Plans submitted, financing secured, but will it actually happen?

For those of us in OKC and Oklahoma, we've been watching this story. I personally don't think the monster tower will be built. But the developer seems intent on building the tallest building in the US here in OKC at 1907 feet tall as a nod to when Oklahoma became a state. 

The smaller buildings make sense considering OKC is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, but the tallest tower at double the height of the Devon Tower (they have a great restaurant on the 49th and 50th floors. 

I couldn't find the article from OKCTalk.com I was looking for, but this one hits the basics. 

https://www.newsweek.com/oklahoma-takes-one-step-closer-building-tallest-tower-us-1890013

Building a giant skyscraper in the middle of tornado country seems like a bad idea. Been a while since I lived in the path of (regular occurance) tornadoes, but I seem to remember being told to go to the basement. Not UP. 

I found this funny.

During public comments on Thursday, Oklahoma City resident Cynthia Ciancarelli raised concerns about the use of electronic signage as is shown on renderings of the project, saying that the billboards "are a bit tacky for Oklahoma City."

My experience living here all my life has been the 'naders typically go north or south of OKC and Tulsa. I've never delved too far into it, my personal speculation is that the taller buildings of the downtown areas tend to disrupt the airflow that allows them to develop. 

The last big tornado that hit Moore, this gives you an idea of the paths of the '99 and '13 F5 tornadoes, about 10 miles south of downtown OKC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Moore_tornado#/media/File:Moore-2013-track-vs-1999.png

Stampie said:

I found this funny.

During public comments on Thursday, Oklahoma City resident Cynthia Ciancarelli raised concerns about the use of electronic signage as is shown on renderings of the project, saying that the billboards "are a bit tacky for Oklahoma City."

I skimmed over that since I was looking for a different article, but that is berkeleyING hysterical!

Just imagine all of those windows getting ripped out during the direct hit F5 since Mother Nature has been zeroing in on downtown Oklahoma City.

I happen to not be averse to the climate there; if this makes the city more notable and draws in other industry, too, that’s not a bad thing. 

With fewer and fewer workers wanting to work from traditional office space, who are the envisioned tenants for this tower?

Unless you can show me a broader business plan where this building is going to act as some kind of seed-project that generates similar and supporting infrastructure,  I would not buy in.

z31maniac said:

My experience living here all my life has been the 'naders typically go north or south of OKC and Tulsa. I've never delved too far into it, my personal speculation is that the taller buildings of the downtown areas tend to disrupt the airflow that allows them to develop. 

The last big tornado that hit Moore, this gives you an idea of the paths of the '99 and '13 F5 tornadoes, about 10 miles south of downtown OKC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Moore_tornado#/media/File:Moore-2013-track-vs-1999.png

This seemed to hold true in Minneapolis as well. I was always mad when good storms broke up when they crossed the river, and I always blamed the topography change. 

There is already all that empty office space sitting down there. I worked for Loves for awhile and they own a bunch of buildings down there that are pretty much empty. Who is going to use it?

In this case I guess if you have to ask "why?"... you won't understand the answer.  

NOHOME said:

With fewer and fewer workers wanting to work from traditional office space, who are the envisioned tenants for this tower?

Unless you can show me a broader business plan where this building is going to act as some kind of seed-project that generates similar and supporting infrastructure,  I would not buy in.

I work for one of the largest eCommerce cloud companies in the world. I think we are the largest, but I don't want to do the research. 

I've been working from home full time for 4 years at this point. 

Does paying me to be at home make more sense than paying for office space?

Developers are looking to put a 1,907-foot tower dubbed "The Boardwalk at Bricktown" in Oklahoma's capital, which would give the city the sixth tallest building in the world. The current tallest skyscraper in the United States is the One World Trade Center in Manhattan, which reaches 1,776 feet and also holds the title for tallest building in the western hemisphere.

Do we really need anything taller than One World Trade Center? Especially in...Oklahoma? I love the fact that the tallest building in the US is 1,776 ft tall. Seems like a record that doesn't need to be broken. 

NOHOME said:

With fewer and fewer workers wanting to work from traditional office space, who are the envisioned tenants for this tower?

"wanting to" and what they actually do are probably two different things.  Even with WFH becoming increasingly popular, workforce is still growing so I'm sure space is needed.

That said, I'd love to see a sim-tower like breakdown of what the space in a typical skyscraper is allocated for.  

A lot of space is taken up with elevators, stairwells, mechanical equipment (A/C, electric, cabling,etc) .

Purple Frog said:

A lot of space is taken up with elevators, stairwells, mechanical equipment (A/C, electric, cabling,etc) .

Makes sense. There's a problem though. None of those things generate income. 

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Purple Frog said:

A lot of space is taken up with elevators, stairwells, mechanical equipment (A/C, electric, cabling,etc) .

Makes sense. There's a problem though. None of those things generate income. 

Space efficiency in really tall buildings is generally around 75% (meaning ratio of leasable space to core utilities, vertical circulation, etc).

Something designed for a lot of architectural effect may go down to 65%. The building in that rendering may be as high as 80%.

Duke said:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Purple Frog said:

A lot of space is taken up with elevators, stairwells, mechanical equipment (A/C, electric, cabling,etc) .

Makes sense. There's a problem though. None of those things generate income. 

Space efficiency in really tall buildings is generally around 75% (meaning ratio of leasable space to core utilities, vertical circulation, etc).

Something designed for a lot of architectural effect may go down to 65%. The building in that rendering may be as high as 80%.

 

What is it in short buildings?

I would imagine the taller the building, the lower the number, approaching zero as you reach the theoretical height limit for man-made structures.  (Eventually 100% of the structure is needed to support itself and no overhead is available for anything else)

prodarwin said:

NOHOME said:

With fewer and fewer workers wanting to work from traditional office space, who are the envisioned tenants for this tower?

"wanting to" and what they actually do are probably two different things.  Even with WFH becoming increasingly popular, workforce is still growing so I'm sure space is needed.

That said, I'd love to see a sim-tower like breakdown of what the space in a typical skyscraper is allocated for.  

My next question would be if the tenants are expected to come from new business or will the project cannibalize from existing building tenants? 

I would expect that there will be state funding for this and the ask from the state would be for a committed out of state organization to be a Marque tenant.

In reply to prodarwin :

Shorter buildings nudge a little higher, averaging around 80%, with 85%-90% possible.

When you start talking about super tall buildings, yes, structural requirements make a difference. But another point is elevators.  Modern buildings usually have grouped elevators serving different vertical areas.  There may be a bank that serves the first, say, 25 stories, with separate banks that serve similar stacks above (going straight from 1 to 26 with no stops, then making local stops between 26-50, etc).  Another way to do it is to have sky lobbies at, say, the third or quarter points, with express elevators that go directly to those floors (such as floors 30, 60, 90, 120), where you transfer to a local to get to the floor you need.

Either of these schemes use up more floor area than single full-height shafts, but they move people a lot faster over long vertical distances than your typical low/mid-rise "selective-collective" elevators that  pick up everybody along the way.

In reply to Duke :

I never thought how horrible it would be to have to stop at every floor at the end of the day to get out of a building.

MSN.com: For Oklahoma City residents, building the tallest tower in the United States sows doubts

I kind of thought that the first rendering was looking a little short. 

Apparently the planning commission has removed the height restriction and the developer is claiming site work will begin in the next 2-3 months. Along with the new stadium, the First Americans Museum, the new Casino/Hotel/Convention Center/Indoor Waterpark that is about 40% constructed next to the new Museum, new developments by the Zoo and Penn Square.......I think that puts total money going from the last years into the next few years at well more than $5 billion. 

I know it's the DailyMail, but it has some better renderings and such. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13345793/legends-tower-oklahoma-city-tallest-building-skyscraper-built.html

In reply to Duke :

Could multiple cars use the same vertical shaft?  

This to me looks like something that just because they can do it they have lost sight of if they should do it.