Okc is not as bad as most people may think. Even before Devon tower, Okc still has a good amount of highrises. This website provides database of significant buildings in cities around the world. According to the website, Okc has 60 buildings. And just a little perspective, Tulsa has 32 buildings.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=299

It's just that they're not all in the downtown core.

And if you search Emporis OKC has a smaller number than Tulsa. What does this tell you? These things don't matter.

Facts be damned.

OKC>>>Tulsa.

When I did this blog article on "Tall Buildings" (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/03/tall-buildings.html) in March-April 2008, there were 100 or so buildings in Okc's history (several are now gone) that were 8 stories or higher. IF my review and math are correct, as of April 2008 (including the by then announced Devon Tower), Oklahoma City had 83 existing or planned/developing buildings matching my arbitrary 8-story cutoff point to be considered a "tall building." See pics and the list in the blog article. That post does not include changes after April 2008, and it needs to be updated but, generally speaking, it should give a good idea of "tall buildings" in Oklahoma City.

Back in the early 1930s, after completion of the 1st National Building and Ramsey Tower (City Place today) in 1931, Oklahoma City ranked at 12th place in the country for cities having buildings at least 33 stories (not height), in a tie with with Philadelphia for 12th in the list — heady stuff for the young pup of a city that Oklahoma City was only 42 years of age. See http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/08/oklahoma-skyscraper-city-circa-1931.html. So, yes, we have a fine "tall" heritage ... which lingered and was flat during the depression, World War II, and post-war times.

When I put that article together in spring 2008, these were the stats:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/miscbuildings/tallbuildings_2008summary.jpg

Stella seems to be getting her groove back, so to speak.

to be fair, emporis counts skyscrapers/highrises over 12 floors, which Tulsa may have more of than OKC. But I would believe that OKC should have more buildings overall than Tulsa. ...

Oklahoma City and Tulsa are both impressively tall. The World Almanac has traditionally used 300 feet as the cutoff point in its listing of skyscrapers. Using that number, OKC and Tulsa each have 10 buiulings at least 300 feet in height. OKC of course has the tallest, Devon at 850 feet, but Tulsa has the next four, topped by BOK at 667 feet. Incidentally using that 300 feet cutoff number, here are some comparisons: Omaha has only 4 buildings over 300 feet, Wichita none, Little Rock 6, Memphis 8. Two cities closest to OKC in metro population, Richmond and Jacksonville, each have 9. Some others: Ft. Worth has 9, Albuquerque 1, Kansas City 14.

Oklahoma City and Tulsa are both impressively tall. The World Almanac has traditionally used 300 feet as the cutoff point in its listing of skyscrapers. Using that number, OKC and Tulsa each have 10 buiulings at least 300 feet in height. OKC of course has the tallest, Devon at 850 feet, but Tulsa has the next four, topped by BOK at 667 feet. Incidentally using that 300 feet cutoff number, here are some comparisons: Omaha has only 4 buildings over 300 feet, Wichita none, Little Rock 6, Memphis 8. Two cities closest to OKC in metro population, Richmond and Jacksonville, each have 9. Some others: Ft. Worth has 9, Albuquerque 1, Kansas City 14.

According to Emporis, OKC currently has 9 buildings over 300 feet tall (including the Devon Tower). How that compares to a few other mid-sized cities:

New Orleans - 22
Charlotte - 20 (7 built since 2000)
Austin - 20 (11 built since 2000)
Columbus - 17
KC - 14
Indianapolis - 13
Nashville - 11
Louisville - 11
Tulsa - 10
San Antonio - 10
Fort Worth - 9
Sacramento - 9
OKC - 9
Richmond - 9
Milwaukee - 8
Jacksonville - 8
Memphis - 8
Salt Lake City - 8
Raleigh - 3

Even Bellevue, WA has 11 buildings over 300 feet, and it's a suburb of Seattle. I wouldn't call OKC "impressively tall..."

to be fair, emporis counts skyscrapers/highrises over 12 floors, which Tulsa may have more of than OKC. But I would believe that OKC should have more buildings overall than Tulsa. ...

Especially considering OKC is 621 sq miles to Tulsa's 187.

OKC has 10 buildings over 300'ft tall,Two towers real close are the Dowell Center coming in at 299'ft and The Regency Tower at a close 289'ft tall!http://www.okcpulse.net/okc_office_towers.aspx

But none of Bellevue's towers go anywhere near 500 feet.

it is impressive though, definitely beating Tacoma - the state's #2 city.

But none of Bellevue's towers go anywhere near 500 feet.

it is impressive though, definitely beating Tacoma - the state's #2 city.

Not that it's important to this discussion but if you're comparing population, Spokane is larger than Tacoma. Tacoma doesn't have it's own metro area. It's part of the Seattle metro.

lj, do you live in Seattle? or do I?

Tacoma does have its own metro, it is Pierce and Thurston county. Seattle metro is King, Island, Islap, and Snohomish. The CSA is called Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia and includes both metros combined. But really, most people in Pierce dont really come to Seattle, and vice versa, hence why it is not a single metro.

Seattle and Tacoma are separate, Tacoma is often the little brother in the puget sound but still the #2 in the state and quite important. Spokane is not bigger than Tacoma, not metro nor city (city might be only a few hundred though, depending upon the year).

Bellevue is not really a suburb anymore, but instead is an anchor city of the Seattle Eastside. It is an alternative to Seattle and Tacoma, and is #2 for office space in the state, bumping Tacoma recently. That was my point.

lj, do you live in Seattle? or do I?

Tacoma does have its own metro, it is Pierce and Thurston county. Seattle metro is King, Island, Islap, and Snohomish. The CSA is called Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia and includes both metros combined. But really, most people in Pierce dont really come to Seattle, and vice versa, hence why it is not a single metro.

Seattle and Tacoma are separate, Tacoma is often the little brother in the puget sound but still the #2 in the state and quite important. Spokane is not bigger than Tacoma, not metro nor city (city might be only a few hundred though, depending upon the year).

Bellevue is not really a suburb anymore, but instead is an anchor city of the Seattle Eastside. It is an alternative to Seattle and Tacoma, and is #2 for office space in the state, bumping Tacoma recently. That was my point.

As I said, it's not really important to the discussion but Tacoma actually is part of the Seattle Metropolitan Statiscal Area even if Tacoma is somewhat separate.

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/seattle_metropolitan_area

The 2010 census for the city proper is 198,397 for Tacoma and 208,916 for Spokane.

Facts are facts no matter where you live.