The variance usually in the gray area for midrise is whether it ends at 10 floors or at 12, except for general discussion, which is making it wherever a person wants. In general discussion, most things are really subjective anyway.
i would say move JTF's highrise line down to line up with the 14 floor FNC additions and move the skyscraper line down to line up with Leadership Square and it would be absolutely correct. His midrise section is too big and does have a hole in it (at FNC), meaning it should be at FNC given his definition of midrise continual massing.
Highrises are anything above the 14 floor FNC midrise additions (BOK, Leadership Square, Continental, Renaissance, Sheraton, perhaps Dowell) and skyscrapers are above Leadership Square/Continental (Devon, Chase, FNC tower, City Place, OK Tower, Sandridge) given that they have blue sky all around and dominate their section of the skyline (and if alone, would completely dominate the area). Devon is just short of a supertall (only 130 more feet).
All of the new buildings (as currently proposed) would be highrises but not skyscrapers (but would be if not in downtown).
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
You would think that would go without saying. Can't say I've known of too many +900' single story buildings.Originally Posted by Laramie;852767Skyscraper: Very tall [B
It seems most of the "mystery towers" are no longer mysteries.
Sounds like some of the towers are fading into the mist with the drop in oil prices.
This drop in oil prices isn't permanent. I'm betting they'll be on the way back up within a few weeks. After they see that I'm betting they'll start getting back on track
That's hilariously short-sighted. Why would you panic about today's oil prices (no one knows what direction they are heading) for a project that opens in 3 years when people reallllly don't know where oil prices will be?
Just had a random memory of me always checking this thread back in College. Any behind the scenes stuff going on about a new potential tower? Other than what has already been announced, of course.
Given the office space market in the city, with two of the larger towers with massive vacancy issues that don’t appear to be resolving in the near future, I seriously doubt we will see a new tower any time soon (except for the Bricktown hotels, that is). I think there is quite an opportunity to build more residential mid-rises, though. I think we will learn a lot from how First National does with their residences.
Can't even get the owner of the largest tower to take of their building.
Most developers now just want new office towers to be 50% pre-leased before they break ground.
The only shot we have in the foreseeable future is OG&E making good on their promise to build a new office tower on the old Stage Center site.
They backed out 6 years ago when the price of oil was $31 a barrel. Oil is doing pretty good now, and the 2022 forecast looks really good, so we will see what happens.
It’s back!
20 years from now when they actually build a tower, the OP's of this thread are going to come back and say "See, I told you!"
Besides oil prices and commercial real estate, Covid started a whole new work from home trend. Some companies have no interest in this trend while others like mine have hired a bunch of workers over the past two years that live a couple of hundred miles away. Even if upper management decided to go back to the old ways, it would take awhile to replace the remote workers with local through attrition.
Not necessarily, there were surveys and articles published regarding how big corporations want people in the office. It cited people were more productive and work relationships have more synergy when people are in the office. Moreover, corporations were looking actually needing more space, for more wide open footprints, for social distancing.
And big office and residential development sure hasn't slowed down in other cities like Austin, Salt Lake City, Nashville, & Charlotte.
On the flip side, the average worker gains about 5hrs a week personal time. The average commute time in the US is 27.6 min one-way, or roughly an hour a day. That is roughly the equivalent of 10 more personal days per year, or two more (work) weeks of vacation equivalent.
One down-side is it is hard to separate home-time from work-time. Which can go both ways, of people not working enough hours to those that lose track of time and work much longer than their regular 8.
So, production gains may include employees not taking as long a lunch, employees working beyond normal hours, which might otherwise be used for transportation for example, employees not chatting at the water cooler, etc.
Of court there are plenty of fields where WFH is not an option. But in some fields, there is absolutely no reason to make people go into an office, like telemarketing or telephone-based customer service positions. There is no amount of pizza and comradery to slow that turn over.
IMHO the biggest issue with WFH, I predict, we haven't even fully seen yet - nationalizing the labor market. When people can WFH, their location is immaterial. So a new employee (Adam, say) in a lower COL location (e.g., Oklahoma) can get a job for a business in a high COL location (e.g., California) where the business can pay lower wages than they would for a local Cali employee but still higher than Adam would be able to find in Oklahoma. This will have two large impacts - jobs considered low-skilled that can WFH will be farmed out to lower cost of living areas - thereby driving up wages in low COL areas (Oklahoma) as employers there have to compete with companies nationally instead of just locally, thereby causing the unemployment rate in low COL areas to be abnormally low while, simultaneously, increasing the unemployment rate in higher COL areas because employees there cannot afford to take a pay cut and still pay bills. Average wages have increase a lot over the last couple years - but I think we will see that increase (as a percent of pay) happening faster in lower COL areas than higher COL areas.
I would imagine the future will be a combination of in the office and WFH as apposed to either/or. I think employers are going to find a balance and be a lot more flexible. I already know a few who are trying out a 3 days in the office, 2 days from home type schedule or some variation of that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks