urbanMSP

I'm sure the first tall tower looks goofy in any city, but shots of Minneapolis from this era are so strange. It looks photoshopped and very out of place. IDS is the best building ever, though!

Shots of that era look strange because we bulldozed half of downtown a decade earlier. And because the sidewalks were empty in a way not seen before. Not because there was a 700 foot tower standing out among 200 foot buildings.

I just did a Google Maps aerial view of this place and the first thing I noticed was the 10 story parking ramp and the 5 story ramp connected to this building. The Street View of the tower entrance is not meant for transit or pedestrians, just cars.

OKC has gone through a number of major boom/bust cycles. All of their eggs are in the energy sector basket, and so they're very susceptible to cycles in that industry.

Yikes just mapped OKC, they have literal empty grass lots 4 blocks from that tower, not even parking lots, just empty lots. To me its just kind of bizarre to build such a massive thing when there is so much empty space just a couple hundred feet away.

This has been repeated aaaaaad nauseum, but hot damn most of the places in this country are depressing.

Right Nick...

Re: Super Talls

Postby Nick » November 13th, 2013, 7:35 pm

"This has been repeated aaaaaad nauseum, but hot damn most of the places in this country are depressing."

...at about 844 feet the OKC tower is a "Super Tall" given its relative placement; yet, it's just 50 feet taller than the IDS building (which IMO is amongst the classics, if not a top 20 world wide design). My friends, do you think it is a an aesthetically pleasing addition to OKC's downtown, or is it another "yawn" in aesthetic design?

Beyond the OKC Devon Tower's height differential relative to its neighbors, let's look at the question of aesthetics in design for the next Super Tall in Minneapolis. I believe we have here, in this forum, and in MPLS, a respect for connecting to what presently exists and what an aesthetic impact, a given proposed tower (Super Tall), will do in complimenting the downtown neighborhood while establishing an iconic profile (without necessarily a brand or logo pasted on its chest). Super Talls are very cool, but only when they are beautiful and beautifully placed...now you:) (just meant would like to hear more of everyone's opinion)

What?

...at about 844 feet the OKC tower is a "Super Tall" given its relative placement; yet, it's just 50 feet taller than the IDS building (which IMO is amongst the classics, if not a top 20 world wide design). My friends, do you think it is a an aesthetically pleasing addition to OKC's downtown, or is it another "yawn" in aesthetic design?

Aesthetics be damned, the fact that there is an 850 foot glass walled building surrounded by empty lots, freeways, and parking lots is whats depressing.

Agreed.

The Devon Tower has 1,800,000 square feet. I have to say it looks pretty sharp for how much it towers over the rest of the skyline. The thing I would like to point out to those who would have liked this project to be a dozen or so buildings in the 10 to 20 story range need to remember land costs, excavation costs, architectural costs, and a lot of other details. That might have made spreading 1.8 million square feet of office space over a hand full of mid rises seem less practical. One building=One hole

I also would give props to the egos who got this built. Empty lots, wild grass fields, and parking garages be damned long as a good skyline shot is to be had. With tall buildings comes the service retail lunch/diner spots etc etc that make walking a couple blocks away from your office tower seem like the thing to do during lunch or after work. However I have no idea what the walking/car culture is in OKC so maybe everybody is just hitting the drive thu at lunch if they worked in the Devon Tower idk.

talindsay
"They'll have substantial vacancy in office space for decades, which will make their downtown feel less lively."

How can this be anymore speculative?

All this bashing of the OKC from alot of people who seem to have never been there and know nothing about it (not referring to the one that lived there, obvioulsy). The "empty grass lots" you are seeing within blocks to the south of the Devon tower are where an elevated I-40 (and it's many ramps) was just demolished and moved further south, away from downtown to open up land for future development, something I am pretty sure most on here would applaud. Below that is a flood plain, not unlike the west side flats in St. Paul. You will find empty lots in the depressed area to the north of downtown as well...this area is pretty similar to the Sumner redevelopment area in north Minneapolis. OKC is not that big of a city, and actually has a pretty nice downtown that has seen a huge amount of investment in the past decade. Particularly the Bricktown area and the area just north of that, where those searching for negative things on google aerials might notice thousands of new units of housing being built. Is everything ideal in urban form? Of course not, but the times I have been downton OKC, I was actually pretty pleasantly surprised. Jeez, so quick to trash another city. The more you know....

http://newsok.com/road-to-tomorrow-at-l ... le/2793208

Aaanyway. This is getting pretty off topic, but I just loved how people were actually (i'm sure unknowingly) bashing a city for removing an elevated freeway....something that is so often preached here. Couldn't resist pointing that out.

To be honest they did not remove a freeway. They rerouted a freeway six blocks south.

I will give credit to OKC and cities like Orlando that have made serious efforts to make their cities more urban. They have a long way to go, at least both of them have their Amtrak stations in the middle of their DTs.

To be honest, they did indeed remove an elevated freeway, the most hated kind....that was running unnecessarily close to the center of the business district. Demolished, gone, no more eyesore of an elevated freeway running blocks from the center of downtown. Of course it was rerouted, that is what I said...nobody is going to entirely remove a major interstate freeway running through their city.

MNMike, yes, I was one of the ones bashing the Devon Tower. Yes, they have made progress. But I don't think the Devon Tower is the real progress. Sure, it seems to be one of the two points of civic pride du jour (the other being the Thunder) and those are probably important in some intangible way. But I noted that I *have* been in OKC and walked their downtown. And I also have spent quite a bit of time with one of the leaders in urbanism who consulted on OKC's downtown revitalization (they have 10 foot lanes!) and we talked about this tower and OKC's downtown in general at length at a conference last summer.

Oh, am not saying that the Devon tower is THE huge progress they have made at all...that is why I pointed out all the other things. My point was...it seemed like everyone was just looking for things to hate on about the city for no apparent reason other than an energy company built a tall building there. Not sure why I am so compelled to come to the defense of OKC...I guess I have always found it to be a decent little city, and I have been passing through for 20 years and seen the positive changes.

Anyway, that is probably enough about Oklahoma city Just saying, they are doing some good things in their downtown, beyond what has been discussed here.


Now, about those supertall buildings...

No renderings yet, but Chicago has promising new proposal for a 93 story complex to be their "Rockefeller Center". Also, Milwaukee's now has two 40+ story iconic projects that are likely to get built. C'mon Minneapolis, it's time to step up to the plate!

http://www.inman.com/2013/11/11/nar-tak ... -chicago/#

http://www.biztimes.com/article/2013111 ... /Jefferson

If that wasn't enough, John, something could be in the works to bring the Chicago Spire back from the dead - my favorite supertall proposal of all time.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/a ... ve-project#

Is the NAR building the one with the clock tower next to the Trump building? I sure hope they don't rip that down, its a nice building.

Are you kidding? That is the Wrigley Building...it is a landmark! One of the most known buildings in Chicago. The NAR building is just a stumpy little blob next to it. The Wrigley building would never be touched! No worries about that.