Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[mrokc777]

And again Thank You Rover! After all it is a forum but it can be overboard at times.

[Bunty]

OKC residents should quit tying their sense of worth on some wild investor from California.

I'll take the Legends Tower even more seriously when and if it goes political at the state capitol from the wild investor being from California.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

NBA couldn't care less about proposed building projects in OKC. Everybody is giving this whole thing way, way more weight than it deserves. Making it such a big deal in our minds only proves that the rest of the country is right about us. We shouldn't act like we are googly eyed kids waiting for Christmas for some shiny toy.

Disagree. I HATE this project. The problem is not people on this forum kicking around strong beliefs,
Rover. A proposal to build the tallest building in the country in Oklahoma City is begging for discussion, and no poster here should tell anyone that we're giving this "more weight than it deserves," or that people here are, "making it such a big deal." We're supposed to see embarrassing articles about this on the front page of the largest circulating newspaper in America - and not have thoughts worth expressing? Please.


As far as the NBA caring or not caring, it's not the league I've thought about, it's the national media coverage of the NBA playoffs. Playoff games here will be subject to human interest packages during coverage that profile the city. Proposals to build the tallest building in the United States in OKC could very well be a part of those packages. That’s why I mentioned it.


People here thinking opposition to this is based on not wanting our city to have good things or believe that we don't "deserve" this is ridiculous. Does Lawton deserve a Devon Tower? We need a balanced skyline and not one that will look tiny except for this big monstrosity that, if it actually get close to fruition, should be stopped cold.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I think it is perfectly OK to be excited about a new skyscraper development in your city. Can you IMAGINE if this was being proposed in Seattle (my city)? Or Vancouver?

Or Chicago? Or NY?. Any city would be happy/proud to get such a development. I don't think OKC people should go hide away just so we look like we - been there done that. Which is what I presume your point is Rover. Even cities that been there and done that would be hyped about this - think Chicago Spire (yes it didn't happen but look at the hype back then from a multi million world city full of some of the world's first and tallest skyscrapers already). .. For this to be somewhat seriously proposed for OKC (and I say that because they ARE going through all the steps and approvals) - it's eye opening and OKC people should be hopeful, proud, and eager to defend their city from attack and 'continued' ridicule.

Now, will it be built? Kind of looks like there's a chance. But the rest of the development isn't being discussed and I think that is what most OKC people are most thrilled about - a dense addition to OKC's already dense urban entertainment district. That is what we should be talking about, like most on here have said the pics from the Wall Street Journal detract from - OKC's rise as a major city and with major city offerings. The supertall, if built, will be the literal cherry on the top.

Honestly, if anything the stories from WSJ (which is a NYC-centric national paper any way you slice it) chosing to pick dead of winter, East facing pics that crop most of the skyline; to me shows their insecurity moreso than OKCs. Because when people come to VISIT okc they will see the true, growing, modern city (at least in the core) that they too will be 'shocked' just as everybody else who comes to OKC is. If the papers/articles were more honest then visitors wouldn't be so surprised when they come.

Well, it wouldn’t be a complete and total shock if the tallest building was proposed for Seattle or Chicago. That’s the point. For it to be in Oklahoma is what makes it sound ridiculous. For it to actually get built and be in Oklahoma City would be a disaster. Unless you want to be the butt of jokes. A bunch of small buildings (they would no longer look so tall) with this giant building? You seriously think that would look like anything other than absurd? I understand every city has their “homers” who love anything that puts their city in the news, but to think this would be a good look for OKC is very hard for me to understand.

As for the Wall Street Journal being a “NY-centric” newspaper, it simply is not. It has the largest print circulation in the United States and has no real ties to NYC except the street name, “Wall Street” and the fact it is based there, much like every other media empire. It is an international business and finance newspaper whose influence is enormous in the business community and financial sector.

[unfundedrick]

People here that think opposition to this is based on our city not wanting to have good things or believe that we don't "deserve" this is ridiculous. Does Lawton deserve a Devon Tower? We need a balanced skyline and not one that will look tiny except for this big monstrosity that, if it actually get close to fruition, should be stopped cold.

That sounds a lot like the opposition to building the Eiffel Tower in Paris when it was constructed. Paris hardly has a balanced skyline.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

That sounds a lot like the opposition to building the Eiffel Tower in Paris when it was constructed. Paris hardly has a balanced skyline.

That comparison doesn’t work. The Eiffel Tower was built for the 1889 World’s Fair as a proof of concept for a tall iron attraction. Paris has had a no-skyscrapers height restriction for most of the modern era.

[HOT ROD]

there is not one supertall in Seattle, so how is Seattle deserving Legends Tower (which would be more than twice as tall as our tallest too) - come off of it. We have a supertall proposal, for years, and nothing - so if Seattle got this one (which we wont) believe me it'd be all news as well.

Chicago - yes, that's a different animal as there's a plethora of existing supertalls including the world's tallest historically - but Legends Tower would be news there too.

Deserving (??) of a supertall is superficial, if it's built in OKC then OKC deserved it. If Lawton built a Devon Tower, then more power to them - they obviuosly deserved it just like OKC did and might deserve Legends if it's built. .. If city council approves (which they likely will), and the FAA approves, and they get permitting - then it will be built. Let's see.

[PhiAlpha]

You guys who keep using terms like “deserving” are weird.

[Bellaboo]

Well, it wouldn’t be a complete and total shock if the tallest building was proposed for Seattle or Chicago. That’s the point. For it to be in Oklahoma is what makes it sound ridiculous. For it to actually get built and be in Oklahoma City would be a disaster. Unless you want to be the butt of jokes. A bunch of small buildings (they would no longer look so tall) with this giant building? You seriously think that would look like anything other than absurd? I understand every city has their “homers” who love anything that puts their city in the news, but to think this would be a good look for OKC is very hard for me to understand.

As for the Wall Street Journal being a “NY-centric” newspaper, it simply is not. It has the largest print circulation in the United States and has no real ties to NYC except the street name, “Wall Street” and the fact it is based there, much like every other media empire. It is an international business and finance newspaper whose influence is enormous in the business community and financial sector.

I believe Seattle has a 38 floor max limit. Enacted around 10 years ago.

[pickles]

You guys who keep using terms like “deserving” are weird.

This is correct.

[Womp Womp]

I believe Seattle has a 38 floor max limit. Enacted around 10 years ago.

Maybe this only applies to certain areas, like near the Space Needle? There are multiple buildings currently under construction there that are 40+ stories high.

[unfundedrick]

That comparison doesn’t work. The Eiffel Tower was built for the 1889 World’s Fair as a proof of concept for a tall iron attraction. Paris has had a no-skyscrapers height restriction for most of the modern era.

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-...s-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

[Bunty]

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-...s-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

At least Hitler thought highly enough of it not to bomb it to destruction while taking over Paris. He probably thought that in doing away with an architectural icon he would lose total control over it from it no longer being in existence any longer. Maybe it was lucky the Eiffel Tower wasn't destroyed before Nazis had to flee Paris.

[Bellaboo]

Maybe this only applies to certain areas, like near the Space Needle? There are multiple buildings currently under construction there that are 40+ stories high.

I know Amazon HQ was limited to 38 floors due to this. Maybe office and apartment towers (apartment or condo being lower ceiling height) are different floor count ?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

That comparison does work because there was a lot opposition and derision to the Eiffel Tower when it was constructed, no matter why it was constructed.. And I don't know what it matters to this discussion that Paris had no height restrictions.

https://en.toitdeparis.com/post/the-...s-construction

"When the decision was made to build an iron tower for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the project was far from unanimous. Many criticized this massive iron structure, deeming it unaesthetic. Some Parisian artists and intellectuals of the time, including writer Guy de Maupassant and painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau, publicly opposed the construction of the Tower, calling it a "monstrosity" that would disfigure the Parisian landscape."

Come on, Rick, you’re smarter than to make this silly argument. Do you really think you can compare Paris in 1889 with Oklahoma City in 2024? We’re talking skyscrapers in an age of skyscrapers. I am not opposed to them at all, only this ridiculous project. I stand by my argument that it would look out of place and would stop skyscraper development for many years in this city.

[mugofbeer]

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

[unfundedrick]

Come on, Rick, you’re smarter than to make this silly argument. Do you really think you can compare Paris in 1889 with Oklahoma City in 2024? We’re talking skyscrapers in an age of skyscrapers. I am not opposed to them at all, only this ridiculous project. I stand by my argument that it would look out of place and would stop skyscraper development for many years in this city.

Come on Blue, I stand by the reasoning of my comparison. The comparison is based on the relationship of the projects to the rest of the city and how they fit in. They are quite similar in how they were regarded by many people in that respect. You are welcome to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

[PhiAlpha]

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

but but but THE FAA!?!?!?!

[Rover]

Come on Blue, I stand by the reasoning of my comparison. The comparison is based on the relationship of the projects to the rest of the city and how they fit in. They are quite similar in how they were regarded by many people in that respect. You are welcome to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

Other than being completely different, they are the same. Lol

[Patrick]

Let's get back to the questions of 1) Who would be stupid enough to fund the main tower and 2) who will fill it?

It's not going to be built.

The shorter towers, maybe.

They said the same thing about the NBA. OKC will never get a major league team. Quit being a naysayer. Dream big!

[Patrick]

Not sure why people are saying this tower would be a disaster. Demand for housing downtown is strong. I'm sure it will fill up quickly, especially given its location in Bricktown.

[unfundedrick]

Other than being completely different, they are the same. Lol

Once again, you completely missed the point. I never said the projects were similar at all. I said how they were regarded by many people were the same. You are just reaching for a reason to disagree.

[Rover]

Once again, you completely missed the point. I never said the projects were similar at all. I said how they were regarded by many people were the same. You are just reaching for a reason to disagree.

I’m reaching to understand why you are doubling down. The issues were very different. The times were very different. People here aren’t objecting to the project. They just doubt the ability of the developer to pull it off and question why he wants to. This isn’t some historic profundity.
.

[unfundedrick]

I’m reaching to understand why you are doubling down. The issues were very different. The times were very different. People here aren’t objecting to the project. They just doubt the ability of the developer to pull it off and question why he wants to. This isn’t some historic profundity.
.

That's not what the person I was responding to was concerned about. Go back and look at what he said about needing to have a "balanced" skyline in OKC. He said nothing about the ability of the developer to "pull it off". And "profundity" is just a LOL. I have said nothing about anyone who is questioning if the developer might be able to make it happen.

[Rover]

That's not what the person I was responding to was concerned about. Go back and look at what he said about needing to have a "balanced" skyline in OKC. He said nothing about the ability of the developer to "pull it off". And "profundity" is just a LOL. I have said nothing about anyone who is questioning if the developer might be able to make it happen.

The convo was about the Parisians objecting to the Eiffel Tower like OKC and this maybe tower, No comparison to be had.