depends on where the low pressure center passes Chicago. If to the south, then those counterclockwise winds would blow over the lake and into the city. It all depends on the jet stream, which tends to be further north during the summer months.

The tower cam is back to where it was before. Feels weird looking at it and seeing how tall it is because I got use to the angle down low. Lol

The tower cam is back to where it was before. Feels weird looking at it and seeing how tall it is because I got use to the angle down low. Lol

Yes, and it looks as if quite a bit of glass has gone up.

Yes, and it looks as if quite a bit of glass has gone up.

In person you can see that the glass looks to be the most complete on the NW side and you can obviously tell in the camera so I'd assume they will only take another month or 2 to finish the glass.

I saw some odd lighting on the north side crown this morning when coming to work. It will be interesting to see that at night. It seemed like regular incandescent lighting spaced evenly in an almost grid pattern. Not the bright construction lights we are used to.

I saw some odd lighting on the north side crown this morning when coming to work. It will be interesting to see that at night. It seemed like regular incandescent lighting spaced evenly in an almost grid pattern. Not the bright construction lights we are used to.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the same ones but on the crown on the SW side they've had some lights similar to the ones you described for about 2 or 3 weeks now, maybe longer. Perhaps they're installing or have already installed them on the north side?

Dude, like seriously dude? I had no idea dude. Wow dude, you're like my hero dude. I'm gonna start callin you dude, is that okay dude?

Just asking though dude, I like, don't wanna hurt your feelings man..... Legalize marijuana muddafudda so I won't be like breaking the law no more, dude. ROCK ON BRO!!!! Tahahaha Cool, like dude i'm your hero dude, awesome dude. cool cool dude, hey dude, dude dude, yo dude, he he he dude, its like overkill dude and your missing the whole point dude, and dude like cool. If the politician reason was real, then that would be EVERY stinkin' city in America and beyond as their nickname. come on man

Most wind, as it flows across the plains, goes west to east. With rare exceptions of course. The lake is east of Chicago, so rarely would the wind actually be blowing across the lake into the city. Now if it was blowing straight south, you could argue that kind of does it. But seems unlikely to create a nickname.

I've also always heard it was because of politicians. If it was because of politicians, then EVERY city would have that as a nickname.

Yeah, dude. Totally. Right on. Let's get real.

Anyway, the origins of the nickname are heavily disputed and after doing some research I'll admit that I might have been wrong, but some still hold that Chicago is called the windy city because of the "long-winded" politicians that argued for the state fair to be held in Chicago. It is not ridiculous considering Chicago is not a particularly windy city. But... whatever, dude. I'm very amused that you like the dude thing. he he and I appreciate that you admitted that you were wrong, because you WERE, however i can and do understand how it might of been for the "long-winded" politicians arguing about the state fair thing.

Anyways,back to the Devon Tower!I have noticed those multiple sets of light on the crown every morning and always noticed what they are?Maybe construction flood lights so they can work at night?

Cool, like dude i'm your hero dude, awesome dude. cool cool dude, hey dude, dude dude, yo dude, he he he dude, its like overkill dude and your missing the whole point dude, and dude like cool. If the politician reason was real, then that would be EVERY stinkin' city in America and beyond as their nickname. come on man

Trust me, it's not that I missed your point, it's that I just don't care about your point. I prefer to talk about the Devon Tower in the Devon Tower thread. I'll give you credit though, atleast you know why Chicago is named the Windy City....

Most wind, as it flows across the plains, goes west to east. With rare exceptions of course. The lake is east of Chicago, so rarely would the wind actually be blowing across the lake into the city. Now if it was blowing straight south, you could argue that kind of does it. But seems unlikely to create a nickname.

I've also always heard it was because of politicians.
Having sat in Wrigley Field during opening week I can attest that the winds can come into the stadium from the east, and that time of year they can be pretty cold.

Yes, and it looks as if quite a bit of glass has gone up.

Where are our photographers at?

Where are our photographers at?

I go over to skyscrapercity and the Devon thread has some great photos over there......not sure where these people are getting them.

If it was because of politicians, then EVERY city would have that as a nickname.

So if cities' nicknames were based on website posters we might be proclaimed "The A.D.D City" or the "I love to argue about stupid things city" or even "The Ignore Facts City".

Is there a way someone can take a picture of the Oklahoma City skyline at night, like what you see when News 9 at 10pm first comes on?.. when the guy says "This is Oklahoma's Own, News 9 in High Dedfinition".

I do not know who took this pic!I found it searching Google!http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/9136/okcskylinejet826112.jpg

^^Two more towers above 600'ft would make our skyline look pretty strong!

Looks like someone took it from a plane landing at the airport and you can tell it was taken awhile back because the crown wasn't finished and the glass isn't up to high.

I'm bettin it's from William (UnFrSaKn).

This is out of pure curiosity but what are the odds Oklahoma City will get a 1,000+ ft tower within the next 25-30 years? Don't insist I'm crazy, I just started wondering about this.

{Sorry for derailing the Devon Tower thread but I don't know where else to put this and I don't want to look up a thread for this that may not exist.}

When you consider the number of 1000 foot + structures built in the entire US throughout history, I'd say the odds are under 10 percent.

500+ I'd say pretty strong, 1000+ odds are very slim for any city except NYC or Chicago.

500+ I'd say pretty strong, 1000+ odds are very slim for any city except NYC or Chicago.

I agree with that. It would be nice to see a 1,000+ ft built here but it's highly unrealistic unless a handfull of large companies relocated to OKC or one of the companies located here has a hiring boom at their HQ's and built downtown needing a building that tall but I put the chances of either of those scenarios under 5% and that's me being optimistic putting the chances that high.

I hope OKC never gets a 1000 foot tower. Seeing how Devon Tower already dominates the skyline I would have prefered that it been built as two towers (or even more).

I agree with that. It would be nice to see a 1,000+ ft built here but it's highly unrealistic unless a handfull of large companies relocated to OKC or one of the companies located here has a hiring boom at their HQ's and built downtown needing a building that tall but I put the chances of either of those scenarios under 5% and that's me being optimistic putting the chances that high.

Chesapeake could do it..6,000 or so employees.....but with the way the have the campus structure, they probably won't.

I hope OKC never gets a 1000 foot tower. Seeing how Devon Tower already dominates the skyline I would have prefered that it been built as two towers (or even more).

Just cause the Devon Tower dominates the skyline now doesn't mean it will in 10 years or even 5 years cause there's no telling what all could get built and how soon so don't think of it in that sense, think of it as if we got a skyline like Philadelphia and then we built a 1,000 ft about 25 years down the road. Philadelphia has had a few planned over 1,000 ft but they've all been cancelled, even the most recent one (can't remember the name), so it's not like 1,000 ft buildings are never considered, it's just that a huge chunk of them get cancelled. Heck, there was even an almost 7,000 ft in the planning stages to be built in Houston but they scratched that idea at some point and it was probably a good thing cause their tallest is just over 1,000 ft tall and that would SERIOUSLY stand out.

And I'm not comparing Oklahoma City to Philadelphia cause God knows Philadelphia is one of the premier cities of America and Oklahoma City is just a small city in the heartland, I'm just using Philadelphia's skyline as an example. But I do agree that Devon sticks out quite a bit now but it won't always stick out as taller towers are built here, hopefully.

We just need SandRidge to build a 600 footer for the one planned in 2014 or so.

Chesapeake could do it..6,000 or so employees.....but with the way the have the campus structure, they probably won't.

That's why I worded it to say "hiring boom at their HQ's and built downtown." Lol because Chesapeake could easily build a 1,000 ft but they're going for the campus style and have stated that they don't plan on going DT.

That's why I worded it to say "hiring boom at their HQ's and built downtown." Lol because Chesapeake could easily build a 1,000 ft but they're going for the campus style and have stated that they don't plan on going DT.

I've heard interviews with AKM and he states he just loves downtown, hince the boathouse, finish line tower and now the arena name. I kind of wonder if they might do something some day. A few years back, they bought the PierOne 22 story tower in Ft Woth, so maybe he's not opposed to tall buildings.

I've heard interviews with AKM and he states he just loves downtown, hince the boathouse, finish line tower and now the arena name. I kind of wonder if they might do something some day. A few years back, they bought the PierOne 22 story tower in Ft Woth, so maybe he's not opposed to tall buildings.

rumors going back a long time that he would like to turn the chesapeake campus into chesapeake university someday ..

OKC needs about 30 more buildings in the 300 to 700 foot range before a 1000 foot building doesn't look out of place. Devon is going to look out of place for a decade or more. Look at downtown Detroit as an example. GM place still looks like it was dropped from the sky by aliens with bad aim.

OKC needs about 30 more buildings in the 300 to 700 foot range before a 1000 foot building doesn't look out of place. Devon is going to look out of place for a decade or more. Look at downtown Detroit as an example. GM place still looks like it was dropped from the sky by aliens with bad aim.

Lol the Renaissance Center is odd looking all around and it makes it even more odd that it's so far out from the rest of the buildings downtown. But the tallest is 108 ft taller than the 2nd tallest in Detroit so it fits in height wise.

Just cause the Devon Tower dominates the skyline now doesn't mean it will in 10 years or even 5 years cause there's no telling what all could get built and how soon so don't think of it in that sense, think of it as if we got a skyline like Philadelphia and then we built a 1,000 ft about 25 years down the road. Philadelphia has had a few planned over 1,000 ft but they've all been cancelled, even the most recent one (can't remember the name), so it's not like 1,000 ft buildings are never considered, it's just that a huge chunk of them get cancelled. Heck, there was even an almost 7,000 ft in the planning stages to be built in Houston but they scratched that idea at some point and it was probably a good thing cause their tallest is just over 1,000 ft tall and that would SERIOUSLY stand out.

And I'm not comparing Oklahoma City to Philadelphia cause God knows Philadelphia is one of the premier cities of America and Oklahoma City is just a small city in the heartland, I'm just using Philadelphia's skyline as an example. But I do agree that Devon sticks out quite a bit now but it won't always stick out as taller towers are built here, hopefully.

You're also forgetting that Philadelphia has had height restrictions for decades, and only recently they allowed skyscrapers in certain parts of the city. You have to understand the history of Philadelphia. Originally nothing could be built taller than city hall.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PY1GvUI3mQM/Tk3ICGLQhZI/AAAAAAAAAO4/_13ythuOsX8/s1600/art-on-city-hall-600.jpg

http://www.sobrietyonline.org/images/PhillyCityHall.jpg

Lol the Renaissance Center is odd looking all around and it makes it even more odd that it's so far out from the rest of the buildings downtown. But the tallest is 108 ft taller than the 2nd tallest in Detroit so it fits in height wise.

That is what I am saying. Look how goofy Detroit looks with only a 108' difference. Devon is 350' taller than Liberty/Cotter. Like most people I got very excited when Devon Tower was announced but in my mind it is turning out to be better on paper/small model than in real life. I am afraid it will be another architect mistake in a long history of architectural mistakes. I know a lot of people agree with me because our local photographers go to great lengths to reduce the 'size' of Devon compared to the rest of downtown and nearly everyone thinks OKC needs some 700' buildings to balance it out.

While in Charlotte the other night I couldn't help bute see how 2 building ruined their skyline, when they thought they were adding to it. From a distance it is as if the rest of their buildings aren't even there because BofA and Duke Energy tower way above everything else. Sometimes 'more' is less.

The height restictions in Philadelphia (though never an actual law) resulted in a very flat skyline because everyone built to the height that could get approved. Then all construction stopped in because it wasn't economically feasable without going higher. They finally allowed Liberty 1 and 2 to be built and since then several other taller buildings were built. I also found out that Philadelphia passed a 10 year moratorium on property taxes for building/converting residential unit in the Center City. It seems to have worked because there 10s of thousands of people living in Center City now.