You can also get more details from this month's agenda of the Downtown Design Review Committee.

http://www.okc.gov/planning/planning_library/drc/10-023.pdf

hipster, since they will all be Devon employees parking there, I'm sure they will all be using the elevators at the south end, closest to the building, podium, health club, etc. I'm sure the elevators at that end all go to the top.

Very unlikely someone would park there then want to head north.

Not directly related to the tower, but has anyone else heard about the elevators in the parking garage? Apparently on at least some of the elevators, they did not extend the elevators up to the 10th level (NE corner for sure). They still only go to the 4th floor - if you park above there, you have to take the stairs. As much money as Devon spent on that, seems a really odd thing to do.

Probably means you better pay the premium price for the best parking spaces! Or--have a strong heart!

hipster, since they will all be Devon employees parking there, I'm sure they will all be using the elevators at the south end, closest to the building, podium, health club, etc. I'm sure the elevators at that end all go to the top.

Very unlikely someone would park there then want to head north.

Perhaps...although word is they may have extra spaces they will lease out....I guess those people don't get an elevator. Again, seems a bit strange with all the money they put in that they didn't complete that.

OMG. Devon is building a big green space on their campus. And they tore down a bunch of buildings to make room for it.

What did they tear down to make room?


Devon is building a truly world class corporate center. I love their challenge to the rest of the companies in OKC.

I hope this doesn't sour your enthusiasm for Devon, but they are doing things the right way..

It looks like the Hudson facade is going to be a glazed wall that projects out at a slight angle. It will be made up of, according to the DDRC pdf, transparent glass and minimized steel for structural support and load bearing. So hopefully a little more than a blank wall. If it turns out that way, maybe they can work with the schools and get some art to adorn it with, similar to what you currently see on the barriers to the construction site.

I was poking fun, guys. The buildings torn down were long ago and replaced with an ugly parking structure where the galleria was to be. Thank goodness we didn't get the galleria. We would have had a dead duck where the Devon complex is.

And I love the Devon project. Again, poking fun because it shows green space and we know green space isn't "urban".

Sorry, my sarcasm came out this morning. Guess I am just irritated that it is such a beautiful day and I am stuck inside in an office.

As Steve said, the designs and renderings were new, yes we knew there would be an auditorium, but didn't know the design nor that it would have a commercial catering kitchen.



As Steve said, it was 2 stories, and one of them were underground, it's not like it was a historic building or anything. And unless the Arts Festival or a Thunder game was going on, it was half empty on any given day.

Yeah, I see. And not that we would ever have looked for it but if you take a closer look at that newest shiniest rendering of the Devon Tower with the fall foliage and the bright blue sky behind it, you can actually see the square roofed auditorium in the lower left hand corner...

Not really a garage - it was a two-level parking deck. But there were definitely no buildings (in the modern era) torn down to make way for Devon.

...and not only that but they put the parking spaces back by adding 5 floors to the existing garage next door.

This really is a tale of two companies and their vision for downtown OKC. Devon is taking open space (a parking deck) and building up. Sandridge is taking existing verticle space and making it open space. I think I like the Devon approach better.

Devon going up in that location is the result of other buildings coming down 30 yrs ago. As is the new library - a pretty nice addition to downtown in and of itself. It is the life of a city.

Color me orientationally-challenged, but I still can't "picture" which way the glass side of the structure will face - south or west - or neither.

Seems having a huge blank wall next to either street would create one of those visual "blocks" that are discussed in pedestrian traffic discussions.

*scratches head*

Devon going up in that location is the result of other buildings coming down 30 yrs ago. As is the new library - a pretty nice addition to downtown in and of itself. It is the life of a city.

So you are saying that the Sandridge plan should go through because in 30 years there will be a vacant lot to build on. That sounds reasonable. Just for grins, let's say there were four dilapidated buildings on the Galleria site, do you think that would have prevented the Devon tower project? Surely not, because as we all know, an active parking garage WAS there and is now gone.

Most of the opposition to the Sandridge plan isn't because they are tearing down some old buildings, it is that they aren't replacig them with anything but flower beds.

Color me orientationally-challenged, but I still can't "picture" which way the glass side of the structure will face - south or west - or neither.

The 30 degree angled glass shown in the story will face east toward the open park area in front of the tower, podium, etc. The blank wall will face south toward Sheridan, but from the renderings, it looks like it will be set back from the street and broken up with trees, sidewalks, etc.

FritterGirl, the main glass wall shown will be facing east into the Devon park, back at the tower. I agree about the Hudson streetwall barrier, see my earlier comment.

aa

Devon going up in that location is the result of other buildings coming down 30 yrs ago. As is the new library - a pretty nice addition to downtown in and of itself. It is the life of a city.

Well, yeah, you've got a point. But let's tell the rest of the story...

The tower is being built approximately where the Warner Theater and Beverly's restaurant were located. Would someone have fought to save the Warner Theater if it were standing today? You bet - it's history went back to Vaudville days and could trace its roots to the old Overholser Operahouse.
As for Beverly's? Cool little building, but I doubt it would have survived in any recognizable manner over 40 years.
The rest of the block is where you might find yourself losing in this parlor game - it was a rather plane jane parking garage.
But you have a point - not all building demolitions are wrong. The question is, does Oklahoma City want to see downtown mid-rises replaced with landscaped plazas? (and for those of you wanting to discuss this - go to the SandRidge thread and let this one focus on the auditorium)

[QUOTE=Steve;330570]Well, yeah, you've got a point. But let's tell the rest of the story...

The tower is being built approximately where the Warner Theater and Beverly's restaurant were located. Would someone have fought to save the Warner Theater if it were standing today? You bet - it's history went back to Vaudville days and could trace its roots to the old Overholser Operahouse.
As for Beverly's? Cool little building, but I doubt it would have survived in any recognizable manner over 40 years.

They laughed at me when I was a young person in 1969 working in the Colcord Building and was dining on a steaming "Tuna Tater" at lunch one day in Beverly's Diner--when I suddenly exclaimed--"there will be a giant skyscraper right here--one day!"...and now--they laugh no more! :beaten_fi

Just be glad its mankind causing the shake up & not mother nature, a la San Francisco 1916

I thought it was a multi-storied parking garage, but my eyes are not what they used to be. My bad.

They are presently adding on to that parking garage.

Just be glad its mankind causing the shake up & not mother nature, a la San Francisco 1916

Mr. Fahrquar, who managed the Colcord Building back in the 1960's, once told me the reason the OCURA moved there in 1969 was...(among other reasons) that building is so full of concrete--because the investors who built it were afraid of earthquakes shortly after the devastating 1906 SF earthquake--(they doubled the strength in it)--making it's demolition not worth what it would cost--and the building will be there forever--it could withstand just about any sort of disaster. And--she still sits there proudly, renovated and looking good 100 years later, solid as the rock she is.

It won't be a blank wall on Hudson--only Sheridan. See page 10 of the pdf above.

It's pretty hard for an auditorium not to have 2 blank sides. It's still better to have density on the corner, IMO.

Just took these tonight. In the last pic it looks like they're stockpiling some concrete forms for the next floor.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/4627577765_4aabaf7914_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4628183162_49284ea67d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4627580331_9cdd871028_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/4627581551_a4dfe1073f_b.jpg

Awesome pics. Goob, Thanks!

Those are AWESOME pics. Here's one I took on my phone the other day:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S_LmriL5MWI/AAAAAAAAAmY/GrVNo9g1CaU/s1600/IMG01232.JPG

Devon going up in that location is the result of other buildings coming down 30 yrs ago. As is the new library - a pretty nice addition to downtown in and of itself. It is the life of a city.

So this is the ONLY sight where Devon could have built in all of downtown? Surely there are other locations that wouldn't have required the destruction of some other buildings that might be worthy of saving? (I am not against this or against Devon taking a parking garage and doing something useful with the space, just the idea that we had to destroy buildings 30 years ago so this could happen).

By the way, did the thread wires get crossed? I had clicked on the thread about the Devon auditorium and it keeps bringing me to the "Devon Tower: officially under Construction" one....

So this is the ONLY sight where Devon could have built in all of downtown? Surely there are other locations that wouldn't have required the destruction of some other buildings that might be worthy of saving? (I am not against this or against Devon taking a parking garage and doing something useful with the space, just the idea that we had to destroy buildings 30 years ago so this could happen).

When I worked at OCURA, many of the buildings that were demolished were targeted because they were either unsafe, or built in a way that made reinforcing prohibitively expensive--if not completely impractical. Remember, OKC was built very quickly after the Land Run in 1889...and a quick-buck was the rule. There has always been a fairly decent amount of concern for history--but--everything torn down is not always the filthy hands of evil capitalists seeking to wipe out history. OCURA identified and tried to preserve as much as was possible...it is just that due to the way it was built so very quickly--all of the sudden--OKC had that problem--Bricktown is a testament of trying to preserve as much as they could.

When I worked at OCURA, many of the buildings that were demolished were targeted because they were either unsafe, or built in a way that made reinforcing prohibitively expensive--if not completely impractical. Remember, OKC was built very quickly after the Land Run in 1889...and a quick-buck was the rule. There has always been a fairly decent amount of concern for history--but--everything torn down is not always the filthy hands of evil capitalists seeking to wipe out history. OCURA identified and tried to preserve as much as was possible...it is just that due to the way it was built so very quickly--all of the sudden--OKC had that problem--Bricktown is a testament of trying to preserve as much as they could.

Conspiracy theory nut concept in 3, 2, 1......

Intersting picture you took Spartan, the composition on a gloomy day was fascinating...

In the last picture whats that giant blue thing there putting together?

When I worked at OCURA, many of the buildings that were demolished were targeted because they were either unsafe, or built in a way that made reinforcing prohibitively expensive--if not completely impractical. Remember, OKC was built very quickly after the Land Run in 1889...and a quick-buck was the rule. There has always been a fairly decent amount of concern for history--but--everything torn down is not always the filthy hands of evil capitalists seeking to wipe out history. OCURA identified and tried to preserve as much as was possible...it is just that due to the way it was built so very quickly--all of the sudden--OKC had that problem--Bricktown is a testament of trying to preserve as much as they could.

No conspiracy theory here. Some of what Jmark says is correct - there were a lot of bad, blighted and less than historic buildings torn down. But let's not romanticize OCURA too much now... I'm not a basher and I've been someone trying to set some records straight. The Hales Building was a perfect example of clearance out of control and did not reflect on effort to "preserve what they could." By all accounts it had been modernized, kept in good shape, and yet because it was in the 1964 Pei Plan, it had to go, no further discussion allowed... and then the site went undeveloped until the early 1990s when the IRS building was erected in its place. Bricktown is a testament to Neal Horton's efforts, and the city had its sights set on razing it as well.
I'm sorry if this sounds hostile, Jmark - in fact, I'd like to meet you. But what you're saying in this comment - intentionally or not - is very different from recorded, documented history.

I agree with Steve. OCURA may have started out only targeting truly unsalvageable buildings, but I mean, the entire Galleria block?? They all just happened to be shoddy rushed construction? I don't think so. Not everything demolished was built in 1889-1900. I imagine very, very little of it.

I agree with Steve. OCURA may have started out only targeting truly unsalvageable buildings, but I mean, the entire Galleria block?? They all just happened to be shoddy rushed construction? I don't think so. Not everything demolished was built in 1889-1900. I imagine very, very little of it.

Many factors come into play. Most of all--hindsight is so much clearer than foresight. Otherwise...we would have had a hodge-podge of odd buildings here and there, big holes here and there. One must remember this was the 1960's...and the point of view at that time is different than today. The concepts of city planning and aesthetics were much different then. The people who put all this together--made what you are seeing today happen. Otherwise, OKC would look like a dozen other medium-size cities wandering in the wilderness...looking for good things to happen to them. My only point is--it is so easy to look at everything and decide what one does not like here and there--nit-picking as one goes through the museum of life. It is quite another thing to make things happen as these people did--remember too--this was done through the absolute morass of governmental re-tape and regulations that made very move twice as hard. These planners had endless meetings and conferences getting all opinions they could--ad naseum. The acquisition of land itself was a nightmare beyond compare. The bottom line is--they gave it their best shot, trying to keep all parties well represented and respected. While one can find the occasional building here and there they wish was still there...I doubt that any of these same people would have given a penny to make that happen and support it. I have lived long enough to be more than familiar with those who do absolutely nothing to make improvements to the world, yet somehow feel a sense of indignation at any thing they disagree with. The people at OCURA did a marvelous job--still do. It was not easy. They, at least, deserve a fair shake and not the critical musings of those who did not approve of this or that. :doh:

I agree with Steve. OCURA may have started out only targeting truly unsalvageable buildings, but I mean, the entire Galleria block?? They all just happened to be shoddy rushed construction? I don't think so. Not everything demolished was built in 1889-1900. I imagine very, very little of it.

Not particularly "rushed" construction....brick buildings, unreinforced, wooden infrastructure, poor design from the older days...a myriad of reasons. Texas Stadium was built in the 1960's--where is it now? The King Dome in Seattle? It is always fascinating when people want some place or another "immortalized"--like it was the Acropolis or the Coliseum. It might surprise some--that there is not a giant secret group that destroys things just for the carnal pleasure of watching them collapse. No one seems hurt that the Biltmore Hotel (later--Sheraton-Oklahoma) was blown up--I watched it happen. Being a big, wide building, no one wanted to buy it or renovate it and it would be a money-pit to maintain...or just let it be empty and look like Detroit. Look at the Skirvin Tower. OCURA went to bat for that place many times, and saved it. No decision is easy and no one has ever taken it lightly in OKC. There are good reasons in each circumstance. I would suggest anyone who feels differently contact OCURA and ask them about the particulars. They would be glad to elucidate on it. I saw them try to find ways to save many buildings--and could not. It is one thing to not try...it is another to try and not be successful.

No conspiracy theory here. Some of what Jmark says is correct - there were a lot of bad, blighted and less than historic buildings torn down. But let's not romanticize OCURA too much now... I'm not a basher and I've been someone trying to set some records straight. The Hales Building was a perfect example of clearance out of control and did not reflect on effort to "preserve what they could." By all accounts it had been modernized, kept in good shape, and yet because it was in the 1964 Pei Plan, it had to go, no further discussion allowed... and then the site went undeveloped until the early 1990s when the IRS building was erected in its place. Bricktown is a testament to Neal Horton's efforts, and the city had its sights set on razing it as well.
I'm sorry if this sounds hostile, Jmark - in fact, I'd like to meet you. But what you're saying in this comment - intentionally or not - is very different from recorded, documented history.

What does one do with a building that no one will buy, no one will renovate, no one will rent or use if someone does? Just leave it there? Maybe a big flea-market on the ground floor and a flophouse on the upper floors? That is the reality that was going on in those times. Downtowns are about business...it is why they exist. Eveyone would like to keep things up and maintained--until they get the bill! Do you drive the same car you bought when you bought your first one? You could have fixed it up, replaced worn parts, had it painted, re-upholstered. But--did you? We live in an impractical time currently...with romantic ideas everywhere. People would love that old Galleria District...and, for a couple of years, it would be trendy and people would hang out and have yogurt. Then...it would be less popular and a whole lot of money would be invested and lost. Heating and air-conditioning alone can change the rules today.

The Hales Building was a perfect example of clearance out of control and did not reflect on effort to "preserve what they could." By all accounts it had been modernized, kept in good shape, and yet because it was in the 1964 Pei Plan, it had to go, no further discussion allowed... and then the site went undeveloped until the early 1990s when the IRS building was erected in its place.

While it has nothing to do with the point you are making in your post, the IRS building is sout of Main Stree, and I believe the Hales Building was north of Main (northwest corner of Main and Robinson)

The best place I know of online for dowtown OKC info is: Downtown Oklahoma City Map & Buildings (http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm)

Those are AWESOME pics. Here's one I took on my phone the other day:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S_LmriL5MWI/AAAAAAAAAmY/GrVNo9g1CaU/s1600/IMG01232.JPG

Nice for a phone pic ! My HTC Hero does okay, but the lighting almost a little too sensitive sometimes.

I will try to make it to the site tomorrow for a few pictures. Any requests on angles? No promises, but I'll see what I can do.

Your eye for photos is great, Vandy--surprise us! :bow:

I will try to make it to the site tomorrow for a few pictures. Any requests on angles? No promises, but I'll see what I can do.

West side of garage please...........

I will try to make it to the site tomorrow for a few pictures. Any requests on angles? No promises, but I'll see what I can do.

cab of the tallest tower crane looking down - you should be able to make it up there and snap one pic before you get caught and arrested :Smiley259

yeah get on the ground where the workers are.

West side of garage please...........

Here are some shots I took today from the West side of the garage today at Lunch.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w219/ndobbs84/452a0e50.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w219/ndobbs84/61180a7a.jpg

Thanks nd!

At least the health club breaks up the massive monolithic facade of that west side.

It will be interesting to see what type of glass they put in that area.

Today's lunch turned into a "working lunch." That's code for "no lunchbreak." I'll try at it tomorrow.

I think they are doing a good job making a parking garage a fairly attractive building. It is never going to be the Guggenheim. I think we should wait until the whole complex is complete to really judge the pieces. The architects design for the whole project effect and function. I think it will all be outstanding when all together.

I dont think we should judge the design as much as the walkability factor. Will it give that superblock subliminal mentality, where people don't want to walk by it that much? Time will tell. I think we all can agree it's not your typical parking garage design, hopefully that will make it more walkable.

I dont think we should judge the design as much as the walkability factor. Will it give that superblock subliminal mentality, where people don't want to walk by it that much? Time will tell. I think we all can agree it's not your typical parking garage design, hopefully that will make it more walkable.

I think a lot in how it is perceived by pedestrians will be determined by how the sidewalk is now treated. By that I mean will there be trees planted acting as a division from the roadway, and will there be items such as benches to break up the distance from end to end. Also it the glass is completely mirrored and allows no view in to the fitness center then that will hurt the sense of security for pedestrians. A lot of the "walkability" issues are psychological and actually seeing others and knowing that there is more of a chance of being seen by others, even if it one story above will aid in that.

I would of course have loved it if those CMU blocked in bays at grade had been retail like a Cafe' Express or a Murphy's Deli so it would serve the lunch and downtown crowd. That would have been ideal...but if wishes were ponies...

I definately agree that the garage is already hands down better than most if not all of the garages we have in the city.

just because...
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/1_1.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/0_1.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/2_1.jpg

Thanks Platemaker! Great to see from your perspective & fantastic to see the work on the Gardens up close! Great stuff!

Stunning Platemaker! These are the pictures we have not had...excellent answers to some questions I had about the north side of the building! Were you in the Colcord Building? The view from above is remarkable--I hope you can return to the same spot in the future!

Yep... 12th Floor of the Colcord.

BTW--Platemaker--and the other photographers--could one not sweet-talk the Colcord folks into letting one take some pix from an unoccupied west side room window of that building? Or--am I just preaching to the choir--and you have already done that? Some more from anyone in the Chase Tower would be nice as well...thanks again to all of you who take the pictures! I would bet this may end up being the best documented progressions ever of a high-rise built and it is all available to those with a passion to watch it happen. Maybe a Pulitzer for Peter? I don't think it can be overstated how impressive this really is. My childhopod fantasies with my Erector Set are flowering into fruition...how fun!

@ Platemaker.

You surely have a front row seat for these two projects. Thanks for sharing your pics.

Awesome pics. Just wondering if the third pic was meant to be bigger? The details are hazy, like its been compressed or something. I'd like to see it bigger if you can post it. But thanks anyway. Great angles...

There's a pump on top of the southern core now.

It looks like they've installed a concrete placing boom on the south core. Maybe someone can get a photo of it? I think it looks something like the photo below.

Does anyone know if there will be a boom installed all 3 cores or just 1?

http://web.tradekorea.com/upload_file/prod/marketing/mkt_files/new_company//ds5261/img_en/o_P292628.jpg

It looks like they've installed a concrete placing boom on the south core. Maybe someone can get a photo of it? I think it looks something like the photo below.

Does anyone know if there will be a boom installed all 3 cores or just 1?

http://web.tradekorea.com/upload_file/prod/marketing/mkt_files/new_company//ds5261/img_en/o_P292628.jpg

A question for someone in the construction business--as the floors go up, do they pump concrete from the gound level or is it mixed at some higher location as the building rises? Seems like it would be prohibitively heavy in short order to me...but I am ignorant on this. Also--is there a certain type of concrete mix (size of the aggregate (?) used in the mix, etc.) that is specific for high rise construction? :tiphat:

A question for someone in the construction business--as the floors go up, do they pump concrete from the gound level or is it mixed at some higher location as the building rises? Seems like it would be prohibitively heavy in short order to me...but I am ignorant on this. Also--is there a certain type of concrete mix (size of the aggregate (?) used in the mix, etc.) that is specific for high rise construction? :tiphat:

The Concrete is usually brought in with trucks and pumped up the entire height of of the structure. Usually there would only be one pumping boom installed that should have the reach to cover the entire floor plate. As the structure increases they add to the pipe that is pumping the concrete.