As you recall, they made a bunch of changes to Devon Energy Center over time and long after they had their initial approvals.

This, to me, is probably the most encouraging post of this whole thread. I'm convinced what we're seeing now is not the entire, final project. To truly "rebalance the skyline," as they keep boasting it will do, it needs to be another 5-8 stories to do that. I would not be surprised to see that added a little further into the process.

These people do not hate our city; they just have a different vision of the ideal to which we are striving. That is fair enough. It's their money. Their land. Their stake. Their influence. Concerned parties should voice their opinions and strive for common-sense and reasonable adjustments, as well, but we are experiencing an unprecedented season of growth and success that should keep anyone from grousing for long.

Many cities, including cities cited as models on this forum, would be pleased to trade these buildings for this project.

I've been told they want to get final approval in January and start right away.

If that's the case, I doubt there will be many changes from what they've proposed.

I have been a long time reader, but decided it was time to start posting.

It's a shame that with Devon as a main driver of this development that aren't being more sensitive to the urban environment. Here's an great design example of a new office tower proposed in Vancouver that is being integrated into existing structures. This is something that could easily be done here, it would just cost a little more engineering wise and would keep a lot of the character of the area while adding density.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/904/ZgdKda.jpg[/URL]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/xtNJAO.jpg[/URL]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/901/Bgo95J.jpg[/URL]

Also, the statement this development is 600,000 square is BS. There is no way, unless they are counting the parking structures. The OGE tower is about 350,000 square feet with it being the same height and footprint.

Many cities, including cities cited as models on this forum, would be pleased to trade these buildings for this project.

Can you show me where Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Portland, or any of those "model cities" traded something like the historic Motor Hotel for a new parking structure? That for one is the most senseless demolition proposed. Trading the Carpenter Square Theater for this tower, albeit painful, is an accurate application of highest and best use demolition. Do you get what I'm saying here?

This isn't ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. I wish people would stop seeing it that way. We have a review process for a reason. It's give and take, and we will just have to stay tuned to see what the public can potentially get out of this. Remember that it's the citizens who paid for MAPS 1, MAPS for Kids (school across the street), Arena tax to make downtown the popular place to hangout, MAPS 3 to take downtown to the next level, and P180 was paid for by redirecting Devon's property taxes from the schools to downtown streets. There is a very real public stake in this very important downtown project, regardless of whose land it is or what entity allowed Preftakes to get away with years of embarrassing code violations.

Above all, there is a very real value added proposition to be made for keeping the Motor Hotel and as much of the other historic fabric as possible. All of that adds tremendously and creates a sense of authenticity that would give Pickard Chilton, Devon, and BOK something to be proud of (especially BOK which traces its roots in Oklahoma back further than the others). Anyone can design a typical corporate tower, which is what we have here.

This will be approved because 99%+ of Okc is either for it or doesn't care

The committee did pretty much insist that Devon add those temporary window boxes along Hudson with the ability to add retail later. I think that was the only real change that was made due to committee input.

So, I would expect if there are any recommendations they will be very minor.

Really, all they need is the demolition approvals in January in order to move forward. As you recall, they made a bunch of changes to Devon Energy Center over time and long after they had their initial approvals. Changes are required to be submitted, but they were all rubber stamped; i.e. were approved administratively without going to the formal meeting.

I will say, Scottye NEVER rubber stamped anything. She was meticulous and scrutinized everything (proving the point of your statement " Professional planners with specific education and training in these matters will meticulously scrutinize and document how the proposal goes against countless guidelines that were adopted after a ton of work and thought, recommend the committee decline the request." If it was an Admin. item, she often didn't simply accept the first proposal submitted, she worked with the applicant to make things work.

I will say, Scottye NEVER rubber stamped anything. She was meticulous and scrutinized everything (proving the point of your statement " Professional planners with specific education and training in these matters will meticulously scrutinize and document how the proposal goes against countless guidelines that were adopted after a ton of work and thought, recommend the committee decline the request." If it was an Admin. item, she often didn't simply accept the first proposal submitted, she worked with the applicant to make things work.

I meant design review always just sailed these through, not City staff who has always done a great job of evaluating the plans and making appropriate recommendations.

I have been a long time reader, but decided it was time to start posting.

It's a shame that with Devon as a main driver of this development that aren't being more sensitive to the urban environment. Here's an great design example of a new office tower proposed in Vancouver that is being integrated into existing structures. This is something that could easily be done here, it would just cost a little more engineering wise and would keep a lot of the character of the area while adding density.


Also, the statement this development is 600,000 square is BS. There is no way, unless they are counting the parking structures. The OGE tower is about 350,000 square feet with it being the same height and footprint.



Are you sure ? I thought OGE was taking 350,000 but they are not taking all of the floors, and that the total building Sq ft was around 500,000.
And they state this tower will be 690,000 sq feet at that. This buildings foot print is probably larger plus 2 stories taller.

I like the looks of the motor hotel but I've never been in or even looked inside of it. From what I've read in prior postings, it has it's limitations compared to a better designed newer garage.

Each Clayco office tower is to be 510,000 square feet.

The square footage for this project (690,000) likely includes the retail space but even then that is probably only about 25,000 square feet.

Foot print of this building would be slightly bigger and their are two more floors. I'm sure the 690,000 figure is correct.

Spartan, well here's why it's going to go on without a hitch, and it highlights some of our flaws here....Keep in mind that im not 100% save and not 100% demo. I'm a case-by-case guy and I feel like there hasn't been enough focus on saving existing structures here. Of course, not knowing any ACTUAL details on the project tends to taint my opinion against it. PERHAPS, i'll change my mind once I see a real masterplan. I just hope it's a good one, and if it is good, that it is built according to that plan...but I digress.

1 - In order for the project to be held up, a large outcry of support has to happen by the citizenry to "encourage" politicians to rethink a blanket approval (should that happen).
2 - For that outcry to happen, we would all have to get off our keisters and make a stink about this. Unfortunately (and I hold myself as part of this), people get focused on other things in their life and don't have the time (or don't care enough to actually do it) to make that stink. We can easily gripe all day long here, but when it comes to actually getting out there and doing something about it, there is so very little effort put into it compared to the effort made to construct the projects, it's just ignored. Much like other things in life today, we take the easy road and want to call it quits with writing and email or even worse, just writing our gripes (based only on opinion) in a forum.
3 - Someone with the development clout of Nichols would have to discourage the project, substantiating the opinions of the above group (not gonna happen).

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just being pragmatic about the realities of what's going to happen. In the end, he'll get what he's after and not only will we lose some history, but we'll lose density too. Yes, we'll get a new tower and that's something to be happy about. But like I've said before, I feel like we've grown up some in OKC and we're ready to have opinions about what goes in rather than accepting just any ole thing.

Thanks Pete and Bellaboo. For some reason I thought OGE was taking 100% of the first Clayco Tower. That's definitely a lot more speculative office than I originally thought. From the interview on NewsOK it sounds like 499 Sheridan isn't 100% leased either? So there will be excess space as well. I get there is a lot of grow in the energy sector right now, but OKC needs to be careful because if the oil prices stay like this prolonged these developments could have the potential to devastate the office market in OKC for a long time.

Bank of Oklahoma will be going into this project; taking about 5 or 6 of the top floors. Devon will take most the rest.

I don't think there will be much speculative space.

Can you show me where Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Portland, or any of those "model cities" traded something like the historic Motor Hotel for a new parking structure? That for one is the most senseless demolition proposed. Trading the Carpenter Square Theater for this tower, albeit painful, is an accurate application of highest and best use demolition. Do you get what I'm saying here?

I have learned to stop comparing OKC and the way things are done here to the cities you mention. Doing so just results in disappointment and frustration. The culture here and the interests represented at the top is just too different. One thing to be thankful for is that, despite all the flaws in their way of thinking, the "powers that be" here are very pro-growth and really do have what they think the city's best interests are in mind. Go a couple hours east to Fort Smith Arkansas and you have a similar good ole boy network controlling things there but instead of being pro growth they are about preserving the status quo and saving history at all costs. Today the town has severe brain drain and a rapidly aging population.

As for peer cities doing senseless demolitions, Little Rock demolished a historic theater for surface parking in their downtown just a couple of years ago. They also demolished a four story office building for a one story Chipotle Mexican Grill.

http://www.arktimes.com/imager/b/blog/3123743/3f53/universitybuilding.jpg?cb=1409201517

I don't think OKC is alone in bad demolitions.

Is this going to be enough space for Devon, or are they going to have to build again down the road?

A big thanks to Kaynemo for the 3D model; first skyline image with more to come:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky2.JPG

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky3.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky4.JPG

I'm sure this project will sail through any design review needed. I'm sure the ClayCo towers will get a sizable TIF award. As upset as I am that they're tearing down historic structures they don't need to tear down, and getting awarded money they don't need to be awarded, those 3D models of the city look good. I'm sure Devon and ClayCo have their own images just like that, only prettier and more detailed. This will all be approved and will go through without a problem. And after One North Hudson and the Motor Hotel are torn down, we'll lose a bit of history we didn't have to lose, and we'll get a bunch of office towers. And Hudson will have a buttload of cranes on it, and it will be cool.

In this city today we're doing things like 75% right. We've got growth, and that's good. But we could be doing things better, and they aren't dark mysterious unknown things. They're pretty obvious and we've got a lot of people with experience in the appropriate fields who say we're not doing them 100% right.

So if we accept that these projects are basically destined to go through as proposed, how do we make it so that we get better designs in the future? Once these go up, should we create a new ordinance or rule or whatever, that new construction in the CBD include a certain percentage of underground parking? Should we create a rule limiting the percentage of space on any one block that can be taken up by a parking garage?

The density of the NE 1/2 of this image compared to that of the SW 1/2 is just comical.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky4.JPG

I really wish they would have left this block alone and torn down the hideous Century Center and Sheraton hotel or build this project on any of the multitude of empty lots around town. Why does this have to go right here? What a disappointment.

Skyline shots are fun to look at it, but what makes a city great is what happens at the sidewalk. Everything above 50 feet is purely so suburbanites have some thing to look at from 10 miles away to make them feel better about how truly dismal the civic life is.

If their going to allow Sandridge to demolish historic buildings for a business plaza then there's no doubt they will rubber stamp this development.

I really wish they would have left this block alone and torn down the hideous Century Center and Sheraton hotel or build this project on any of the multitude of empty lots around town. Why does this have to go right here? What a disappointment.

Location - MBG and Devon HQ proximity.

Skyline shots are fun to look at it, but what makes a city great is what happens at the sidewalk. Everything above 50 feet is purely so suburbanites have some thing to look at from 10 miles away to make them feel better about how truly dismal the civic life is.

That might be the dumbest thing I have read in this thread, and I usually agree with you on most things.

Here's more on "The Exchange" in Vancouver:

Harry Gugger Studio?s ?The Exchange? to Rise in Vancouver | ArchDaily (http://www.archdaily.com/478111/harry-gugger-studio-s-the-exchange-to-rise-in-vancouver/)


Construction broke ground last month for ‘The Exchange’ tower in Vancouver, Canada’s first LEED Platinum heritage conversion and Harry Gugger Studio’s first North American building. The 31-floor office building resolves the strict urban regulations imposed on high-rise construction downtown and addresses the historical context by preserving and integrating the façade of the city’s historic Stock Exchange building.

http://photos.newswire.ca/images/download/20140123_C4620_PHOTO_EN_35796.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYw4MMcKe_ztXYUzrIU1r8_dTEHU2o1 jw_K5Rju4hJQo-yJ0TEdw

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/cms/binary/8788510.jpg?size=620x400s

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/52f0ee35e8e44e611100005c_harry-gugger-studio-s-the-exchange-to-rise-in-vancouver_cd_031_exc_view05-530x789.jpg

Bank of Oklahoma will be going into this project; taking about 5 or 6 of the top floors. Devon will take most the rest.

I don't think there will be much speculative space.

Is Devon making the same mistake with this building that they made with their own tower, by not building enough space for growth?

If BOK is taking 5-6 floors, that leaves Devon with 18-19 floors assuming the bottom 2 floors aren't used as office space.

So why not add 10-12 floors, bring in another tenant the size of BOK or perhaps 2 tenants that equal the amount of space BOK is using and have room to grow?

Unless this site was in the plans all along and they knew Devon would be the only company that could tear down historic buildings without much of a fight… (just throwing out a fun conspiracy theory)

Location - MBG and Devon HQ proximity.

And the new convention center.

Wouldn't that be great to have a tower built into both One North Hudson and the Motor Hotel, which is already a parking garage (albeit a very old one).

That might be the dumbest thing I have read in this thread, and I usually agree with you on most things.

seriously

Wow. The Exchange looks incredible. Really wish they would have done that.

Skyline shots are fun to look at it, but what makes a city great is what happens at the sidewalk. Everything above 50 feet is purely so suburbanites have some thing to look at from 10 miles away to make them feel better about how truly dismal the civic life is.

Both are important and there are plenty of cities in the world that have impressive skylines and good street urbanism. It doesn't have to be either or.

So if we accept that these projects are basically destined to go through as proposed, how do we make it so that we get better designs in the future? Once these go up, should we create a new ordinance or rule or whatever, that new construction in the CBD include a certain percentage of underground parking? Should we create a rule limiting the percentage of space on any one block that can be taken up by a parking garage?

I think I've learned to accept a lot about our large scale corporate projects, mainly that they will not consider the current urban fabric and that any consideration to "place making", walkability, or other urban principles will be secondary and that the historical relevance of current structures, in terms of aesthetics and cultural impact, will rarely get any consideration, if at all. The projects can help because they bring people to the area during business hours, but they don't really strike me as a place you'd choose to go if you weren't there for work. Sure, they're taller than most of our buildings in the city, but the net effect is that it will really feel more like part of Dallas's 635 corridor than an urban district. I think at best it will create our own little sterile and cold corporate district you find in the financial centers of a lot of urban cities. Most people flee these areas to more urban and vibrant neighborhoods when the shift whistle blows at the end of the day.

For me, what makes the easier to swallow than in the past, is that we are actually starting to have urban areas for the workers to go to when the day is done. I'll never understand tearing down several buildings of the "they just don't build them that way anymore" that actually contributed to the urban fabric for something that, while larger, actually detracts from it. Then again, I'm personally more interested in Oklahoma City being a place people want to be more than making it look better from a mile away. We had some tallish buildings before and no one ever wanted to go downtown. It was really more the repurposing of older smaller buildings that renewed the interest in Oklahoma City's downtown to the point where people began to actually want to live there.

The reality is that for many large cities, the best part of it to look at from a mile away is the most boring part of it in which to spend time. I was hoping our new developments wouldn't aspire to that and there are elements here that, at this point, are at least paying lip service to creating space for people, but I think for most people these developments will just serve as window dressing for the MBG. I'm sure there is some potential for this block to be developed in such a way that it still has urban potential, but the thing is, that was already there. I have given up trying to understand why these projects always have to destroy the limited urban assets we have left to accomplish their massing, especially given the amount of underdeveloped space we still have. You do just kind of have to accept that whatever is left from when Oklahoma City's CBD was first developed as an urban area is disposable in exchange for height. Thankfully, the surrounding districts have taken a different approach and it's easy to see the positive impact doing so has had on the city as a whole.

Skyline shots are fun to look at it, but what makes a city great is what happens at the sidewalk. Everything above 50 feet is purely so suburbanites have some thing to look at from 10 miles away to make them feel better about how truly dismal the civic life is.

Statements like this are condescending and hurt the image of new urbanists. Why some feel you have to trash others to make a point and to try to feel superior is beyond me. Egos get out of control I guess.

While JTF makes a point that I think we all can agree on, that street interaction is more important than sheer height, it is done in a very offensive way. This from someone so dedicated to urban fabric they live in a suburb of Jacksonville. LOL

s00ner1, that is a great example of what can be done. Thanks for posting.

Statements like this are condescending and hurt the image of new urbanists. Why some feel you have to trash others to make a point and to try to feel superior is beyond me. Egos get out of control I guess.

While JTF makes a point that I think we all can agree on, that street interaction is more important than sheer height, it is done in a very offensive way. This from someone so dedicated to urban fabric they live in a suburb of Jacksonville. LOL

And you've never been condescending ever, huh?

Maybe I missed this but what is the expected height of this building?

And you've never been condescending ever, huh?

I am sure I have, but I do not try to divide those who prefer different life styles. This idea that suburbanites are somehow stupid or pitiful and that downtowners are superior is just a ploy for urbanists to try to bully everyone to believe what they believe. You can make your point without insulting others. If you want credibility and want to assail others, just lead the life you preach or admit you are part of what you hate.

Looking at those pictures of the downtown, it truly does look like the proverbial middle finger flip off. One great big tower with several little friends. Just imagine how much of a difference this skyline would look if they took this tower up about a 125 feet and it was 2/3 of the Devon? It literally changes the balance so it has contrast and you don't have a bunch of the same size mid rises surrounding the Devon. Seriously, just scroll up and imagine the tower being about where the horizon is on the first picture and see what could have been and should be.

To destroy these historic buildings and all the a part of OKC history for a mid rise and some parking gargages is wrong on every level. I hope people can get this changed where they can find a way to preserve and build higher. By the way, I love the ideas done in Vancouver and their is no reason it can't and shouldn't be done here as well. Can the person who posted the new pictures of what downtown will look like please do one more with the tower with a slightly smaller foot print and width but about 12-15 more floors making it about 600 feet or so? Maybe even one where it can be incorporated around the existing building like the one in Vancouver? Perhaps this can be forwarded to those who are doing this project and the city leaders for them to consider this before it gets final approval. How could they not be open to the idea that is a win-win for all?

These are the photos. Pete, can you all post some new ones showing what it would look like if the tower was about a 100-150 foot taller and one with it incorporating the existing buildings like the one in Vancouver? That would be amazing to see and everyone would be happy.

And you've never been condescending ever, huh?

When somebody is super dogmatic about something and they don't practice what they preach it deserves to be called out. It's like when the ultra-religious conservative politicians get caught having an affair or a same sex relationship or the fact Al Gore owns a private jet. If somebody is going to be that dedicated to a cause they should be willing to live the lifestyle they think everyone else should live.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky3.JPG


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hinessky4.JPG


Oops, these are what I was talking about. Sorry.

Here's more on "The Exchange" in Vancouver:

Harry Gugger Studio?s ?The Exchange? to Rise in Vancouver | ArchDaily (http://www.archdaily.com/478111/harry-gugger-studio-s-the-exchange-to-rise-in-vancouver/)



http://photos.newswire.ca/images/download/20140123_C4620_PHOTO_EN_35796.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYw4MMcKe_ztXYUzrIU1r8_dTEHU2o1 jw_K5Rju4hJQo-yJ0TEdw

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/cms/binary/8788510.jpg?size=620x400s

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/52f0ee35e8e44e611100005c_harry-gugger-studio-s-the-exchange-to-rise-in-vancouver_cd_031_exc_view05-530x789.jpg

Here is the other. Why oh why can this not be done here? It is a WIN-WIN for all! Can these get to the right people to consider something like this?

Maybe I missed this but what is the expected height of this building?

443 feet.

Some people in life just aren't ever going to be happy and you just need to ignore them.

Soondoc,

The developers do consider the costing of projects too. To incorporate into an older building not only would be an engineering nightmare but would be way more expensive too. Also, going more vertical as opposed to a little bit more horizontal is expensive.
They have to concern themselves with the cost and return on investment.
They don't always go out of their way for what the average Joe wants.

443 feet.

443 feet would make it 3 feet taller than City Place Tower. Making it the 4th tallest building in OKC and 8th tallest building in Oklahoma.

Adding 5 floors to this building would make it taller than the Chase/Cotter Ranch Tower.

Statements like this are condescending and hurt the image of new urbanists. Why some feel you have to trash others to make a point and to try to feel superior is beyond me. Egos get out of control I guess.

While JTF makes a point that I think we all can agree on, that street interaction is more important than sheer height, it is done in a very offensive way. This from someone so dedicated to urban fabric they live in a suburb of Jacksonville. LOL

So why do you think people are concerned about the height or what the skyline looks like from an angle that only airline pilots will ever see?

I posted this up-thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okctallest.jpg

Actually 4 more floors (kind of, it's average is 16.4 feet per floor) would make it 508 feet. I'd like to see them add a nice crown for that matter.

Actually 4 more floors would make it 508 feet. I'd like to see them add a nice crown for that matter.

Do we know for certain that these are the final design plans, or might this be similar to the initial OG&E first building concept that everyone hated?

Do we know for certain that these are the final design plans, or might this be similar to the initial OG&E first building concept that everyone hated?

Not saying that everyone hates this design, but I definitely did not expect to see a rectangle glass building being proposed on this sight. I was hoping we would see a building that would be different than anything Dallas or Houston is currently building, a little less glass and a little more detail.

Actually 4 more floors (kind of, it's average is 16.4 feet per floor) would make it 508 feet. I'd like to see them add a nice crown for that matter.

With 5 additional floors, it would surpass Tulsa's First Place Tower for 4th tallest in the state.

Do we know for certain that these are the final design plans, or might this be similar to the initial OG&E first building concept that everyone hated?

These are meant to be the final design and will soon be submitted for approval.

The OG&E thing was always labeled as conceptual and they said from the outset it was just a general idea.

That building plan for Vancouver is stunning. Sigh.

Not saying that everyone hates this design, but I definitely did not expect to see a rectangle glass building being proposed on this sight. I was hoping we would see a building that would be different than anything Dallas or Houston is currently building, a little less glass and a little more detail.

I agree, I was expecting something a little more less blah. I was expecting half way striking at least. Not that I hate it and I'm sure the finished real life building will be admirable.

I think at best it will create our own little sterile and cold corporate district you find in the financial centers of a lot of urban cities. Most people flee these areas to more urban and vibrant neighborhoods when the shift whistle blows at the end of the day.



If OKC is not careful, the entire SW portion of DT will start to take on that feel....cold and corporate. It reminds me a lot of Exchange Place in Jersey City, or even a lot of financial districts in Europe (Canary Wharf in London or La Defense in Paris come to mind). I've spent time in Exchange Place for work and while it is quite busy during the daytime, at night it is dead, dead, dead, even with a significant resident population. Most people head to Hoboken or NYC at night. We should consider giving this area some cutesy/corporate name. Hudson Place, maybe?

And maybe I would feel better about the retail space in the parking garages they are proposing if Devon didn't do such a half-assed job with its "storefronts" on their garage. Have they even honestly marketed them at all or are we just stuck with faux store windows with pictures of corporate propaganda?

I hate to be condescending, but posters on here have been clamoring on here for years now, OKC needs more towers!! We have to show the world we've ARRIVED!! Well, you've all gotten your wish...sometimes, though, it comes at a cost. I'm kinda over it at this point. It will be nice to have 5 active high rises under construction; most cities our size can only wish for these things. At a minimum, OKC have a lot of historical preservation activity in other districts, but its probably too much too hope for this in the CBD.

Is it really a stretch on their part to take it a little higher? I mean they are destroying a part of OKC history- literally wiping it out. These buildings are gone forever like so many others in the past. I personally think that everything in our power should be done to try to preserve 1 or more of these buildings. If not, they should NOT ever be replaced with a mid rise and a couple of parking garages. If they are going to delete history, they need to make some new history with something more than this.

For those saying it is still so a 400 foot tower, get over yourself and I mean that in a nice way. Suburbs all over the country build mid rises all the time. If they want to build this 400 footer, do it at another site and keep what is there. For those who say it would be the 4th or 5th tallest building in Oklahoma, who cares? Lets start raising our standards to other cities and states and not what Oklahoma has. Actually, maybe we should raise our standards to even try to top some of Tulsa's high rises. They have several taller than the mid rises proposed in OKC. It is a bitter sweet feeling, on one hand happy for new projects, yet disappointed in OKC for always doing things as cheaply as possible in so many areas. We could easily have taller buildings with not a ton more money.

To top that off, they are going to be asking for TIF money- which is fine if done in a win-win situation. Can an argument be made that if they are going to do this as planned and destroy these buildings for the mid rise, then no TIF money. If they try to preserve (even at a higher cost) than money can be allocated? If they do a partial, keep at least one building and go higher like they should, then TIF will be available. I say under no circumstances should TIF be used for destruction of historical buildings to replace them with a slightly taller building and parking garages. People, wake up and let this be known now.

So why do you think people are concerned about the height or what the skyline looks like from an angle that only airline pilots will ever see?

There are lots of legitimate reasons that don't have to do with ego or people embarrassed about pathetic civic life. It is a cop out to just insult anyone who disagrees with a single dogmatic view.

That building plan for Vancouver is stunning. Sigh.

Yes it is, but there are lots of buildings in Vancouver much more like this tower proposal with similar street interaction and lack of architectural cache. Look in that very same picture above at the dozen buildings in the picture that have already been built and have no particular outstanding exterior design. Go to NYC and see how many buildings are pretty plain. They all add to the fabric and density. And SOME will be signature architectural jewels. We have added Devon and Parkside downtown that are pretty unique and cool. But all aren't going to be. We need good, revenue enabling high density buildings. This will be one.

Yes it is, but there are lots of buildings in Vancouver much more like this tower proposal with similar street interaction and lack of architectural cache. Look in that very same picture above at the dozen buildings in the picture that have already been built and have no particular outstanding exterior design. Go to NYC and see how many buildings are pretty plain. They all add to the fabric and density. And SOME will be signature architectural jewels. We have added Devon and Parkside downtown that are pretty unique and cool. But all aren't going to be. We need good, revenue enabling high density buildings. This will be one.

AGREE. Look at post 1801 and besides Devon, how many towers have been built in downtown in the last 30 years? I we are complaining, we are not Dallas, Houston, Chicago, NY........well you get the point. I thought people would happy with this.