Devon Energy unveiled their plans for an impressive glass tower in OKC today. While we struggle with public financing for our new structures, a real corporation with real private money is spending a lot of money on a major tower in OKC.
I hope this is where we are headed. It's not unlike where we were. I mean have you seen what oil money is building in Dubai? I want some of that money spent right here in lil ole Tulsa. Come on Tulsa oil men, give us a fancy new tower. A great big one by a name architect.
I agree. I'm a little baffled by the fact that I haven't really seen the building boom, such as that which accompanied previous oil booms.
Best hope for Tulsa's skyline was SemGroup. They were on the sort of trajectory that leads to this sort of statement, until they missed a bet on oil prices (badly . . . irresponsibly . . . pick your adverb). Gonna be a while till Tulsa grows another one with that kind of growth/ambition/potential.
Empty space doesn't mean anything, people want nice newly constructed luxurious office space in a good location with amenities. Utica Place surely had no trouble leasing all of its office space before the paint dried. Some areas of office space that have been abandoned will likely remain that way forever. It is just another part of our "disposable" lifestyle. We just build the next shiny new building and discard the old one.
That being said, who in Tulsa is a big enough player to invest in an iconic skyscraper at this moment in time? QuikTrip seems fine with the HQ they have. Williams and BOK are already in acceptable accommodations. Semgroup... well, if that oil shorting deal worked out better for them perhaps Kivisto Tower could have been built. A couple of months ago they would have been the only one I could see having the resources to build on Tulsa's skyline.
Maybe OneOK needs to do something with all the money they are making?
Helmerich & Payne ever going to build that new HQ at 21st & Utica? (Which would just detract from downtown, but I wouldn't mind seeing 21st & Utica grow some more)
Who am I leaving out? Who has the money and need to change Tulsa's skyline?
Tulsa's current economic strength seems to be in small businesses, none of whom require extravagantly large headquarters.
I hate seeing OKC keep growing so much quicker than Tulsa.
What will this building do to lease rates in downtown OKC? Or will this type of development attract others in and around OKC to come downtown and help absorb what Devon vacates?
What a gorgeous building but it will dwarf everything in OKC and everything in the state. But thats ok perhaps it will fuel a building boom in OKC.
I think tulsa's biggest problem is ridiculously corrupt public officials :(
quote:
Construction is expected to begin next year on a building that will consolidate Devon's headquarters city employees in one structure for the first time in years. Plans call for a building 925 feet tall with nearly 2 million square feet of space. By contrast, the current tallest building in Oklahoma, in downtown Tulsa, is 667 feet tall with 52 stories.
Ouch. Congrats to OKC, but salt in the festering wound that Tulsa has become. I'm getting very discouraged, we can't get a damn thing done - public or private. Other than the BOk Center...
A $750,000,000.00 price tag. That's commitment to the city. And funny enough, it has an estimated completion date of 2012 - the same amount of time it took for the BOk Center.
It sounds top notch all around:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D92M6OP00.htm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080820_1_OKLA844602
(http://www.okcbusiness.com/images/photos/Devon-model-with-Larry-Nich.jpg)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/20080820_lndevan.jpg)
All in all I am getting more and more depressed on Tulsa's prospects. If we can't get our sh!t together now, in an oil boom, then when? No explosive growth in the oil boom. Government seems incompetent at all levels. The city can't get a baseball stadium built or agree not to screw developers - let alone lure or build businesses, the county can't even collect rent from tenants, and the State has no real interest in helping Tulsa out at all.
Congrats to OKC for getting their act together years ago. At this rate Tulsa will be the dusty ugly town and OKC will have architecture, art, business and vitality that built Tulsa. COME ON TULSA, throw me a damn bone.
/losing the faith
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Construction is expected to begin next year on a building that will consolidate Devon's headquarters city employees in one structure for the first time in years. Plans call for a building 925 feet tall with nearly 2 million square feet of space. By contrast, the current tallest building in Oklahoma, in downtown Tulsa, is 667 feet tall with 52 stories.
Ouch. Congrats to OKC, but salt in the festering wound that Tulsa has become. I'm getting very discouraged, we can't get a damn thing done - public or private. Other than the BOk Center...
A $750,000,000.00 price tag. That's commitment to the city. And funny enough, it has an estimated completion date of 2012 - the same amount of time it took for the BOk Center.
It sounds top notch all around:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D92M6OP00.htm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080820_1_OKLA844602
(http://www.okcbusiness.com/images/photos/Devon-model-with-Larry-Nich.jpg)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/20080820_lndevan.jpg)
All in all I am getting more and more depressed on Tulsa's prospects. If we can't get our sh!t together now, in an oil boom, then when? No explosive growth in the oil boom. Government seems incompetent at all levels. The city can't get a baseball stadium built or agree not to screw developers - let alone lure or build businesses, the county can't even collect rent from tenants, and the State has no real interest in helping Tulsa out at all.
Congrats to OKC for getting their act together years ago. At this rate Tulsa will be the dusty ugly town and OKC will have architecture, art, business and vitality that built Tulsa. COME ON TULSA, throw me a damn bone.
/losing the faith
What should the state do? The state wasn't helping OKC In the early/mid 90s.
Very nice building. Looks classy. Glad to see something like this going up in Oklahoma. And its about time OKC ended its shame of being "second tallest" lol. Now they just need to get a nice, contemporary, highrise hotel or highrise apartment building downtown to flesh out their skyline a bit.
As for Tulsa.... poor Tulsa. What can ya say. At least our downtown has the BOK Arena and the new City Hall building to show that the city isnt completely stuck in an 80s timewarp. Perhaps we can promote our downtown as some sort of "Historic Tour". Come see an almost perfectly preserved city of the 1980s era. Complete with huge parking lots. Too bad we took out the Main Mall, cause then the "effect" would have been perfect. [:P] However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.
Way to go Devon and OKC.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.
What parallel universe do you live in?
That statement is just dumb, dude. Sorry, but you're wrong. We can't all be Hong Kong. The only "shock" I know of that people get looking at our skyline is the shock of how large and elegant it is for a city of Tulsa's size.
Jeez, such a pity party.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.
What parallel universe do you live in?
That statement is just dumb, dude. Sorry, but you're wrong. We can't all be Hong Kong. The only "shock" I know of that people get looking at our skyline is the shock of how large and elegant it is for a city of Tulsa's size.
Jeez, such a pity party.
Agreed, the Tulsa skyline is impressive. It is the lack of activity downtown (hopefully the very near future will be the start of that turnaround) that makes it look stagnant. Also the highways around downtown are all ugly with the exception of the landscaped area along the BA on the SE corner. The concrete labyrinth and rundown warehouses that surround downtown are what detract from an otherwise distinctive and respectable skyline.
+1 on the skyline. Everyone I know from near or far is impressed with Tulsa's skyline for a city our size. Then I dread actually having them go downtown to see the empty streets and parking lots between the buildings. [B)]
Per the State helping Tulsa, just the old adage about Tulsa kicking in $1 and getting back 50 cents. OKC has government employment (more per capita than anywhere else in but DC) and cooperation on projects. Want to move your freeway for aesthetics? No problem. Meanwhile Tulsa's I-44 expansion is decades in the making, we fight to keep a medical examiners office, and remain the largest city in the US without a public hospital. Bah! Nothing against OKC, it's against Tulsa really. We can't get our **** together.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Very nice building. Looks classy. Glad to see something like this going up in Oklahoma. And its about time OKC ended its shame of being "second tallest" lol. Now they just need to get a nice, contemporary, highrise hotel or highrise apartment building downtown to flesh out their skyline a bit.
As for Tulsa.... poor Tulsa. What can ya say. At least our downtown has the BOK Arena and the new City Hall building to show that the city isnt completely stuck in an 80s timewarp. Perhaps we can promote our downtown as some sort of "Historic Tour". Come see an almost perfectly preserved city of the 1980s era. Complete with huge parking lots. Too bad we took out the Main Mall, cause then the "effect" would have been perfect. [:P] However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.
Way to go Devon and OKC.
I'm getting the impression that Tulsans are getting fed up with the city government and perhaps, just maybe, 2010 will be the turning point :) At least I hope it is. I know in the next county elections I'll be voting against ANY incumbent regardless of political affiliation.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
+1 on the skyline. Everyone I know from near or far is impressed with Tulsa's skyline for a city our size. Then I dread actually having them go downtown to see the empty streets and parking lots between the buildings. [B)]
Per the State helping Tulsa, just the old adage about Tulsa kicking in $1 and getting back 50 cents. OKC has government employment (more per capita than anywhere else in but DC) and cooperation on projects. Want to move your freeway for aesthetics? No problem. Meanwhile Tulsa's I-44 expansion is decades in the making, we fight to keep a medical examiners office, and remain the largest city in the US without a public hospital. Bah! Nothing against OKC, it's against Tulsa really. We can't get our **** together.
How is that nothing against OKC? They feast off the federal and state taxdollar trough, while our being a part of this state is a drain on our resources and ability to "get our **** together".
I am pretty bummed too thanks to this news, it really makes you think about how nothing much has been built in Tulsa for just about my entire 26 years living here.
We do really need to get with it before OKC becomes the "nice" city and Tulsa becomes the "****hole".
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However when you drive by, the skyline does look shockingly old and stagnant. Most people who live here dont notice how odd it looks because they are used to looking at it.
What parallel universe do you live in?
That statement is just dumb, dude. Sorry, but you're wrong. We can't all be Hong Kong. The only "shock" I know of that people get looking at our skyline is the shock of how large and elegant it is for a city of Tulsa's size.
Jeez, such a pity party.
Just trying to point out in a "visual" manner the fact that you can tell a lot about a city by its skyline. When you travel a lot and see lots of different skylines you really notice what cities are growing, or when a city stopped growing. Even when a city had its "heyday" by the prevalance of a certain era of buildings. When you go to Austin, Fort Worth, Denver, Omaha, etc. you see contemporary buildings cropping up and dominating the skyline. I remember going back east in the early 90s and seeing the rustbelt cities. You could easily see when the cities boomed, and when they stopped growing. You can see that with Tulsa today. Yes the skyline is impressive, especially for a city its size. But,,, its also a "dead" skyline. And that does give you an idea of whats going on, or not going on, in the city versus those cities that do have plenty of new structures going up. And Hong Kong isnt the only city growing and getting new buildings lol.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
+1 on the skyline. Everyone I know from near or far is impressed with Tulsa's skyline for a city our size. Then I dread actually having them go downtown to see the empty streets and parking lots between the buildings. [B)]
Per the State helping Tulsa, just the old adage about Tulsa kicking in $1 and getting back 50 cents. OKC has government employment (more per capita than anywhere else in but DC) and cooperation on projects. Want to move your freeway for aesthetics? No problem. Meanwhile Tulsa's I-44 expansion is decades in the making, we fight to keep a medical examiners office, and remain the largest city in the US without a public hospital. Bah! Nothing against OKC, it's against Tulsa really. We can't get our **** together.
There are definately government jobs in OKC no doubt about it and the AFB has a huge influence there as well.
But I think the state and OKC for that matter wants tulsa to succeed. I know I grew up in OKC and now live in Tulsa county and work in Downtown Tulsa. I want this town to succeed :)
As for OKC moving the crosstown for aesthetics that couldn't be further from the truth. The crosstown is consistently 160% of its intended capacity and on really busy days it is 165 to 170% of capacity. Couple that with its elevation, its a maintenance nightmare, and an ice rink in the winter time. That is long overdue to be moved to the south and drastically widened.
As for Tulsa's skyline, the skyline for a metro of about 850k is actually not too bad at all when driving by. Spend time down there and the empty space and the north section of the IDL especially is pretty gloomy :(
lol...Cities Service did the same thing....lol...
why do all new buildings have to look phallic these days? Why can't they just build a regular building in the International style and be done with it?
You know though, a building that big could probably hold Chesapeake and Devon [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
why do all new buildings have to look phallic these days? Why can't they just build a regular building in the International style and be done with it?
You know though, a building that big could probably hold Chesapeake and Devon [;)]
I personally am glad its not just a rectangle.
They'd have to restructure the building to get 7,000 employees in it. I dont really think that would be possible actually.
I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.
We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.
Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.
Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.
We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.
Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.
Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.
Holy crap, the real michael bates? I loveyour site and I love listening to you on 1170 when you're on with PC :)
I had no clue you posted here. As someone who has only been in the area for 3 years I do a ton of reading online about the metro and not to keep plugging your site but its great.
Now to address your points. I tend to agree. I'd like to see tulsa get another tower or two but I'd also like the space downtown to be used more wisely. Looking out of the windows to the north it is quite depressing to see the crappy buildings and development in the northern portion of the IDL. I'd like to think that Tulsan's are at a tipping point and that things will change in 2010. We can't have elected officials blatantly looking after their own interests (see mayor taylor) and squising already planned developments because they're across the street from the beloved ballpark. The plans I saw were pretty good and basically the poor guy got the boot for doing nothing more than trying to bring some nice development to downtown that was not affiliated with the political in crowd.
Now for the obligatory, show you mine if you show me yours, whose is bigger comparisons lol.
(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1917/tulsaokcwebwdevonfm1.jpg)
And just so we dont get too full of ourselves.
(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1986/skyscrapers2scalewithdesk9.jpg)
But I also agree with Bates, "its not how big it is, its how you use it" philosophy.
Here is the thread on Skysraper page forum. Has some better pics and diagrams.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=156332
I bet they can build it before Tulsa can get a ballpark built [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
I bet they can build it before Tulsa can get a ballpark built [B)]
They may be able to build it; question remains will it suffer 'Oneokitis' and wind up being 24 stories instead of 54, especially with it being all glass.
And just where is the parking for this new Tower? Trust the parking is better than what was planned, err provided ooops left over for Brick Town.
Ever walked in the "33 degrees and raining" Oklahoma winter, or on ice and through snow from a fair distance when parking to access a venue?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I don't care about how far this thing sticks up as much as I care how it meets the street. I haven't seen pictures yet, but the descriptions indicate some sort of plaza and moat. A work of high art rather than a working part of a walkable urban streetscape. Bleh.
We got our allotment of skyscrapers in the '70s and early '80s. Oklahoma City built a few towers during that period, but none as tall as Tulsa's.
Tulsa would be far better off to fill all our parking lots with four-story buildings -- storefronts on street level, offices on the second level, apartments on the third and fourth floors -- than to build even one new skyscraper.
Tulsa's skyscraper boom may have satisfied some corporate egos, but it hastened the conversion of downtown from a real downtown to an office park. Buildings that used to house people and small retail were cleared away for the towers and for the parking that the towers required.
I agree completely. Tulsa really has MORE skyscrapers than it should for it's size. To build more would be wasteful, and would make the 3-4-5 story buildings we really need even less likely to happen. While I understand that some of the posters here are getting "new building envy", we do have the BOK, we COULD be getting a stadium, and with those things, we will start to see more infill, hopefully pedestrian oriented.
Well to boil things down as much as possible I would say that as of about 1975 Tulsa turned her back on oil and we have been reaping the consequences of that decision for some time now. OKC is more of an energy town that we are.
Hold onto your seat Inteller because I'm going to look at the stars here. Tulsa is a Capricorn and Capricorn is the most ambitious sign and in the lives of cities 30 or so years is a drop in the bucket.
My point is we'll get back on track and we will vanquish our competitors.
Bates, you can build towers and pay attention to the street level at the same time.
Downtown Tulsa strikes me as being a lot like downtown Oakland: It is a developer's dream. There's room for plenty of towers. Big fat ones by name architects.
Tulsa1603, you can throw in the towel. Not me. And I don't think Tulsa is ready to give up either.
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
And just where is the parking for this new Tower? Trust the parking is better than what was planned, err provided ooops left over for Brick Town.
Ever walked in the "33 degrees and raining" Oklahoma winter, or on ice and through snow from a fair distance when parking to access a venue?
One of the good things about OKC is that tunnel system. The walk isn't so bad if you are in that system.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Well to boil things down as much as possible I would say that as of about 1975 Tulsa turned her back on oil and we have been reaping the consequences of that decision for some time now. OKC is more of an energy town that we are.
Interesting observation about 1975, and I'd like to know more. How did that back-turning manifest itself? (Maybe this ought to be a separate topic.)
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Bates, you can build towers and pay attention to the street level at the same time.
Yes, you can, and it was done all the time before WWII -- e.g., the Empire State Building has street-level retail -- but I'm hard-pressed to think of an example from the last 40 years of a skyscraper that conforms to the Three Rules (//%22http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000981.html%22) for generating urban places, which are:
1. Build to the sidewalk
2. Make the building front "permeable" -- connect the inside to the outside with doors and windows.
3. Put the parking behind the building.
I left Tulsa in '75. The exodus of oil headquarters was just picking up steam. The mantra pushed by the TulsaWorld was, "focus on diversification." There has never been a meaningful effort to staunch the flow of oil business out of Tulsa.
Think about that. Think about all the towns that have fought to keep their business. Think about Tulsa not fighting to keep her principal industry. Then ask yourself why.
I don't know the answer to that question.
My best guess is that leadership and ruling families over time have had conflicts of interest and saw personal gain through this industry shift. Their loyalty was to themselves not to Tulsa.
As you say Bates, this is a topic in itself but I do believe there is a direct correlation between this scenario and the near death of our downtown and a general decline in Tulsa.
While we have focused on giving Tulsa, especially downtown Tulsa, a public-financed shot in the arm, the goal must be to attract private enterprise. And I suggest that focusing on what is still our strength, the energy industry, makes sense.
Now, building towers with human scale at street level: This has been an unquestioned truth among architects for some time now. So they must be out there. But I am hard pressed to come up with a good example.
I have loved living in Tulsa the past couple years. I feel I enjoy a pretty high quality of life and want to see Tulsa succeed. Tulsa has so much potential and its just languishing. It takes leadership to get stuff done and not pandering to the lowest common denominator, mini Grover Norquists that have infested this city & state.
OKC's revival and resurgence and consequent passing of Tulsa, can be traced directly back to the early 90s when MAPS was passed. You reap what you sow. A sales tax increase has truly transformed OKC into what it is. It was not overnight. Its been what? 17-18 years?
Now, it has culminated w/ the plans of OKC getting the tallest building. Which will also be taller than any building in Dallas. As much as you guys want a corporate benefactor to step up with a 'big name architect' to design a 926' tower downtown.... or adding an extra 300 ft' on top of the BOK tower...seriously?
That is completely clinging to image & appearances and not having substance to back it up. Pretty sad that its apparently come to this, but unfortunately I guess it has.
Unless you can find some real stats, HT... I'm gonna hafta call BS on the 1975 date... sometimes relying on memories can be a little fuzzy. Tulsa was still touting itself as the "Oil Capital of the World" through the early 80s until the oil boom became the oil bust in the mid/late 80s... my memories are of a lot of civic hubris in the late 70s and early 80s... Williams Center, Williams Center Forum, new PAC, the Tulsa Roughnecks (of course)... and an infamous full page ad in the Buffalo (NY) News touting..... "T - L S A... the only thing missing is U" [}:)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVhlSCpA84
I'm not sure what local government alone was supposed to do starting in 1982 to keep the "Oil Capital" moniker from moving to Houston... Houston is a port city, Houston is perfectly positioned on the Gulf of Mexico.... Tulsa has the Port of Catoosa and the Arkansas River...
I had family who worked for the oil industry... also had family who worked for Rockwell/McDonnell-Douglas... all suffered under layoffs at some point or other back in the day...
I don't think the city of Tulsa itself particularly wanted to diversify... it had do diversify after the 80s oil bust. In fact, if you want to blame anyone for diversifying... heck, look at the kinda stuff Williams Companies was doing in the 90s... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19981109/ai_n10123218
And what could local government in Tulsa have done to keep this from happening in 1984?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921502,00.html
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/GettyLogo.gif)
I mean, do you really want your city to be taken hostage on a regular basis by this kinda stuff?
Back on topic, Tulsa's skyline is not only larger and taller than the skylines of OKC, Little Rock and Wichita... it's also larger and taller than Buffalo and Rochester, NY...
OKC can build a bigger phallus... Tulsa's already been there and done that... IMO, the new BOk Center is a tribute to that... spend big money on a name architect, and make the arena into a landmark...
Now, Tulsa just needs to concentrate on anything that can keep the "brain drain" at bay... and invest in itself from time to time...
Tulsa will always have something OKC lacks... I think they're called "hills"... [:P]
Sometimes there's nothing like being here.
Yes, Tulsa enjoyed an oil boom in the 80s. Yes, the exodus had already started. And the mantra starting from the early 70s was diversification. Am I going over to the library today to pour through microfish to find an article from the TulsaWorld to prove something to you? I admire you, but don't think so ...
Just asking for some sort of evidence that Tulsa was diversifying and abandoning the oil industry in the mid-70s... no need to go to the library for microfiche.
I think that Port of Catoosa thingy (1971) has beena pretty good investment...
The Devon building looks nice and the base is stunning. The tower is a bit conservative and plain, like something built in the 90s, but overall it's a really good looking building.
It's not at all time for Tulsa to try to build something similar. Downtown's Tulsa's problem isn't that we are missing a 900 foot tower, it's that we have too many under utilized buildings and too many surface parking lots.
While I would love to add 1.9 million square feet of space downtown, I would far rather two or three 17-18 story hotels/condo buildings and then a dozen or so 4-8 floor residential/retail buildings. We have no need for new office space. Even after the Devon tower is added Tulsa will have three million more square feet of office space than Oklahoma City. OKC would have to add three Devon towers to pass Tulsa in total square footage.
The Oklahoma City downtown office occupancy rate is actually lower than Tulsa's. That building is going to blow a massive hole into the commercial leasing health of downtown Oklahoma City, for many, many years. I know the Devon building is not going to be for lease, but all those people moving into that building already take up space in other Oklahoma City buildings. Tulsa's rate was hurt by the 750,000 square foot One Technology Place in 2001 and the Devon building is almost three times the size of our new city hall.
What Tulsa needs to do is to continue to add new hotel space and new residential units and we need to continue to convert our older classic deco office buildings into other uses. We need to at once work to increase the amount of office workers downtown while actually lowering the amount of leasable office space downtown. Once we have an occupancy rate above 90% and have the area have more of a 24 hour population instead of just being a 8-5 office park we can start to talk about another tall tower, but not now.
And I'd been hoping for a SemRon tower before the big bust.
Swake, by "other uses" for existing buildings the devil in me gathers you mean residential. To get that you need what? The East End needs to be master planned to give central downtown the design by which you mention to grow into a true community.
Nice post swake.
If we ever did get a new skyscraper we should put it at Denver and Archer where the county has their jail.
I personally think Tulsa should be focusing on becoming a cool, hip, funky city the likes of a Portland or an Austin. The city already has a nice vibe in my opinion, plus it is chock full of gems from the oil days that add to its charm. Seriously, Tulsa needs to focus on being Tulsa and quit looking to OKC as an example. The two cities are so different it's not funny. I think Tulsa is heading in the right direction, but at a slow pace with lots of stumbling.
quote:
Originally posted by tshane250
I think Tulsa is heading in the right direction, but at a slow pace with lots of stumbling.
I agree, but the pace is killing me. I just want so much for the city, and I'm afraid that by the time I see any of it, I'll be too old to enjoy any of it.
I wish I knew something about real estate. If I could build just one residential high rise....
Swake, I think you've been drinking the same koolaid as everyone else in local government.
You say, "What Tulsa needs to do is to continue to add new hotel space and new residential units and we need to continue to convert our older classic deco office buildings into other uses."
But you are getting the cart before the horse.
Tulsa needs new business. Good paying business. Everything else flows from that.
I bet they build it before we can develop our river.
(http://www.dayphotocraft.com/tulsa.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Swake, I think you've been drinking the same koolaid as everyone else in local government.
You say, "What Tulsa needs to do is to continue to add new hotel space and new residential units and we need to continue to convert our older classic deco office buildings into other uses."
But you are getting the cart before the horse.
Tulsa needs new business. Good paying business. Everything else flows from that.
Kool-aid? Maybe I am misreading the tea leaves or the astrological impact of a rising moon but I think you are the one drinking the kool-aid. You have message board malaise. Tulsa's poor! There are no jobs! Taxes are too high!
That's all crap.
Let's not sell us short on what Tulsa does do well. We have among the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. We have no housing crisis. Tulsa is a well educated city and has a per-capita income average that is in the top quintile of all metropolitan areas, higher than Dallas or Houston in fact. And that's while we are near the bottom in cost of living. "Good paying jobs" is a nice political campaign sound bite but it's not something that we are lacking. We need better job growth but in my experience in the companies I have worked for the problem with Tulsa isn't in getting jobs to move here, it's with getting people to move here to fill those jobs. I know of a number of very high paying jobs that have left Tulsa because no one would fill the job here.
What we need more than anything is better population growth. Job growth can and will follow more overall growth. To get that population growth we need improved community amenities and improved urban living options to encourage more people to live here. We have great suburban areas and great midtown areas and some outstanding local school districts and private schools. We are what we always wanted to be which is a great city to raise a family. But that's not enough anymore, we need more young people that haven't yet started a family to move here and that means we need to address an urban living option that we are currently badly lacking in.
If Tulsa gets a new highrise, it won't be built downtown. I would look south as whoever builds it would want it to stand out and would go to where the growth is.
Sweetheart, sometimes very well intended people, who mean no harm, kind of like you, can't see the forest for the trees.
We all love Tulsa or we wouldn't be hanging out at TulsaNow but Tulsa has many needs, chief among them is a better economy.
I want the big fat skyscraper paid for by oil money and filled up with energy companies and their competitive wages.
Now, if you are going to rant about what I've said try to accurately represent what I have said. Please.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Swake, I think you've been drinking the same koolaid as everyone else in local government.
You say, "What Tulsa needs to do is to continue to add new hotel space and new residential units and we need to continue to convert our older classic deco office buildings into other uses."
But you are getting the cart before the horse.
Tulsa needs new business. Good paying business. Everything else flows from that.
Kool-aid? Maybe I am misreading the tea leaves or the astrological impact of a rising moon but I think you are the one drinking the kool-aid. You have message board malaise. Tulsa's poor! There are no jobs! Taxes are too high!
That's all crap.
Let's not sell us short on what Tulsa does do well. We have among the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. We have no housing crisis. Tulsa is a well educated city and has a per-capita income average that is in the top quintile of all metropolitan areas, higher than Dallas or Houston in fact. And that's while we are near the bottom in cost of living. "Good paying jobs" is a nice political campaign sound bite but it's not something that we are lacking. We need better job growth but in my experience in the companies I have worked for the problem with Tulsa isn't in getting jobs to move here, it's with getting people to move here to fill those jobs. I know of a number of very high paying jobs that have left Tulsa because no one would fill the job here.
What we need more than anything is better population growth. Job growth can and will follow more overall growth. To get that population growth we need improved community amenities and improved urban living options to encourage more people to live here. We have great suburban areas and great midtown areas and some outstanding local school districts and private schools. We are what we always wanted to be which is a great city to raise a family. But that's not enough anymore, we need more young people that haven't yet started a family to move here and that means we need to address an urban living option that we are currently badly lacking in.
+1!
You summed up the situation quite well.
One thing about this OKC passing Tulsa stuff. OKC imo is finally living up to what it should be. Its a bigger city, the seat of government with all those advantages, a large public college nearby etc. It SHOULD have always been ahead of us and with bigger buildings, a bigger downtown, etc. Then on the flipside, Tulsa has been living a virtual dream world compared to other cities its size, city and metro, and age. Combine OKC not being where it should be, Tulsa having more than it would otherwise have... this has given the illusion that both cities were somewhat comparable. Todays reality is that they are not and this will likely continue to become more apparent. Tulsa has lived a blessed existance, OKC has, until recently, seemingly squandered what it has had.
Take away the 3 or 4 tallest buildings in our downtown... look at the result and then ask me if we should stack up to OKC? We would look like Wichita or Little Rock. Those buildings are an illusion. Does 3 or 4 buildings make the city? I have often wondered if I would have even lived here if those buildings werent there. We would look very small city if they werent there. And indeed we are a small city imo, not a medium sized one, especially if you take metro into consideration. We are an island in this area.
You can either see Tulsa as a great and lucky small city, or a lousy medium one lol. OKC has been a lousy medium one lol, but is catching up to where it should be.
Here is the skyline of a city about Tulsas size, but without the blessings of oil. If you look at Tulsas skyline and then expect it to be more than it really is, your going to be let down. If it looked like Tucson, which actually has a larger population I believe, would we be expecting the same things of Tulsa?
Tucson
(http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/133/tucsonnn8.jpg)
I think whats disconcerting to many Tulsans is the combined effect of seeing OKC become what it should be, while at the same time Tulsa without oil, is having to face up to what it really is.
BUT,,, if we come to realize that we can be a great small city, and OKC a great medium sized city. Each evolving into unique and wonderful places to live. This can be one really neat state.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Sweetheart, sometimes very well intended people, who mean no harm, kind of like you, can't see the forest for the trees.
We all love Tulsa or we wouldn't be hanging out at TulsaNow but Tulsa has many needs, chief among them is a better economy.
I want the big fat skyscraper paid for by oil money and filled up with energy companies and their competitive wages.
Now, if you are going to rant about what I've said try to accurately represent what I have said. Please.
Oh sweetie,
I'd hate to argue with facts when you have astrology, but let me take a stab at it:
Tulsa's current unemployment rate is 4.0%, which is well under the national rate of 5.7%
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080816_46_E1_hMetro125451
Tulsa per capita income is much better than the national average and is growing faster than the nation. We gained 5.3% in income per capita just last year outpacing the national and state gains in income:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/08/07/ap5302109.html
Tulsa in fact ranked 55th in average per capital income out of 363 metro areas, ahead of almost every metro area in our region of the nation:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080808_46_E1_hMONET203826
And our cost of living is among the lowest in the nation:
http://swz.salary.com/CostOfLivingWizard/layouthtmls/coll_metrodetail_187.html
Tulsa's job growth is not great, but is still better than the national rate and job growth can't happen without people to fill the jobs
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080807_46_E1_hTulsa868873
But, despite all of that we are one of the slower growing metro areas:
http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/index.html
Our problem is not the local economy.
Don't get fresh with me. That's Mr. Hometown to you.
The only local industry that pays competive wages is the oil business. I can drive to Dallas and double my income. Tulsa is badly worn around the edges. Our downtown almost died. Tulsa has many virtues but not the ones you are touting here. Pick your facts. Pick your experts.
Anyway, it's a little United Nations around here. Takes all kinds. Just one big happy family. Right cuz?
And I suspect the earlier post saying any new tower would be built in South Tulsa is probably on target.
Paying customers are welcome wherever they build as long as it is the city limits.
Define "competitive wages."
Then define "liberal elitist."
I had already theorized earlier in this thread that Tulsa has lots of SMALL BUSINESS jobs. Our economy looks good because there are plenty of that type of job. These small businesses don't have a need for a grand big money headquarters, and they also don't attract people from all over the country to work for. I agree with HT that we need some big player in the mix to really drive things. People aren't going to relocate to Tulsa to work at Fred's Oil Pipe Warehouse in West Tulsa. They would relocate to Tulsa to work for a company like Devon, especially with an iconic headquarters like they are planning. And just the taxes on that damn thing are going to allow OKC to do even more improvements to the local infrastructure/amenities.
Distinction of the tallest building in Oklahoma, but OKC will still suck. I mean what is the view from 900 feet in OKC? [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Don't get fresh with me. That's Mr. Hometown to you.
The only local industry that pays competive wages is the oil business. I can drive to Dallas and double my income. Tulsa is badly worn around the edges. Our downtown almost died. Tulsa has many virtues but not the ones you are touting here. Pick your facts. Pick your experts.
Anyway, it's a little United Nations around here. Takes all kinds. Just one big happy family. Right cuz?
And I suspect the earlier post saying any new tower would be built in South Tulsa is probably on target.
Paying customers are welcome wherever they build as long as it is the city limits.
Because YOU could double your pay in Dallas doesn't mean everyone else could or that even 20% of us could. Tulsa and OKC both have decent wages for MOST jobs out there. When I graduated in 2005 I compared job offers from multiple companies in multiple industries and many companies gave me a choice of where I wanted to work. Salaries were higher in Dallas but only by about 10%. In some cases they were no different.
On another note, I do not know when Tulsa started losing its energy business. What I do know is last week I was trying to scrounge up some info on a few leases. These leases were very old, dating back to the 1940s and as I went through the paperwork I was stunned at just how many oil companies were headquartered in Tulsa. The number of letters/paperwork originating in Tulsa fell off sharply in the late 70s through the late 80s until only two companies (in the paperwork I was going through) were in Tulsa. In the 1960s for example I counted a total of 7 companies with correspondance originating in Tulsa.
As time went by the correspondance moved to Houston and Dallas. :(
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa is a well educated city and has a per-capita income average that is in the top quintile of all metropolitan areas, higher than Dallas or Houston in fact.
... or maybe not.
2006 per capita incomes, according to US Census Bureau, for metropolitan areas:
Tulsa: $22,663
Houston: 24,917
DFW: 26,174
Well, if you don't have anything good to say about Tulsa, sit next to Oil Capital....
http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/mrius.cfm
Per Capita Personal Income by MSA for 2007
1 14860 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT (MSA) 80,192
2 34940 Naples-Marco Island, FL (MSA) 61,788
3 41860 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (MSA) 61,337
4 41940 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (MSA) 58,716
5 42680 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL (MSA) 58,144
6 47900 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 54,211
7 14460 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (MSA) 53,763
8 35620 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 53,423
9 14500 Boulder, CO (MSA) 52,438
10 45940 Trenton-Ewing, NJ (MSA) 52,388
11 33260 Midland, TX (MSA) 52,294
12 34900 Napa, CA (MSA) 50,817
13 42660 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (MSA) 48,499
14 14600 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL (MSA) 48,498
15 12700 Barnstable Town, MA (MSA) 48,468
16 42100 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA (MSA) 47,923
17 25540 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT (MSA) 47,641
18 16220 Casper, WY (MSA) 47,354
19 39900 Reno-Sparks, NV (MSA) 46,734
20 33460 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (MSA) 46,458
21 19740 Denver-Aurora, CO (MSA) 46,439
22 26420 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX (MSA) 46,235
23 35380 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA (MSA) 46,188
24 42060 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA (MSA) 46,120
25 42220 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA (MSA) 45,766
26 37980 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 45,460
27 42140 Santa Fe, NM (MSA) 45,230
28 12580 Baltimore-Towson, MD (MSA) 45,208
29 37100 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA (MSA) 44,927
30 41740 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 44,832
31 16180 Carson City, NV (MSA) 44,081
32 11260 Anchorage, AK (MSA) 43,911
33 35300 New Haven-Milford, CT (MSA) 43,820
34 16980 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 43,714
35 31700 Manchester-Nashua, NH (MSA) 43,518
36 36140 Ocean City, NJ (MSA) 43,232
37 33100 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL (MSA) 43,001
38 35980 Norwich-New London, CT (MSA) 42,586
39 36540 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA (MSA) 41,976
40 26180 Honolulu, HI (MSA) 41,964
41 14740 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA (MSA) 41,883
42 31100 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (MSA) 41,875
43 19100 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (MSA) 41,813
44 31540 Madison, WI (MSA) 41,679
45 33340 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI (MSA) 41,358
46 16940 Cheyenne, WY (MSA) 41,236
47 11460 Ann Arbor, MI (MSA) 41,233
48 19780 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA (MSA) 41,085
49 49340 Worcester, MA (MSA) 41,077
50 38300 Pittsburgh, PA (MSA) 40,949
51 15980 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL (MSA) 40,935
52 38340 Pittsfield, MA (MSA) 40,898
53 41500 Salinas, CA (MSA) 40,623
54 16820 Charlottesville, VA (MSA) 40,375
55 46140 Tulsa, OK (MSA) 40,227
56 40340 Rochester, MN (MSA) 40,118
57 10580 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (MSA) 40,047
58 38940 Port St. Lucie, FL (MSA) 39,850
59 29820 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV (MSA) 39,828
60 40060 Richmond, VA (MSA) 39,773
61 41180 St. Louis, MO-IL (MSA) 39,602
62 19820 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (MSA) 39,419
63 28140 Kansas City, MO-KS (MSA) 39,402
64 23020 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL (MSA) 39,309
65 17460 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH (MSA) 39,258
66 13820 Birmingham-Hoover, AL (MSA) 39,247
67 48620 Wichita, KS (MSA) 39,210
68 34980 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN (MSA) 39,040
69 16740 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC (MSA) 39,004
70 26900 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN (MSA) 38,980
71 15540 Burlington-South Burlington, VT (MSA) 38,951
72 27260 Jacksonville, FL (MSA) 38,927
73 20500 Durham, NC (MSA) 38,923
74 38860 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME (MSA) 38,889
75 39300 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA (MSA) 38,868
76 39580 Raleigh-Cary, NC (MSA) 38,648
77 40900 Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA (MSA) 38,570
78 38900 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 38,511
79 17140 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (MSA) 38,290
80 39100 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY (MSA) 38,121
81 40380 Rochester, NY (MSA) 38,068
82 25420 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA (MSA) 38,064
83 42020 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA (MSA) 37,884
84 36500 Olympia, WA (MSA) 37,809
85 37900 Peoria, IL (MSA) 37,801
86 30780 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR (MSA) 37,785
87 31140 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN (MSA) 37,675
88 18140 Columbus, OH (MSA) 37,664
89 41620 Salt Lake City, UT (MSA) 37,620
90 12420 Austin-Round Rock, TX (MSA) 37,517
91 43620 Sioux Falls, SD (MSA) 37,453
92 36420 Oklahoma City, OK (MSA) 37,385
93 18700 Corvallis, OR (MSA) 37,341
94 12060 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA (MSA) 37,294
95 13740 Billings, MT (MSA) 37,247
95 30460 Lexington-Fayette, KY (MSA) 37,247
97 43100 Sheboygan, WI (MSA) 37,209
98 32820 Memphis, TN-MS-AR (MSA) 37,183
99 46700 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA (MSA) 37,180
100 10900 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ (MSA) 37,066
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Well, if you don't have anything good to say about Tulsa, sit next to Oil Capital....
LOL Or, I guess one could sit next to USRufnex...
Thanks for confirming the veracity of my post, and that the relative rankings have continued into 2007 (except that Houston has moved ahead of DFW), and for decisively proving the incorrectness of Swake's original statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Well, if you don't have anything good to say about Tulsa, sit next to Oil Capital....
LOL Or, I guess one could sit next to USRufnex...
Thanks for confirming the veracity of my post, and that the relative rankings have continued into 2007 (except that Houston has moved ahead of DFW), and for decisively proving the incorrectness of Swake's original statement.
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Well, if you don't have anything good to say about Tulsa, sit next to Oil Capital....
LOL Or, I guess one could sit next to USRufnex...
Thanks for confirming the veracity of my post, and that the relative rankings have continued into 2007 (except that Houston has moved ahead of DFW), and for decisively proving the incorrectness of Swake's original statement.
I should have said "when adjusted for the cost of living"
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa is a well educated city and has a per-capita income average that is in the top quintile of all metropolitan areas, higher than Dallas or Houston in fact.
... or maybe not.
2006 per capita incomes, according to US Census Bureau, for metropolitan areas:
Tulsa: $22,663
Houston: 24,917
DFW: 26,174
Census estimate numbers? You believe estimates whose starting point is the average of what people filled in on a census long form eight years ago?
The same census whose estimate on Tulsa's growth from 1990 to 2000 turned out to be off by something like 40%? The same census that is currently trying to say that Oklahoma's Hispanic population INCREASED this year with 1804 coming into effect? The current census estimate on our growth this decade says Tulsa metro has grown by almost the same number as the number new residences that have been built so far this decade? I'm betting that the people "estimate" is off by close to half again at the next census. If they are consistently that far off on people how good is their income estimate?
The numbers I'm referenced are from the US Department of Commerce.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa is a well educated city and has a per-capita income average that is in the top quintile of all metropolitan areas, higher than Dallas or Houston in fact.
... or maybe not.
2006 per capita incomes, according to US Census Bureau, for metropolitan areas:
Tulsa: $22,663
Houston: 24,917
DFW: 26,174
Census estimate numbers? You believe estimates whose starting point is the average of what people filled in on a census long form eight years ago?
The same census whose estimate on Tulsa's growth from 1990 to 2000 turned out to be off by something like 40%? The same census that is currently trying to say that Oklahoma's Hispanic population INCREASED this year with 1804 coming into effect? The current census estimate on our growth this decade says Tulsa metro has grown by almost the same number as the number new residences that have been built so far this decade? I'm betting that the people "estimate" is off by close to half again at the next census. If they are consistently that far off on people how good is their income estimate?
The numbers I'm referenced are from the US Department of Commerce.
Income statistics and estimates unlike the actual census population is tabulated from IRS data, which as you are probably aware comes out yearly based on ACTUAL tax return data. IRS data is typically 18 to 20 months behind. The latest year the IRS would have on file right now would be 2006 if we're lucky but it would be real data.
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Note that figures referencing the Tulsa MSA actually reflect a lower average/median income than in Tulsa Proper and its main suburbs. The MSA includes Tulsa , Rogers , Wagoner , Okmulgee , Creek , Pawnee , Osage couties. Extending the statistical boundaries that far out into the country pulls down a stat like income level significantly.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
Curious if they've cleared all that with the FAA and the USAF. I'm quite well aware of the "tower farm" in north OKC. This is much closer down the glide slope to Tinker and WRIA.
I agree with Michael Bates, pretty much word for word regarding the effect tall buildings typically have on where they are built.
The taller the building, the bigger the parking donut around it is, particularly in OKC where they actually have a worse mass transit system than Tulsa. (although they are doing an Alternatives Analysis on a downtown Streetcar circulator.)
The building will be a good thing for OKC in that it continues to build a positive psyche amongst its citizens about the future for their city. This more than anything is what we are missing.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
quote:
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Let's park the tornado alley bit. It isn't like they're waiting in line to twist through Oklahoma City every spring. We average a major tornado every 20 years or so, and they always seem to veer south of Oklahoma City. Just look at the homes in Heritage Hills. They've been there for 100 years and a tornado has yet to knock on the front door of the Overholser Mansion.
quote:
(since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go).
Ugh, here we go again with the state funds leeching mambajahamba. It seems like every good accomplishment Oklahoma City makes that DOESN'T involve state funds, the fiasco is brought up by many a Tulsan anyway. Seriously, let it go.
quote:
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
Yeah, and the same doubts from Tulsa were cast on the Skirvin. People in Tulsa said the project would fizzle. Well, it didn't. And how many times in U.S. history to a skyscraper get half built? How many times will Tulsa bring up OneOk everytime Oklahoma City decides to throw up another highrise?
quote:
And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
You don't know what a craphole is until you've visited a rustbelt city in the northeast. Then we can talk. Hate Oklahoma City all you want, it's your opinion, but I think both OKC and Tulsa have a bright future ahead. I just hope Tulsa can get better leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, I dunno, I don't think I am...but I"m judging myself...
Tornado alley? Whoopdeedooo DFW had many tornadoes OKC gets hit by tornadoes all the time and a major tornado has not ever struck the CBD dead on. Given the statistical odds its a moot point. They'll have insurance anyways, so I dont see what the big deal is.
Your hatred for OKC is pretty rampant and basically proves my point. I want nothing more than for Tulsa AND OKC to succeed strong metro's make a strong state regardless of who trumps who with a building or an NBA team. Tulsa is a gorgeous city with similar potential to OKC and they exercised this potential in the 40s, 50s and 60s.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, I dunno, I don't think I am...but I"m judging myself...
Tornado alley? Whoopdeedooo DFW had many tornadoes OKC gets hit by tornadoes all the time and a major tornado has not ever struck the CBD dead on. Given the statistical odds its a moot point. They'll have insurance anyways, so I dont see what the big deal is.
Your hatred for OKC is pretty rampant and basically proves my point. I want nothing more than for Tulsa AND OKC to succeed strong metro's make a strong state regardless of who trumps who with a building or an NBA team. Tulsa is a gorgeous city with similar potential to OKC and they exercised this potential in the 40s, 50s and 60s.
And my hatred of it is just that: mine.
I don't go around telling other people 'You must hate OKC at all costs'. I will them my views though, if solicited, either implied or umimplied. I don't profess to be the seer of all things OKCitian.
I'll continue to hate OKC until such a time as those people in the State House quite kowtowing to those interests OKC and brush off the Tulsa interests in kind. If you're so much for Tulsa AND OKC progressing, tell OKC lawmakers and politicians to quit *****ing every time Tulsa asks for something from the State Lawmakers.
quote:
I'll continue to hate OKC until such a time as those people in the State House quite kowtowing to those interests OKC and brush off the Tulsa interests in kind. If you're so much for Tulsa AND OKC progressing, tell OKC lawmakers and politicians to quit *****ing every time Tulsa asks for something from the State Lawmakers.
Then hate the lawmakers, not OKC. OKC in and of itself has squat to do with what goes on at the state capitol. We are NOT going to roll over dead and shut the city down just because of a few begrudged Tulsans. I have done my part. I have written my local senator and representative to encourage more partnership between OKC and Tulsa. Have you done the same?
In reality, though, it isn't the job of politicians to represent someone else's district. We put them in office to represent our local district. It is the job of the State Commerce Department to represent the entire state equally. Tulsa and OKC's Chambers of Commerce have forged a partnership to lobby state government together on urban projects. But that was just recently, so in time we will see how it plays out.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, I dunno, I don't think I am...but I"m judging myself...
Tornado alley? Whoopdeedooo DFW had many tornadoes OKC gets hit by tornadoes all the time and a major tornado has not ever struck the CBD dead on. Given the statistical odds its a moot point. They'll have insurance anyways, so I dont see what the big deal is.
Your hatred for OKC is pretty rampant and basically proves my point. I want nothing more than for Tulsa AND OKC to succeed strong metro's make a strong state regardless of who trumps who with a building or an NBA team. Tulsa is a gorgeous city with similar potential to OKC and they exercised this potential in the 40s, 50s and 60s.
And my hatred of it is just that: mine.
I don't go around telling other people 'You must hate OKC at all costs'. I will them my views though, if solicited, either implied or umimplied. I don't profess to be the seer of all things OKCitian.
I'll continue to hate OKC until such a time as those people in the State House quite kowtowing to those interests OKC and brush off the Tulsa interests in kind. If you're so much for Tulsa AND OKC progressing, tell OKC lawmakers and politicians to quit *****ing every time Tulsa asks for something from the State Lawmakers.
Maybe the city of Tulsa should worry about fixing what it can fix before looking down the turnpike to OKC and blaming them for Tulsas problems?
The same thing was happening in OKC in the late 80s early 90s when tulsa seemed to be the beacon of the state. Lots of people in OKC hated tulsa and from a young age I never really understood it. We would take trips to and through tulsa and it always seemed nice. My aunt swore by Tulsa after living here for years in the 1970s. After an extensive visit last year she wasn't so sure she wanted to move up here. Though I'm still trying to talk her into it.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, I dunno, I don't think I am...but I"m judging myself...
Tornado alley? Whoopdeedooo DFW had many tornadoes OKC gets hit by tornadoes all the time and a major tornado has not ever struck the CBD dead on. Given the statistical odds its a moot point. They'll have insurance anyways, so I dont see what the big deal is.
Your hatred for OKC is pretty rampant and basically proves my point. I want nothing more than for Tulsa AND OKC to succeed strong metro's make a strong state regardless of who trumps who with a building or an NBA team. Tulsa is a gorgeous city with similar potential to OKC and they exercised this potential in the 40s, 50s and 60s.
And my hatred of it is just that: mine.
I don't go around telling other people 'You must hate OKC at all costs'. I will them my views though, if solicited, either implied or umimplied. I don't profess to be the seer of all things OKCitian.
I'll continue to hate OKC until such a time as those people in the State House quite kowtowing to those interests OKC and brush off the Tulsa interests in kind. If you're so much for Tulsa AND OKC progressing, tell OKC lawmakers and politicians to quit *****ing every time Tulsa asks for something from the State Lawmakers.
Maybe the city of Tulsa should worry about fixing what it can fix before looking down the turnpike to OKC and blaming them for Tulsas problems?
The same thing was happening in OKC in the late 80s early 90s when tulsa seemed to be the beacon of the state. Lots of people in OKC hated tulsa and from a young age I never really understood it. We would take trips to and through tulsa and it always seemed nice. My aunt swore by Tulsa after living here for years in the 1970s. After an extensive visit last year she wasn't so sure she wanted to move up here. Though I'm still trying to talk her into it.
The problem is 'fixing what it can fix' and '*****ing about OKC taking the bigger share' go hand in hand.
I use the example time and again, but how long now has it taken for Tulsa to get I-44 widened? We've been working on it for 15 years, going on 15 more.
I'm obviously not the only one thinking this: the World's own polical cartoonist who lives in the area obviously thinks the same.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/200808_A14_NoArt25022_Plante-20080821.jpg)
quote:
The problem is 'fixing what it can fix' and '*****ing about OKC taking the bigger share' go hand in hand.
I use the example time and again, but how long now has it taken for Tulsa to get I-44 widened? We've been working on it for 15 years, going on 15 more.
I'm obviously not the only one thinking this: the World's own polical cartoonist who lives in the area obviously thinks the same.
That is not our fault. Blame it on ODOT. And it is of no surprise, as well as pathetic, that Tulsa's local media endorses such divided behavior. There is OKC stereotype written all over that cartoon.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
The problem is 'fixing what it can fix' and '*****ing about OKC taking the bigger share' go hand in hand.
I use the example time and again, but how long now has it taken for Tulsa to get I-44 widened? We've been working on it for 15 years, going on 15 more.
I'm obviously not the only one thinking this: the World's own polical cartoonist who lives in the area obviously thinks the same.
That is not our fault. Blame it on ODOT. And it is of no surprise, as well as pathetic, that Tulsa's local media endorses such divided behavior. There is OKC stereotype written all over that cartoon.
There is Truth written all over that cartoon.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
The problem is 'fixing what it can fix' and '*****ing about OKC taking the bigger share' go hand in hand.
I use the example time and again, but how long now has it taken for Tulsa to get I-44 widened? We've been working on it for 15 years, going on 15 more.
I'm obviously not the only one thinking this: the World's own polical cartoonist who lives in the area obviously thinks the same.
That is not our fault. Blame it on ODOT. And it is of no surprise, as well as pathetic, that Tulsa's local media endorses such divided behavior. There is OKC stereotype written all over that cartoon.
Wow, I can't believe you just blamed it on ODOT. ODOT isn't the entity that allots the funds to do the work, they're just the endpoint.
I can't see how the legislators from down the pike get away with this stuff. It stinks to high-heaven.
quote:
There is Truth written all over that cartoon.
Come to think of it, you're right. There IS truth written all over that cartoon... in the form of a 'whoa is me' attitude on Tulsa's behalf.
ANYTIME ANYTHING successful happens in OKC that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with taking state tax dollars, you people are all over Oklahoma City's faults like flies on a corpse. We have a company who is about to spend $750 million in PRIVATE money on a PRIVATE tower, and all you can do is accuse us of robbing state tax dollars. That or say it won't get built.
But this is nothing new. Before the Skirvin opened, people on this board said it would happen. That was proven wrong in 2006. Tulsans accused OKC of using state tax dollars to fund MAPS. Not a penny of state taxes went on MAPS. Nor did any state money go toward MAPS for Kids to overhaul OKC Public Schools. Our new art museum downtown was built totally with private donations. But screw all that.
Sheesh.
quote:
Wow, I can't believe you just blamed it on ODOT. ODOT isn't the entity that allots the funds to do the work, they're just the endpoint.
I can't see how the legislators from down the pike get away with this stuff. It stinks to high-heaven.
Until 2007, lawmakers decided which roads got fixed first. That responsibility now lies with ODOT. It is now only the legislature's job to determine ODOT's overall budget. However, any project preceeding the new law has been grandfathered in.
Tell me Hoss, just what do Tulsa lawmakers do while they are at the capitol?
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Wow, I can't believe you just blamed it on ODOT. ODOT isn't the entity that allots the funds to do the work, they're just the endpoint.
I can't see how the legislators from down the pike get away with this stuff. It stinks to high-heaven.
Until 2007, lawmakers decided which roads got fixed first. That responsibility now lies with ODOT. It is now only the legislature's job to determine ODOT's overall budget. However, any project preceeding the new law has been grandfathered in.
Tell me Hoss, just what do Tulsa lawmakers do while they are at the capitol?
Try and block the end-runs the OKC legislators do to hoard their portion of the public funding. Evidently with little success.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
There is Truth written all over that cartoon.
Come to think of it, you're right. There IS truth written all over that cartoon... in the form of a 'whoa is me' attitude on Tulsa's behalf.
ANYTIME ANYTHING successful happens in OKC that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with taking state tax dollars, you people are all over Oklahoma City's faults like flies on a corpse. We have a company who is about to spend $750 million in PRIVATE money on a PRIVATE tower, and all you can do is accuse us of robbing state tax dollars. That or say it won't get built.
But this is nothing new. Before the Skirvin opened, people on this board said it would happen. That was proven wrong in 2006. Tulsans accused OKC of using state tax dollars to fund MAPS. Not a penny of state taxes went on MAPS. Nor did any state money go toward MAPS for Kids to overhaul OKC Public Schools. Our new art museum downtown was built totally with private donations. But screw all that.
Sheesh.
How about that state funding for YOUR basketball team? We all know THAT isn't happening.
[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Wow, I can't believe you just blamed it on ODOT. ODOT isn't the entity that allots the funds to do the work, they're just the endpoint.
I can't see how the legislators from down the pike get away with this stuff. It stinks to high-heaven.
Until 2007, lawmakers decided which roads got fixed first. That responsibility now lies with ODOT. It is now only the legislature's job to determine ODOT's overall budget. However, any project preceeding the new law has been grandfathered in.
Tell me Hoss, just what do Tulsa lawmakers do while they are at the capitol?
So in other words, we're stuck with how the legislators wanted it for a few more years then. Great.
What do they do in OKC? Golf, apparently. That and drive I-40 to work and say "I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again."
Let's not forget the state funding going to your airport, or to keep the heartland flyer running, or the state funding your mayor wants to fix the OKC mass transit system.
It's not an anti-OKC thing, it's a capital mentality. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and it has to be a very loud squeek for a non-capital city to get heard in a capital city.
No one is responsible for the condition Tulsa finds herself in other than Tulsa. Competition between cities is natural and healthy and the fact that Tulsa has fallen short in government funding is Tulsa's responsibility alone. The fact that Tulsa has not aggressively fought to retain her energy business is our responsibility.
We've had a prominent member of this forum argue that Tulsa shouldn't aspire to be anything other than a small city compared to Oklahoma City's status as a medium sized city. We've had another prominent member of this forum argue that we should focus on rehabbing old smaller buildings instead of building a new tower. So clearly there is no real focus here on where Tulsa needs to go.
Tulsa can over come any obstacle if she decides she wants to do that.
The Spanish War and World War I generation put Tulsa on the map and captured the Oil Capital moniker. The World War II generation laid the ground work for our current situation by launching the "Diversification" mantra. The Boomers engendered spurts of improvement but have generally presided over Tulsa's decline.
quote:
How about that state funding for YOUR basketball team? We all know THAT isn't happening.
We all agree that was a mistake. But that is a loose argument. Quality Jobs is a rebate program for high-paying jobs created in Oklahoma. Tulsa got the same rebates with Whirlpool, Wiltel, State Farm, and soon Google. The list goes on. I could ***** and say we in OKC funded all of those jobs in Tulsa, but I know that is a thread of bickering just waiting to happen.
quote:
Let's not forget the state funding going to your airport
Umm... what state funding for our airport? Oh, you mean the new terminal. Again, zero tax dollars were used. That was paid for with a $3 usage fee for all airport patrons. OKC even refused federal funding for that.
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
I was in a meeting and someone who used to work at the capitol was commenting on this "Tulsa" problem. It wasnt anything I hadnt really heard before but essentially the gist was.... Tulsa doesnt lobby for its share of the "goodies". 1. The politicians we have sent down there havent done a good job of doing that for us. 2. The Tulsa Chamber, City, or whatever doesnt have any lobbyists down there.
The person was describing how spending bills happen, how things get written in to be funded, etc. How other cities and areas have people there, on the ground, on message, sticking stuff in and making sure their interests are taken care of. Where is Tulsa?... Well they send a bus load of people down perhaps a couple times per year to lobby and complain, hand out a large pile of requests, then leave.
The person said that Tulsa needs a full time lobbyist down there. That Tulsa needs to focus on a consistent message, have say, 3 priorities, and hammer away at those. All our local politicians need to be focused and on that same message. Working deals to get a select few issues done, not randomly rattling around on 100 different issues and gripes.
When the other guys are there lobbying for their share, they keep ON MESSAGE, they have TALKING POINTS that are repeated over and over, they are making the rounds, making friends, working deals, and where is Tulsa when the goodies are being doled out?,,,,the other guys just laugh at us and go, Oh well they are back in Tulsa griping about who knows what". And thats even if they think about us at all. They are fighting for their own concerns.
One of those "3 talking points" that we reeeeeally need to work on is OSU Tulsa. OSU Stillwater does NOT want OSU Tulsa to grow. I have heard this from many people who are supposedly "in the know". You want student housing down there?... we are going to have to be consistently on it, pushing hard to get it.
Who is doing that for us right now? Today? Can anyone tell me? What are they doing to get that for us?
What are Tulsas talking points, its major concerns and wants at this moment? What is everyone hearing from Tulsa right now? What is everyone hearing that we want at the capitol, in the lunch lines, in meetings, on the golf course, etc.? What are our 3 top priorities? What are the talking points that are being repeated over and over?
John Hope Franklin Memorial?.... Heck small towns all over Oklahoma are getting more for stuff, yet we cant send someone down there to get that small sum for us? And I am not just talking politicians, Tulsa needs a FULL TIME lobbyist. Stick them in a hotel. Someone who is going to work hard and be there consistently and on message.
Us sitting around here whining and griping and occasionally sending up a bus load of people to whine and gripe aint gonna do it. That actually just makes them get more of a kick out of divvying up the pie to others who are there constantly pushing for what they want. You turn your back for a minute, your not there at the right time and place, dont have any focus, you lose.
May not be the way its "supposed" to work, but thats how it DOES work. And until Tulsa gets serious. We are not gonna get our fare share. Its not up to the others to give anything to us. They want more for themselves and whiney, gripey, disorganized, unfocused Tulsa be danged.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I was in a meeting and someone who used to work at the capitol was commenting on this "Tulsa" problem. It wasnt anything I hadnt really heard before but essentially the gist was.... Tulsa doesnt lobby for its share of the "goodies". 1. The politicians we have sent down there havent done a good job of doing that for us. 2. The Tulsa Chamber, City, or whatever doesnt have any lobbyists down there.
The person was describing how spending bills happen, how things get written in to be funded, etc. How other cities and areas have people there, on the ground, on message, sticking stuff in and making sure their interests are taken care of. Where is Tulsa?... Well they send a bus load of people down perhaps a couple times per year to lobby and complain, hand out a large pile of requests, then leave.
The person said that Tulsa needs a full time lobbyist down there. That Tulsa needs to focus on a consistent message, have say, 3 priorities, and hammer away at those. All our local politicians need to be focused and on that same message. Working deals to get a select few issues done, not randomly rattling around on 100 different issues and gripes.
When the other guys are there lobbying for their share, they keep ON MESSAGE, they have TALKING POINTS that are repeated over and over, they are making the rounds, making friends, working deals, and where is Tulsa when the goodies are being doled out?,,,,the other guys just laugh at us and go, Oh well they are back in Tulsa griping about who knows what". And thats even if they think about us at all. They are fighting for their own concerns.
One of those "3 talking points" that we reeeeeally need to work on is OSU Tulsa. OSU Stillwater does NOT want OSU Tulsa to grow. I have heard this from many people who are supposedly "in the know". You want student housing down there?... we are going to have to be consistently on it, pushing hard to get it.
Who is doing that for us right now? Today? Can anyone tell me? What are they doing to get that for us?
What are Tulsas talking points, its major concerns and wants at this moment? What is everyone hearing from Tulsa right now? What is everyone hearing that we want at the capitol, in the lunch lines, in meetings, on the golf course, etc.? What are our 3 top priorities? What are the talking points that are being repeated over and over?
John Hope Franklin Memorial?.... Heck small towns all over Oklahoma are getting more for stuff, yet we cant send someone down there to get that small sum for us? And I am not just talking politicians, Tulsa needs a FULL TIME lobbyist. Stick them in a hotel. Someone who is going to work hard and be there consistently and on message.
Us sitting around here whining and griping and occasionally sending up a bus load of people to whine and gripe aint gonna do it. That actually just makes them get more of a kick out of divvying up the pie to others who are there constantly pushing for what they want. You turn your back for a minute, your not there at the right time and place, dont have any focus, you lose.
May not be the way its "supposed" to work, but thats how it DOES work. And until Tulsa gets serious. We are not gonna get our fare share. Its not up to the others to give anything to us. They want more for themselves and whiney, gripey, disorganized, unfocused Tulsa be danged.
And just where was this former capital worker from?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I was in a meeting and someone who used to work at the capitol was commenting on this "Tulsa" problem. It wasnt anything I hadnt really heard before but essentially the gist was.... Tulsa doesnt lobby for its share of the "goodies". 1. The politicians we have sent down there havent done a good job of doing that for us. 2. The Tulsa Chamber, City, or whatever doesnt have any lobbyists down there.
The person was describing how spending bills happen, how things get written in to be funded, etc. How other cities and areas have people there, on the ground, on message, sticking stuff in and making sure their interests are taken care of. Where is Tulsa?... Well they send a bus load of people down perhaps a couple times per year to lobby and complain, hand out a large pile of requests, then leave.
The person said that Tulsa needs a full time lobbyist down there. That Tulsa needs to focus on a consistent message, have say, 3 priorities, and hammer away at those. All our local politicians need to be focused and on that same message. Working deals to get a select few issues done, not randomly rattling around on 100 different issues and gripes.
When the other guys are there lobbying for their share, they keep ON MESSAGE, they have TALKING POINTS that are repeated over and over, they are making the rounds, making friends, working deals, and where is Tulsa when the goodies are being doled out?,,,,the other guys just laugh at us and go, Oh well they are back in Tulsa griping about who knows what". And thats even if they think about us at all. They are fighting for their own concerns.
One of those "3 talking points" that we reeeeeally need to work on is OSU Tulsa. OSU Stillwater does NOT want OSU Tulsa to grow. I have heard this from many people who are supposedly "in the know". You want student housing down there?... we are going to have to be consistently on it, pushing hard to get it.
Who is doing that for us right now? Today? Can anyone tell me? What are they doing to get that for us?
What are Tulsas talking points, its major concerns and wants at this moment? What is everyone hearing from Tulsa right now? What is everyone hearing that we want at the capitol, in the lunch lines, in meetings, on the golf course, etc.? What are our 3 top priorities? What are the talking points that are being repeated over and over?
John Hope Franklin Memorial?.... Heck small towns all over Oklahoma are getting more for stuff, yet we cant send someone down there to get that small sum for us? And I am not just talking politicians, Tulsa needs a FULL TIME lobbyist. Stick them in a hotel. Someone who is going to work hard and be there consistently and on message.
Us sitting around here whining and griping and occasionally sending up a bus load of people to whine and gripe aint gonna do it. That actually just makes them get more of a kick out of divvying up the pie to others who are there constantly pushing for what they want. You turn your back for a minute, your not there at the right time and place, dont have any focus, you lose.
May not be the way its "supposed" to work, but thats how it DOES work. And until Tulsa gets serious. We are not gonna get our fare share. Its not up to the others to give anything to us. They want more for themselves and whiney, gripey, disorganized, unfocused Tulsa be danged.
The Artist is 100% correct.
We need a lobbyist or two or three in OKC working on our behalf everyday of the year. Same is true for Washington D.C.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Does that go into that 15 + 15 year delay now of our I-44 in favor of those projects down the turnpike? There has been story after story regarding that fiasco.
The only reason it's getting done now when it is would be because of ODOT handling the purse-strings. But I'm sure the GOB handling of things by influencing those members of ODOT will continue on, just as they always do..
Hoss, highway maintenace projects always get done faster than highway construction projects. The Broadway Extension widening project was planned in 1987, but didn't get off the ground until 1999, and 9 years later the project still isn't complete.
The Crosstown project was in the planning stages for 13 years before construction kicked off in 2006. It's completion date was moved from 2009 to 2012.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
Hoss, highway maintenace projects always get done faster than highway construction projects. The Broadway Extension widening project was planned in 1987, but didn't get off the ground until 1999, and 9 years later the project still isn't complete.
The Crosstown project was in the planning stages for 13 years before construction kicked off in 2006. It's completion date was moved from 2009 to 2012.
I-44 started construction in 1986! 22 years ago! It's been planned on since the 1970s! And there is exactly zero roadwork going on and there hasn't been any in almost a year. There are no signs that any construction is about to start any time soon either.
In fact, there's not a single major highway construction project going on in metro Tulsa that I am aware of. None. Just a couple of smaller resurfacing projects. And there hasn't been a major project since I-44 and Yale was completed about a year ago. There are no signs that any projects are about to start either. ODOT has completed new interchanges at 71st and US 75 and I-44 and Yale and that's about all they have done in the last several years in terms of major projects.
They've torn down some houses along I-44 but as for construction they don't even have a completed design yet.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
Hoss, highway maintenace projects always get done faster than highway construction projects. The Broadway Extension widening project was planned in 1987, but didn't get off the ground until 1999, and 9 years later the project still isn't complete.
The Crosstown project was in the planning stages for 13 years before construction kicked off in 2006. It's completion date was moved from 2009 to 2012.
I-44 started construction in 1986! 22 years ago! It's been planned on since the 1970s! And there is exactly zero roadwork going on and there hasn't been any in almost a year. There are no signs that any construction is about to start any time soon either.
In fact, there's not a single major highway construction project going on in metro Tulsa that I am aware of. None. Just a couple of smaller resurfacing projects. And there hasn't been a major project since I-44 and Yale was completed about a year ago. There are no signs that any projects are about to start either. ODOT has completed new interchanges at 71st and US 75 and I-44 and Yale and that's about all they have done in the last several years in terms of major projects.
They've torn down some houses along I-44 but as for construction they don't even have a completed design yet.
I-35 8-mile widening project in south Oklahoma City from downtown to Moore got started in 1984. They just finished the last leg in 2006. The I-40/I-35 interchange reconstruction began in 1987. It was finished in 2000.
Though I do agree that local leaders have pushed for and developed plans for Oklahoma City's next two major highway projects...
A stack interchange at I-240 and I-35. Right of way clearance is done but construction has yet to begin, and another stack interchange at I-235 and I-44. Construction will begin after the I-235 widening is complete.
So I will concede, as we speak there are two freeway construction projects underway in Oklahoma City, the widening of I-235 from NE 36th to NE 63rd, and the 3-mile I-40 relocation project. But I stress, our local leaders were VERY agressive in getting those projects off the ground. It is a part of Central Oklahoma's 2020 transportation plan, and Forward Oklahoma City III, a campaign that has been ongoing since 1995 to diversify the local economy and provide top notch incentives for companies to move or set up operations here.
When you approach lawmakers with a well-designed comprehensive plan with a fancy timeline, armed with well-rounded local leaders and lobbyists, lawmakers don't say no.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Don't forget the big 169 project that just finished up about a year ago.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Don't forget the big 169 project that just finished up about a year ago.
Yeah, after we lobbied for that for 10 years. How long did it take 169 to get extended from 51st to 71st? 20 years? They didn't extend that until 1990, the year I got married.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
Hoss, highway maintenace projects always get done faster than highway construction projects. The Broadway Extension widening project was planned in 1987, but didn't get off the ground until 1999, and 9 years later the project still isn't complete.
The Crosstown project was in the planning stages for 13 years before construction kicked off in 2006. It's completion date was moved from 2009 to 2012.
I-44 started construction in 1986! 22 years ago! It's been planned on since the 1970s! And there is exactly zero roadwork going on and there hasn't been any in almost a year. There are no signs that any construction is about to start any time soon either.
In fact, there's not a single major highway construction project going on in metro Tulsa that I am aware of. None. Just a couple of smaller resurfacing projects. And there hasn't been a major project since I-44 and Yale was completed about a year ago. There are no signs that any projects are about to start either. ODOT has completed new interchanges at 71st and US 75 and I-44 and Yale and that's about all they have done in the last several years in terms of major projects.
They've torn down some houses along I-44 but as for construction they don't even have a completed design yet.
I-35 8-mile widening project in south Oklahoma City from downtown to Moore got started in 1984. They just finished the last leg in 2006. The I-40/I-35 interchange reconstruction began in 1987. It was finished in 2000.
Though I do agree that local leaders have pushed for and developed plans for Oklahoma City's next two major highway projects...
A stack interchange at I-240 and I-35. Right of way clearance is done but construction has yet to begin, and another stack interchange at I-235 and I-44. Construction will begin after the I-235 widening is complete.
So I will concede, as we speak there are two freeway construction projects underway in Oklahoma City, the widening of I-235 from NE 36th to NE 63rd, and the 3-mile I-40 relocation project. But I stress, our local leaders were VERY agressive in getting those projects off the ground. It is a part of Central Oklahoma's 2020 transportation plan, and Forward Oklahoma City III, a campaign that has been ongoing since 1995 to diversify the local economy and provide top notch incentives for companies to move or set up operations here.
When you approach lawmakers with a well-designed comprehensive plan with a fancy timeline, armed with well-rounded local leaders and lobbyists, lawmakers don't say no.
Define 'very agressive'....[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Don't forget the big 169 project that just finished up about a year ago.
Yeah, after we lobbied for that for 10 years. How long did it take 169 to get extended from 51st to 71st? 20 years? They didn't extend that until 1990, the year I got married.
That sir is typical of Oklahoma. They have been talking about the I40 reoloc project in OKC for God knows how many years and were never able to get enough funds to get it moved. Finally between federal state and local dollars they got it approved.
I don't care whch city you live in our STATE sucks at roads. It's pretty terrible actually when state's like Kansas and Arkansas do a better job at road maintenance than we do :(
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Don't forget the big 169 project that just finished up about a year ago.
Yeah, after we lobbied for that for 10 years. How long did it take 169 to get extended from 51st to 71st? 20 years? They didn't extend that until 1990, the year I got married.
That sir is typical of Oklahoma. They have been talking about the I40 reoloc project in OKC for God knows how many years and were never able to get enough funds to get it moved. Finally between federal state and local dollars they got it approved.
I don't care whch city you live in our STATE sucks at roads. It's pretty terrible actually when state's like Kansas and Arkansas do a better job at road maintenance than we do :(
For the first time in this thread, we agree on something. [:D]
Is that tower getting shorter yet....?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
I know we just redid this highway but let's re-do it again.
When and where was I-40 just redone? Because it definitely wasn't the Crosstown Bridge.
You spent 4.3M on resurfacing it.
and I-44
and I-35
That's it? And just how many resurfacing prjects did Tulsa have three or four eyars ago when OKC had none....
I-244 and Gilcrease Expressway, Gilcrease Expressway expansion, I-75 in north Tulsa
Crosstown Bridge was not on the resurfacing list. I-44 was shaved as was I-75. I-40 was shaved as well, and I-35. I-244 and Gilcrease got new blacktop.
Then Tulsa had a bragging fest after reports were released that Tulsa had better highway surfaces than that of OKC. Then people in Tulsa joke about how bumpy and bad the highways are in OKC when they drive there, then they go back to Tulsa and blow their top when they find out Oklahoma City got the money to fix it.
Are we chasing a tail here?
Don't forget the big 169 project that just finished up about a year ago.
Yeah, after we lobbied for that for 10 years. How long did it take 169 to get extended from 51st to 71st? 20 years? They didn't extend that until 1990, the year I got married.
That sir is typical of Oklahoma. They have been talking about the I40 reoloc project in OKC for God knows how many years and were never able to get enough funds to get it moved. Finally between federal state and local dollars they got it approved.
I don't care whch city you live in our STATE sucks at roads. It's pretty terrible actually when state's like Kansas and Arkansas do a better job at road maintenance than we do :(
For the first time in this thread, we agree on something. [:D]
:)
Here are a ton of drawings for the project:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=156332
OU is positioned right in OKC's backyard. In fact, Norman has become a bedroom community of OKC.
And OU isn't OKC's only amenity. OKC may have a wild west reputation, but there are an awful lot of people there doing interesting, progressive (yes, I said [}:)] progressive [}:)] ) things, and those things are big population draws.
OKC has a livelier intellectual life.
OKC has a more interesting night life and cooler things to do during the day.
OKC has huge, cool Asian grocery stores, the B-52 restaurant (omg, the *best* Korean food), coffee shops, bookstores and galleries out the wazoo, all kinds of people meandering around, and people from all over just hanging around.
Meanwhile, Tulsa has the poor pitiful Philbrook. Good gawd almighty, people, that used to be a beautiful place. What have you done to her? Philbrook now looks like one of those over-rouged little old ladies who always drench themselves in some overpowering perfume.
Give it up, folks --- OKC has Tulsa beat by a mile.
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
OU is positioned right in OKC's backyard. In fact, Norman has become a bedroom community of OKC.
And OU isn't OKC's only amenity. OKC may have a wild west reputation, but there are an awful lot of people there doing interesting, progressive (yes, I said [}:)] progressive [}:)] ) things, and those things are big population draws.
OKC has a livelier intellectual life.
OKC has a more interesting night life and cooler things to do during the day.
OKC has huge, cool Asian grocery stores, the B-52 restaurant (omg, the *best* Korean food), coffee shops, bookstores and galleries out the wazoo, all kinds of people meandering around, and people from all over just hanging around.
Meanwhile, Tulsa has the poor pitiful Philbrook. Good gawd almighty, people, that used to be a beautiful place. What have you done to her? Philbrook now looks like one of those over-rouged little old ladies who always drench themselves in some overpowering perfume.
Give it up, folks --- OKC has Tulsa beat by a mile.
Mayor Cornett, is that you?
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd302/Afrauds3/Stuart-Smalley-Magnet-C12359389.jpg)
And BTW, we have Philbrook, Gilcrease Museum, Jazz Hall of Fame, Cain's, The Brady. What does OKC have? The Cowboy Hall of Fame?
Fitting.
Oh..edit, and who else can forget?
(http://www.tulsaoilerfans.com/images/fordctrbokctr.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
OU is positioned right in OKC's backyard. In fact, Norman has become a bedroom community of OKC.
And OU isn't OKC's only amenity. OKC may have a wild west reputation, but there are an awful lot of people there doing interesting, progressive (yes, I said [}:)] progressive [}:)] ) things, and those things are big population draws.
OKC has a livelier intellectual life.
OKC has a more interesting night life and cooler things to do during the day.
OKC has huge, cool Asian grocery stores, the B-52 restaurant (omg, the *best* Korean food), coffee shops, bookstores and galleries out the wazoo, all kinds of people meandering around, and people from all over just hanging around.
Meanwhile, Tulsa has the poor pitiful Philbrook. Good gawd almighty, people, that used to be a beautiful place. What have you done to her? Philbrook now looks like one of those over-rouged little old ladies who always drench themselves in some overpowering perfume.
Give it up, folks --- OKC has Tulsa beat by a mile.
Good gawd, what on earth brought all that on? lol
I am excited to see OKC getting a great structure like this. Its about time, its a much larger city than Tulsa and should indeed have the tallest buildings.
As for OU, yes it is very fortunate that OKC has such a large state funded, graduate university nearby. We have finally gotten some small colleges started here, but getting more funding from the state and being allowed to grow them more is the tricky part. The medical district that is being expanded within OKC is also a benefit. Count yourselves as luuucky for both.
As for "progressive, things to do, people hanging around"... not sure what your talking about. We have a great arts scene that is only improving. I wouldnt trade Bricktown for Brookside and Cherry Street any day. There are always people in those areas "hanging around" versus when I have been to Bricktown during the day and it be vacant and empty. But keep working at it, soon you will get that "critical mass" just like our downtown will and things will take off for real. Oh, and the canal... wouldnt trade that for our river any day.
Philbrook.... I think its beautiful, and the new gardens are stunning. Gilcrease.... still one of the greatest collections of Western and Native American art and artifacts in the world.
Again, OKC should have always had Tulsa beat by a mile. And imo whats happening is that OKC isnt "beating" Tulsa lol. Its just ending its long, pitiful, shame and getting to where it should be in relation to Tulsa. I am glad OKC is finally getting its act together. This can only help everyone in the state, including Tulsa.
I think what's been done to Philbrook is an abomination. It was a beautiful, beautiful place before they decided to doll it all up. Absolutely criminal what they did.
And yes, Tulsa has an arts scene, but OKC's is much more open and diverse and, as a consequence, interesting.
I would say more, but it's dinnertime and House is on.
This is my first post on Tulsanow,I really enjoy learning more about Tulsa and will never understand why Oklahoma city folks try to put Tulsa down.Tulsa is a very nice and unique city.Oklahoma city has alot of flaws that we are trying to remedy.Artist you are correct about my city,the things going on here should have happened years ago LOL.Oklahoma city has alot of work to do to get where we want to be.It will be interesting watching both cities grow in the next 5 to 10 years.Tulsa citizens should be very proud of their city,I know I am.
I don't seem to remember anything being done to philbrook in recent years other than some landscaping, what did I miss?
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
I think what's been done to Philbrook is an abomination. It was a beautiful, beautiful place before they decided to doll it all up. Absolutely criminal what they did.
And yes, Tulsa has an arts scene, but OKC's is much more open and diverse and, as a consequence, interesting.
I would say more, but it's dinnertime and House is on.
What does OKC have to compete with Philbrook and Gilcrease? The museum downtown, I don't think so. The Chilhuly exhibit is nice but almost every museum in the world now has Chilhuly. It isn't all that special. The Cowboy place, I don't think so, it is more about Hollywood cowboys than what you can see and be amazed by at the Gilcrease.
Does OKC have 14 local farmer's markets in it's regional market?
As for the local arts, Tulsa has more than its share of nationally known artists of all mediums.
To speak of a Korean restaurant, we have some of those also in case you didn't know. Plus a lot of other ethnic communities.
Markets, okay, I will give you your market over Nam Hai, but do you have the number and quality of hispanic markets that we have?
Do you have any markets like the ones at Stonehorse Cafe, or Whole Foods, or Petty's or Hebert's?
What is OKC's higher Intellectual standing over Tulsa, I think we are pretty even on that score. TU has a much higher standing on the College rating than anything in OKC.
Hope you enjoyed House.
House was a rerun.. want a hint? Amber's Cold Medicine.
Now get back to online mudslinging.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I don't seem to remember anything being done to philbrook in recent years other than some landscaping, what did I miss?
Actually nothing has been done to the Villa itself so that person must be complaining about the landscaping which imo was much needed. The old gardens were getting bare in spots, weeds growing, trees dying from lack of care, stuff falling apart, the pond choked with gunk, etc. Now they have full time staff that tends the gardens and regularly changes out some plants so that the look changes with the seasons. Makes it enjoyable to go several times a year to see them. (for instance in the south gardens the tulips and daffodil bulbs are taken up, nobody wants to look at dead tulips all year, and then more tropical looking plants are put in during the summer months) The gardens were also expanded. The south gardens were superbly done with quality materials and design.
If the person is talking about the expansion... well thats ooold news. If this person is calling that new, they are showing their age lol. Plus it didnt change the Villa, and added much needed exhibit space for traveling exhibits, dining, classrooms, library, grand entrance, a fantastic auditorium, offices, gallery, gift shop, underground parking, etc. Again, its distinct and segregated from the original Villa and did nothing to change the original part of the museum/home.
Some of these varying opinions about Tulsa may be based on how old you are and at what point you got to know Tulsa.
I used to take art classes at Philbrook long before the expansion. I remember one class in the attic over the car port. And I have to say that Philbrook did lose architectural integrity with its expansion. And there was some minor remodeling of the mansion. But along with a physical expansion Philbrook has also added exhibits and programs and a gift shop. And I have to say that while the Museum has lost some of its old charm, it enjoys much larger crowds now than it did then. I suppose that greater community involvement is a good thing.
Speaking of art treasures, I used to live in Living Arts back when it was in a large storefront in the vicinity of the Williams Towers. This was back in the early 70s. I saw my first Frank Stella there, hanging in an unguarded gallery and displayed in full sunlight. And I find it somewhat remarkable that Living Arts is still in operation with a schedule full of cutting edge exhibitions.
I have great memories of OKC (dancing the night away at the Rusty Nail) but I never was attracted to OKC because of its intellectual life or progressive politics, it was more a matter of its citizens being open and friendly. In fact, OKC's culture reminds me of Los Angeles for those reasons.
Tulsa is fundamentally different because it looks eastward instead of westward and it has two things that OKC cannot have -- great geography and its history as oil capital.
Now if you arrived in Tulsa long after the circus had left town, when it was in one of its more recent slumps, I imagine you would be used to Tulsa playing second fiddle to OKC. On the other hand, if you grew up in Tulsa when it was still a bustling oil town you are probably uncomfortable with what has happened to Tulsa.
My own competitive nature may also be part of the reason why I could never settle for Tulsa ceding its claim on sophistication or being our state's lead city to Oklahoma City.
Clearly, my generation has presided over Tulsa's decline and I would be ashamed to admit any association with Tulsa's many recent blunders and missteps. So much has been squandered.
But once Tulsa decides what she wants and gives it some focus, she can have anything she desires. Tulsa is indomitable.
quote:
Mayor Cornett, is that you?
And BTW, we have Philbrook, Gilcrease Museum, Jazz Hall of Fame, Cain's, The Brady. What does OKC have? The Cowboy Hall of Fame?
Fitting.
That was a horrible come back. So that is all you know about OKC. Try the OKC Museum of Art, Paseo, Civic Center Music Hall, Science Museum Oklahoma, the Asian District and you want to have a sizing contest on concert venues? Are you serious?
Author Charlie LeDuff wrote about Oklahoma City: "The landscape is so flat and barren you could probably watch your dog run away all day long".
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Mayor Cornett, is that you?
And BTW, we have Philbrook, Gilcrease Museum, Jazz Hall of Fame, Cain's, The Brady. What does OKC have? The Cowboy Hall of Fame?
Fitting.
That was a horrible come back. So that is all you know about OKC. Try the OKC Museum of Art, Paseo, Civic Center Music Hall, Science Museum Oklahoma, the Asian District and you want to have a sizing contest on concert venues? Are you serious?
I spent every other weekend of my life for three years in OKC, so I know plenty.
Plenty enough to know that I don't like it.
Go back to your OKC forum and trash how Tulsans view your town; I expect that post in 3...2...1.
I know enough Citians to know how arrogant they act. As noted on the original post that received the brunt of my 'comeback'. That to me is a typical post from the OKC elite.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Mayor Cornett, is that you?
And BTW, we have Philbrook, Gilcrease Museum, Jazz Hall of Fame, Cain's, The Brady. What does OKC have? The Cowboy Hall of Fame?
Fitting.
That was a horrible come back. So that is all you know about OKC. Try the OKC Museum of Art, Paseo, Civic Center Music Hall, Science Museum Oklahoma, the Asian District and you want to have a sizing contest on concert venues? Are you serious?
Sure, our largest seats over 19,000.
We also have the Tulsa Convention Center, Brady Theater, Tulsa PAC, Cain's Ballroom (which is in the top ten concert venues nationally), UMAC, Union PAC, Broken Arrow PAC, Mabee Center, Spirit Bank Events Center, Rose Bowl Roadhouse, Jazz Hall of Fame, Riverwest Ampitheater, etc, etc, etc. Keep in mind we have multiple music festivals that draw tens of thousands of people. DFest had a PAID attendance of over 60,000. All that is not counting Oktoberfest or Mayfest which draws 300,000 to it's art and 4 stages of music.
Do not accuse me of OKC elitism, when you are a Tulsa elitist yourself. I am in no way an arrogant person, so don't pass any judgement on me.
We are all guilty of cheerleading our city. If we care about our city, it will be in our nature.
Both cities have a plethora of cultural and entertainment amenities, and while I am all for us challenging each other, my response to your post Hoss was directly linked to your remark that all we have is the Cowboy Hall of Fame.
You say you spent enough time in OKC to know enough, which tells me you have been to our attractions, but regardless of quality, you hate it only because it is not Tulsa. Give credit where credit is due and supply constructive criticism. That is the whole points of these message boards.
Okc is a dump....Even people that live there agree....
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
Do not accuse me of OKC elitism, when you are a Tulsa elitist yourself. I am in no way an arrogant person, so don't pass any judgement on me.
We are all guilty of cheerleading our city. If we care about our city, it will be in our nature.
Both cities have a plethora of cultural and entertainment amenities, and while I am all for us challenging each other, my response to your post Hoss was directly linked to your remark that all we have is the Cowboy Hall of Fame.
You say you spent enough time in OKC to know enough, which tells me you have been to our attractions, but regardless of quality, you hate it only because it is not Tulsa. Give credit where credit is due and supply constructive criticism. That is the whole points of these message boards.
And the original OKC posters that got my response indicated essentially that all we had was Philbrook. And, BTW, you weren't the response on the post, but you sure stuck your nose in.
I didn't get this little mini-battle started. But I'm now finished with it. Go watch your basketball.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Mayor Cornett, is that you?
And BTW, we have Philbrook, Gilcrease Museum, Jazz Hall of Fame, Cain's, The Brady. What does OKC have? The Cowboy Hall of Fame?
Fitting.
That was a horrible come back. So that is all you know about OKC. Try the OKC Museum of Art, Paseo, Civic Center Music Hall, Science Museum Oklahoma, the Asian District and you want to have a sizing contest on concert venues? Are you serious?
Sure, our largest seats over 19,000.
We also have the Tulsa Convention Center, Brady Theater, Tulsa PAC, Cain's Ballroom (which is in the top ten concert venues nationally), UMAC, Union PAC, Broken Arrow PAC, Mabee Center, Spirit Bank Events Center, Rose Bowl Roadhouse, Jazz Hall of Fame, Riverwest Ampitheater, etc, etc, etc. Keep in mind we have multiple music festivals that draw tens of thousands of people. DFest had a PAID attendance of over 60,000. All that is not counting Oktoberfest or Mayfest which draws 300,000 to it's art and 4 stages of music.
And, if I recall correctly, didn't OKC make a bid to try and steal DFest from Tulsa? I seem to remember that.
OKC was never interested in DFest. Too many people here are big supporters of deadCenter film festival and Festival of the Arts.
You're correct Hoss. There was an offer from OKC to move DFest.
quote:
And the original OKC posters that got my response indicated essentially that all we had was Philbrook. And, BTW, you weren't the response on the post, but you sure stuck your nose in.
I didn't get this little mini-battle started. But I'm now finished with it. Go watch your basketball.
Then in that case I apologize. I should have scrolled back a few posts.
By the way, I am not a basketball fan. I love hockey. but I'm not a basketball fan, and I HATE football. Okay with soccer and baseball, though.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
OKC was never interested in DFest. Too many people here are big supporters of deadCenter film festival and Festival of the Arts.
From here http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7947
Are we moving, no, we're here to fight the good fight, but, yes, we were offered a sizable
incentive to move the event to OKC
This thread has gone from attempted discussion about city differences and the new devon tower to pissing on OKC/Tulsa :(
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
This thread has gone from attempted discussion about city differences and the new devon tower to pissing on OKC/Tulsa :(
Yep, which got started when one OKC poster nosed in their opinion of our city when they most likely have never been here. It was pretty civil until then. But then again, it's one or the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
This thread has gone from attempted discussion about city differences and the new devon tower to pissing on OKC/Tulsa :(
Yep, which got started when one OKC poster nosed in their opinion of our city when they most likely have never been here. It was pretty civil until then. But then again, it's one or the other.
You're so right. This was completely uncalled for:
"Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!"
Oh, wait. That was you, posting a completely unprovoked attack on OKC. The thread really was quite civil right up until that post.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
This thread has gone from attempted discussion about city differences and the new devon tower to pissing on OKC/Tulsa :(
Yep, which got started when one OKC poster nosed in their opinion of our city when they most likely have never been here. It was pretty civil until then. But then again, it's one or the other.
You're so right. This was completely uncalled for:
"Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!"
Oh, wait. That was you, posting a completely unprovoked attack on OKC. The thread really was quite civil right up until that post.
Yep, as usual, take it out of context.
Read the following:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:Originally posted by Hoss
quote:Originally posted by okcpulse
quote: So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
And get the whole picture.
I can review threads too...
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
This thread has gone from attempted discussion about city differences and the new devon tower to pissing on OKC/Tulsa :(
Yep, which got started when one OKC poster nosed in their opinion of our city when they most likely have never been here. It was pretty civil until then. But then again, it's one or the other.
You're so right. This was completely uncalled for:
"Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!"
Oh, wait. That was you, posting a completely unprovoked attack on OKC. The thread really was quite civil right up until that post.
Yep, as usual, take it out of context.
Read the following:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:Originally posted by Hoss
quote:Originally posted by okcpulse
quote: So you're saying per capita income doubled in a year?
Those figures are from two different sources. Per capita income figures from the Census Bureau are based strictly on workplace wages.
Bureau of Economic Analysis figures include income from place of work, farm income, proprietary and royalty income, rental income and dividends.
Anyway, how did this become a statistical debate? I thought we were talking about a skyscraper.
Until I see it break ground in Q309, it's all theory. And even then, remember the OneOk fiasco?
I can't understand why they felt the need, in the middle of the plains, to go all glass for a 950 foot tower. That's inviting disaster.
1) why is it inviting disaster?
2) why is it that the Tulsa and DFW boards seem to hate the idea of OKC building a new skyscraper so they're dooming it with a bunch of naysaying BS?
Devon is very sound financially and has been talking about this for more than 2 years and talking seriously for about a year. They've got cash coming out of the rectums and are in a good position even at 40 dollar/bbl oil.
Wow, a little sensitive, are we?
I'm merely pointing out that 950 feet of an all glass building IN THE MIDDLE OF TORNADO ALLEY is inviting disaster. That should be common sense. It was bad enough when it happened in Houston several years back.
Personally, I could give two rat's asses what that stank-hole down the turnpike does (since it essentially leeches everything as far as state related funds go). And before you go on about the sterotype and how anything Tulsa always hates anything OKC, I base my hatred on the fact that I spend a good portion of four years in that hole. I don't care if they are getting an NBA team. You can polish a bronze turd...guess what, it's still a turd!
I thought they were going to build a 1000 foot oil well. What happened to that?
And get the whole picture.
I can review threads too...
LOL Thanks for providing the context and proving my point for one and all to see.
So how's this thing coming?
My guess is that it will be delayed, at least temporarily, due to Devon's loss during the first quarter. I was watching this though, to see how it would affect their building plans. I'm sure that it will eventually be built, but maybe not until the O&G industries pick back up.
http://www.downside.com/bldgjump.gif
Quote from: TURobY on May 06, 2009, 04:36:31 PM
My guess is that it will be delayed, at least temporarily, due to Devon's loss during the first quarter. I was watching this though, to see how it would affect their building plans. I'm sure that it will eventually be built, but maybe not until the O&G industries pick back up.
About as well as the Cities Service building did.....
Quote from: Breadburner on May 06, 2009, 05:05:59 PM
About as well as the Cities Service building did.....
Ooooh if only... sigh. Was originally 80 stories, ended up being what? 15? Plus one whopper of a basement lol.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 06, 2009, 05:13:04 PM
Ooooh if only... sigh. Was originally 80 stories, ended up being what? 15? Plus one whopper of a basement lol.
Nail Head....
Quote from: TheArtist on May 06, 2009, 05:13:04 PM
Ooooh if only... sigh. Was originally 80 stories, ended up being what? 15? Plus one whopper of a basement lol.
Whoah there. Getting a little carried away... ;-) Cities Service was originally planned to be 52 stories, not 80. Ended up being 17.
Actually I think your right. However I remember seeing renderings in the paper where it was taller than the BOK/Williams tower. Then it wasnt long before there was a new rendering where it was smaller bout half the size of the BOK. Then the one we got. Perhaps the floors were higher in the Cities Service building?
However... I also remember a front page article at the height of the building boom in the early 80s, right before the bust really took hold. I even remember the title of the article was something like "Tulsa The Emerald City" (I think I was in high school so it was perhaps 1982 or 83) Showed how the skyline would look with all the proposed buildings in it. The tallest building was spire like and was indeed easily 30 stories taller than the BOK (I remember seeing that it was 80 stories), then the Cities service building was next tallest, then the BOK tower 3rd tallest, and several other chisled glass buildings besides that. There was this fevered pitch of buildings going up and building proposals. Then everything just fell apart. The things that were started, barely got finished (remember the Eastland Mall and how it sat around as an unfinished metal skeleton) and the proposed stuff never made it at all. Including that super tall building.
I wish I could find that article. But it could have been in the Tulsa Tribune.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 06, 2009, 09:57:38 PM
Actually I think your right. However I remember seeing renderings in the paper where it was taller than the BOK/Williams tower. Then it wasnt long before there was a new rendering where it was smaller bout half the size of the BOK. Then the one we got. Perhaps the floors were higher in the Cities Service building?
However... I also remember a front page article at the height of the building boom in the early 80s, right before the bust really took hold. I even remember the title of the article was something like "Tulsa The Emerald City" (I think I was in high school so it was perhaps 1982 or 83) Showed how the skyline would look with all the proposed buildings in it. The tallest building was spire like and was indeed easily 30 stories taller than the BOK (I remember seeing that it was 80 stories), then the Cities service building was next tallest, then the BOK tower 3rd tallest, and several other chisled glass buildings besides that. There was this fevered pitch of buildings going up and building proposals. Then everything just fell apart. The things that were started, barely got finished (remember the Eastland Mall and how it sat around as an unfinished metal skeleton) and the proposed stuff never made it at all. Including that super tall building.
I wish I could find that article. But it could have been in the Tulsa Tribune.
In the early 80s there was a bizarre proposal for a 100+ story building downtown. I want to say it was going to be where city hall is now next to the BOk Tower. The really strange thing was the building was going to be owned by I think the Masons. It was going to be their new headquarters and then they were going to rent out the rest of the building. It was going to be taller than any building outside of New York and Chicago. Needless to say it never went anywhere.
Quote from: swake on May 06, 2009, 10:20:52 PM
In the early 80s there was a bizarre proposal for a 100+ story building downtown. I want to say it was going to be where city hall is now next to the BOk Tower. The really strange thing was the building was going to be owned by I think the Masons. It was going to be their new headquarters and then they were going to rent out the rest of the building. It was going to be taller than any building outside of New York and Chicago. Needless to say it never went anywhere.
THAT! must have been it lol. I was going to say it was the Masons but that just seemed odd so didnt want to say it lol. It was HUGE compared to the BOK.... So I really do think the Cities Service building must have been proposed as being 80 stories, then officially became 52, then was downsized a couple of times after that.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 06, 2009, 10:30:00 PM
THAT! must have been it lol. I was going to say it was the Masons but that just seemed odd so didnt want to say it lol. It was HUGE compared to the BOK.... So I really do think the Cities Service building must have been proposed as being 80 stories, then officially became 52, then was downsized a couple of times after that.
Well, Oneok's website says it was originally planned at 52, then down-sized to 37, then down-sized (and actually built) at 17.
Devon Tower architect says project on track, going well despite ... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_9_0_t&usg=AFQjCNH1dpdeBDynfKa4STrN5ytzsOgzjw&sig2=mCnLvTz7xw290D0wmzm1jA&cid=0&ei=UOcCStDiDqO4McSGm7cB&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalrecord.com%2Farticle.cfm%3Frecid%3D97779)
Journal Record (subscription) - Apr 15, 2009
by Kelley Chambers Jon Pickard, principal of Pickard Chilton, gives an update on the plans for the Devon Energy world headquarters Wednesday to members of ...
- - -
So apparently it is still a go.
Devon's loss was a non-cash reduction in inventory. They had to revalue what their holdings were worth - mark to market, if you will. Thus, their actual financial position wasn't effected that much. Without the write off they turned a profit.
Though, it should be noted, continued lower prices will likely result in lower profits.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 06, 2009, 11:34:19 PM
Well, Oneok's website says it was originally planned at 52, then down-sized to 37, then down-sized (and actually built) at 17.
It actually started construction to be 52 stories, and I don't know that it was "downsized" to 17 stories so much as it was capped off at 17 when Cities Service was sold to Oxy and Oxy sold Citgo. The foundation is still there for a 52 story building, and a much taller 52 story building than the 667 ft, 52 story BOk Tower. I want to say it was going to be close to 800 feet, which may be where you are getting 80 stories.
There are probably a lot of non-starter buildings like the Mason's tower that never got built. But I know of at least three more that started some form of construction that were never built.
On the north side of 15th at Peoria land was cleared for a 30-40 story residential building but the Maple Ridge homeowners association fought it and killed in the early 80s. There's a small subdivision there now.
Land was cleared for another tower at 15th and Denver but it died with the economy in the late 80s. Quik Trip is there now.
And then there was Portofino, which was planned at 20 stories at 21st and Boston and was also fought by Maple Ridge and delayed enough that the economic collapse after 9/11 killed it. Paul Coury is still trying to build something there.
Quote from: swake on May 07, 2009, 09:23:06 AM
It actually started construction to be 52 stories, and I don't know that it was "downsized" to 17 stories so much as it was capped off at 17 when Cities Service was sold to Oxy and Oxy sold Citgo. The foundation is still there for a 52 story building, and a much taller 52 story building than the 667 ft, 52 story BOk Tower. I want to say it was going to be close to 800 feet, which may be where you are getting 80 stories.
There are probably a lot of non-starter buildings like the Mason's tower that never got built. But I know of at least three more that started some form of construction that were never built.
On the north side of 15th at Peoria land was cleared for a 30-40 story residential building but the Maple Ridge homeowners association fought it and killed in the early 80s. There's a small subdivision there now.
Land was cleared for another tower at 15th and Denver but it died with the economy in the late 80s. Quik Trip is there now.
And then there was Portofino, which was planned at 20 stories at 21st and Boston and was also fought by Maple Ridge and delayed enough that the economic collapse after 9/11 killed it. Paul Coury is still trying to build something there.
My understanding is that it was down-sized to 37 stories
before construction started, so not sure there is a foundation for a 52-story building.
Things are still on track for Devon tower, their "loss" in the first quarter was a paper loss due to government regulation that requires assets to be valued at market value today. Reality is their cashflow and finances are still ok and they desperately need a building to consolidate operations in the OKC metro.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 06, 2009, 09:57:38 PM
Actually I think your right. However I remember seeing renderings in the paper where it was taller than the BOK/Williams tower. Then it wasnt long before there was a new rendering where it was smaller bout half the size of the BOK. Then the one we got. Perhaps the floors were higher in the Cities Service building?
However... I also remember a front page article at the height of the building boom in the early 80s, right before the bust really took hold. I even remember the title of the article was something like "Tulsa The Emerald City" (I think I was in high school so it was perhaps 1982 or 83) Showed how the skyline would look with all the proposed buildings in it. The tallest building was spire like and was indeed easily 30 stories taller than the BOK (I remember seeing that it was 80 stories), then the Cities service building was next tallest, then the BOK tower 3rd tallest, and several other chisled glass buildings besides that. There was this fevered pitch of buildings going up and building proposals. Then everything just fell apart. The things that were started, barely got finished (remember the Eastland Mall and how it sat around as an unfinished metal skeleton) and the proposed stuff never made it at all. Including that super tall building.
I wish I could find that article. But it could have been in the Tulsa Tribune.
I'd love to see that article/rendering. Next time I'm at the library maybe I'll brave the microfiche.
Tulsa-based Flintco chosen by Oklahoma City-based Devon
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO727804 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO727804)
Edited to add that they plan on extending the canal from bricktown around the building.
Quote from: Townsend on May 27, 2009, 04:11:06 PM
Edited to add that they plan on extending the canal from bricktown around the building.
They want a lime green moat that bad?
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 27, 2009, 05:58:12 PM
They want a lime green moat that bad?
They needed to save money on sewage.
Quote from: Townsend on May 28, 2009, 10:20:13 AM
They needed to save money on sewage.
There is no plan to build the canal to the tower. Besides, the water is dyed green anyway.
Quote from: Requiemokc on May 28, 2009, 12:05:13 PM
There is no plan to build the canal to the tower. Besides, the water is dyed green anyway.
So that color green is an improvement over it's natural hue?
Really?
Quote from: Requiemokc on May 28, 2009, 12:05:13 PM
There is no plan to build the canal to the tower. Besides, the water is dyed green anyway.
How did you learn our language?
QuoteHow did you learn our language?
I iz smart. ;)
QuoteSo that color green is an improvement over it's natural hue?
Really?
Improvement? No. Did I make it seem like it was an improvement? No.
I was simply informing. Kthnx.
Do they dye the river for different occasions? Personally, I think it's fun when they do that. Though, with a restricted flow I suppose the color could become a problem (would not dissipate).
If I had a massive new tower, I would probably want the canal brought to my front door. It isn't San Antonio and I view it as a bit of a gimmick, but it is still neat. At least it's SOMETHING different to set the area apart.
Quote from: Requiemokc on May 28, 2009, 12:05:13 PM
There is no plan to build the canal to the tower.
I was told by a person with Holder Flintco there was.
He has no reason to volunteer that plan if it did not exist.
If you have better information, please provide it.
Devon CEO celebrates start of tower construction
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091006_298_0_DevonE867986 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091006_298_0_DevonE867986)
I think this is great. Anything to help Oklahoma along.
Agreed. This news does nothing bad for Tulsa or the State of Oklahoma. I am, however, disappointed that OKC seems to continue the march forward faster than Tulsa. I think we are on the move, but are now playing catchup to the cow town down the turnpike in many respects.
FWIW the local company managing the construction of the tower and parking garage is Tulsa-based Flintco, even though it is out of the Oklahoma City office. The chief superintendent from Flintco for the BOK Center will be the chief superintendent at Devon. Not many realize that two of the largest contractors in the country, #38 Manhattan and #43 Flintco, were founded and are still headquarted in Tulsa..
http://enr.construction.com/toplists/Contractors/001-100.asp (http://enr.construction.com/toplists/Contractors/001-100.asp)
The only local company I can see building a similar tower in downtown Tulsa, currently, is BOK and that would only happen if Williams all of a sudden needed more space in the BOK Tower. BOK is growing rapidly and has weathered the recession well, and has been expanding into new markets. They are not only the largest bank and financial services company in Oklahoma but they also own banks in other states that are growing, including the 8th largest bank in Texas (Bank of Texas). Kaiser's influence and his desire to see Tulsa 'back on the map' with the river projects and various community improvements could also play a factor. It would be cool to see a new tower built along Boston just north of TCC to bridge the gap between the dense CBD and TCC and build up the 'Boston Urban Canyon'.
This is the site after Day 2 of demolition, not too bad.
According to a reporter, the entire superstructure should be topped out by late 2010, so within the next five quarters we will pretty much have an idea of the impact it'll have on the skyline. Pretty cool.
(http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/Devon100809b.jpg)
Scroll>>
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/okcfromtowerdevon.jpg)
A thing is a phallic symbol if it is longer than it is wide (Tom Lehrer)
So wait, the bricktown canal is INTENTIONALLY toxic waste green?
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 11, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
So wait, the bricktown canal is INTENTIONALLY toxic waste green?
That's what the man claims
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 11, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
So wait, the bricktown canal is INTENTIONALLY toxic waste green?
I have driven boats on the canal for two years, and we get a lot of questions about the technical/mechanical/maintentance aspects of the canal. The water has an artificial dark green coloring put into it in order to prevent penetration of sunlight. This cuts down on algae growth and helps keep the water clean. There are large filtration pumps and aeration features running 24/7, as well as a large maintenance staff to remove bigger debris, that keep the water quite clean.
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 11, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
So wait, the bricktown canal is INTENTIONALLY toxic waste green?
Sounds like a plan to me. It's already green, a few stray pollutants get introduced and no one is the wiser. :)
Quote from: OKC_Shane on October 12, 2009, 07:11:53 PM
I have driven boats on the canal for two years, and we get a lot of questions about the technical/mechanical/maintentance aspects of the canal. The water has an artificial dark green coloring put into it in order to prevent penetration of sunlight. This cuts down on algae growth and helps keep the water clean. There are large filtration pumps and aeration features running 24/7, as well as a large maintenance staff to remove bigger debris, that keep the water quite clean.
How about pig poop?
I hope it looks better than pig poop,this is not that big of a deal.
This seems backwards compared to the last 25 years of Oklahoma history.
Good news for OKC as far as I can tell.
Devon Energy To Consolidate All U.S. Operations To OKChttp://www.newson6.com/story/19795236/devon-energy-to-consolidate-all-us-operations-to-okc?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.newson6.com/story/19795236/devon-energy-to-consolidate-all-us-operations-to-okc?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY - Devon Energy Corporation announced Thursday a plan to consolidate its U.S. operations to the company's corporate headquarters in Oklahoma City. As a result, the company will close its offices in Houston and transfer operational responsibilities for assets in South Texas, East Texas and Louisiana to Oklahoma City.
"Consolidating our U.S. operations will improve our ability to quickly shift the focus of our workforce between project areas as economic conditions dictate," said Dave Hager, Devon's executive vice president of exploration and production. "In addition, this move will improve the sharing of best practices and enhance overall operational efficiency."
The company expects to relocate a number of employees from Houston to Oklahoma City.
"Our employees in Houston have made enormous contributions toward Devon's growth over many years," said Devon Chief Executive Officer John Richels. "We appreciate the role each of them has played, and we look forward to welcoming many of them to continue their work from our headquarters in Oklahoma City."
The consolidation is expected to save the oil and gas company approximately $80 million a year in both general and administrative expenses and capitalized personnel costs.
"Dramatic changes within our industry have made it more important than ever to respond quickly to new opportunities and to place our talented people in the best position to overcome challenges," Richels said. "Oklahoma City continues to grow as a major hub of the nation's energy industry, and we believe our headquarters downtown provides us with an outstanding foundation for future growth."
The completion of this initiative is expected to be substantially complete by the end of the first-quarter 2013.
Quote from: Townsend on October 11, 2012, 12:44:23 PM
This seems backwards compared to the last 25 years of Oklahoma history.
Good news for OKC as far as I can tell.
Devon Energy To Consolidate All U.S. Operations To OKC
http://www.newson6.com/story/19795236/devon-energy-to-consolidate-all-us-operations-to-okc?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.newson6.com/story/19795236/devon-energy-to-consolidate-all-us-operations-to-okc?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Great news, even better if Chesapeake can keep from going tits up and leaving their expansive campus vacant.