I would definitely say downtown OKC's night skyline isn't near as impressive now as it was last year at this time. The reason is it's much darker, with the Sandridge tower no longer lit and the lighting at the top of the Chase tower being only half functional with parts of the LEDs being burned out for months now. It looks pretty tacky. All of this is the result of cost-cutting measures in the case of the Sandridge tower or building owners that just don't care as is the case with the Chase Tower.

A lot of other cities have ordinances that requires building owners downtown to light their buildings in a certain way to enhance skyline character. Do you think such an ordinance would be of benefit in OKC? Or, is it government overreach?

Over reach, and wasteful IMO but if owners want to pay the higher bill so be it

Other than red clearance lights where necessary I believe building illumination should be up to the bill-payer.

I personally don't really find it an over-reach, given how an illuminated downtown skyline can improve the look of downtown and make it feel more alive after 5pm, instead of a "light-sucking void of despair". Maybe instead of a requirement, we could offer incentives to property owners to keep their buildings illuminated at night? That way the property owner still has the choice, but lit buildings would still be encouraged...

As for illumination requirements, I do know that some cities do have ordinances that enforce building illumination at night. Not 100% sure that'd be right for OKC, but it's far from unheard of.

I personally don't really find it an over-reach, given how an illuminated downtown skyline can improve the look of downtown and make it feel more alive after 5pm, instead of a "light-sucking void of despair". Maybe instead of a requirement, we could offer incentives to property owners to keep their buildings illuminated at night? That way the property owner still has the choice, but lit buildings would still be encouraged...

As for illumination requirements, I do know that some cities do have ordinances that enforce building illumination at night. Not 100% sure that'd be right for OKC, but it's far from unheard of.

Good points.

I want to clarify that in my opinion, the biggest problem in OKC is apathetic building owners who don't fix their half-functional illumination. The Chase Tower for instance has had several sections of its LEDs burned out the past month and a half and they seem like they are in no hurry to repair it. The Oklahoma Tower has one of its blue LED panels lit on its west side but the rest isn't functional. In my opinion this type of stuff reflects poorly on Oklahoma City. Maybe instead of an ordinance to force or encourage lighting, one that says if they are going to have lighting that they need to keep it in working condition?

Of course the situation with the Sandridge Tower is different given the shape the company is in.

Enforcing the working order of exterior lighting might not be a bad idea, but I could also see that leading building owners to simply turn off exterior lighting instead of repairing it, especially if the cost of repair is high. That said, I agree, it does reflect poorly on the building and on the city if property owners aren't repairing broken lighting. I don't know what the proper answer would be to this sort of quandry, but generally, the more buildings properly lit downtown, in my opinion, the better.

...The Oklahoma Tower has one of its blue LED panels lit on its west side but the rest isn't functional. In my opinion this type of stuff reflects poorly on Oklahoma City...

My entire life I've lived in OKC, I've never seen the Oklahoma Tower adorned with blue LED lighting. The rooftop of the building and the mechanical housing on top have always been lined in a traditional fluorescent "white" light. Recently, and I use that term loosely, I haven't seen it lit up at all.

Driving home the other day along Eastbound I-40, I saw the same thing bchris. On the west side of the building, there was a strip of blue LED lighting in place of what is usually there. This caught my eye because like I said, I've never seen blue lighting up there and they haven't been keeping the building lit up. So maybe they're working on a slightly revised lighting scheme?

Driving home the other day along Eastbound I-40, I saw the same thing bchris. On the west side of the building, there was a strip of blue LED lighting in place of what is usually there. This caught my eye because like I said, I've never seen blue lighting up there and they haven't been keeping the building lit up. So maybe they're working on a slightly revised lighting scheme?

Yeah I was thinking how cool it would look if the entire thing was lit with a blue LED scheme. Hopefully that happens.

Chase night time has looked a LOT better recently, at least from what I can see from 2000 miles away (hehe).

FNC has also been properly lit lately. Now, looking to OK tower and Sandridge to finish out the big 6 skyscrapers of the downtown skyline. Personally, I'd be OK with OK tower with its aviation beacons if it wasn't so close to Devon; but since it is so close I think an outline of some sort is warranted. I'd LOVE for the beacons to go on Sandridge, simple but definitely would define the top.

Chase night time has looked a LOT better recently, at least from what I can see from 2000 miles away (hehe).


It has actually gotten worse. The LEDs on the entire west-facing side is out and half of the LEDs on the south-facing side of the building are out. They are in no hurry to fix it so I wish they would just turn the LEDs off entirely.

hm, I can't see those sides. The North and West look ok from what I can see in the news9 webcams (http://www.news9.com/category/201373/skycam-network#regency-tower).

Good points.

I want to clarify that in my opinion, the biggest problem in OKC is apathetic building owners who don't fix their half-functional illumination. The Chase Tower for instance has had several sections of its LEDs burned out the past month and a half and they seem like they are in no hurry to repair it. The Oklahoma Tower has one of its blue LED panels lit on its west side but the rest isn't functional. In my opinion this type of stuff reflects poorly on Oklahoma City. Maybe instead of an ordinance to force or encourage lighting, one that says if they are going to have lighting that they need to keep it in working condition?

Of course the situation with the Sandridge Tower is different given the shape the company is in.

A little late to the party, but I pretty much agree with this. I don't think we need an ordinance saying "you have to have certain lights", but I would be very much okay with an ordinance saying "if you have lights, they need to be in good repair and working order".

In the case of the Chase tower, isn't the Chase logo coming down after the new Chase Bank gets built? Could that be why they aren't fixing it or are they just apathetic? I do know that from the MBG angle it looks very bad.

Why would the Chase logo be coming down? Has that been said somewhere that the branch in the basement of Chase tower (and the offices they maintain there) will move to the new drive-through building? They have always maintained both.

Why would the Chase logo be coming down? Has that been said somewhere that the branch in the basement of Chase tower (and the offices they maintain there) will move to the new drive-through building? They have always maintained both.

I read that somewhere on this board a while back though I can't remember what thread it was mentioned in. If that is whats happening it makes sense why they wouldn't make repairs to a lighting system that is coming down anyways. If not, it points to an extremely apathetic building owner and for a building that is as prominent in the OKC skyline as the Chase Tower, they should be asked to fix it or turn the illumination off because as is, it looks terrible and reflects poorly on the city.

You guys realize Chase doesn't own the tower....it's actually Cotter Ranch Tower and that Cotter Ranch didn't install the lighting, he inherited it. Based on his cheap-o behavior in everything he's done, it's entirely likely that he's just waiting for the rest of them to go out so he can never turn them back on. Not to mention the extreme expense this type of lighting puts on a building and it doesn't bring anything in.

Where did anyone indicate that they thought Chase owned the building? The owner of the building is well documented and has been discussed often on this board.

I am pretty sure Chase owns their logo. I can't state this with authority but I believe the LEDs also went up when the Chase signage did as I don't remember them being there back when the BankOne logo was on the tower. If the Chase signage is coming down soon, it would make sense that they would not fix it.

Again, not sure why it would be coming down..? I still haven't found any reference to Chase vacating their space at Cotter Ranch Tower. The signage is undoubtedly tied to their lease in some way.

Again, not sure why it would be coming down..? I still haven't found any reference to Chase vacating their space at Cotter Ranch Tower. The signage is undoubtedly tied to their lease in some way.

I wish I could find it but I remember vividly that I read a post on here stating that once the new controversial Chase Bank location is completed, the branch in the Cotter Ranch Tower will close and the signage will come down. Maybe I just imagined it.

It was just in the way you guys were talking, it seemed like you thought it was the "Chase" building still, since they were the previous owners.

And in reality, it would make sense to close the branch. It's a pretty large space for not a lot of traffic. But I don't think the new location will include enough room for a lot of "meeting" type space. Sure, if you're walking in to do a normal transaction, then it will be fine. But if you're coming in to discuss loans/mortgages/etc, Im not sure the new location will have all that will it?

It was just in the way you guys were talking, it seemed like you thought it was the "Chase" building still, since they were the previous owners.

And in reality, it would make sense to close the branch. It's a pretty large space for not a lot of traffic. But I don't think the new location will include enough room for a lot of "meeting" type space. Sure, if you're walking in to do a normal transaction, then it will be fine. But if you're coming in to discuss loans/mortgages/etc, Im not sure the new location will have all that will it?

Did Chase/BankOne ever own the tower? I always thought the logo was tied to the branch that was there but the bank never owned the tower itself.

It was owned by Liberty (then BankOne, then Chase) from 1971 until 2004, when Cotter purchased it from the bank.