OKLAHOMA CITY | Devon Headquarters | 850 FT / 259 M | 54 FLOORS | U/C

[Stu]

Keep it on topic please.

[Hot Rod]

One final post about the off topic - I think OKC is big enough to take on criticism of some of it's small town ultra-conservative ways. Being a bigger city means you need to be more inclusive to all cultures, and OKC has always been quite diverse in the past but religious freedom (of expression) is not as encouraged outside of Christianity.

I think this is the point many people are trying to make, it is odd for a budding big city to still have such a HUGE stand on ONE VIEW of the Christmas holiday. I think some OKC people should take the 'threatening' remarks as constructive criticism because it is far easier for outsiders to judge OKC's failures than it is for OKC residents to convince them otherwise with so many GLARING signs of ultra-conservatism/single point view. It may not be 'threatening' to dmoore or unforsaken, because you are from OKC currently live in OKC and are 'likely' Christian; but OKC needs to consider people who are not - which is exactly whom OKC says it is trying to attract for tourism/new business/residents.

Again, I like the crosses, but think it is overkill to have two prominent skyscrapers with a cross on all four sides. In fact, I think it would be better if only two sides had crosses and/or if other symbols (like Christmas tree outline, wreath, or non-christian symbols) were used or even red/green coloring or if one building had crosses and other buildings had something else ... . This would be more inclusive in my (and other's opinion) and would probably cast OKC in a far better light.

Just my two cents, coming from someone born and raised in OKC and damn proud of my hometown but have lived all around the world and can see both sides of the coin (with regard to some OKC criticisms). Didn't FNC used to use red/green colouring on it's spire? It'd make a huge difference if they brought that back.

The good news is with Devon Tower's color schematics, I think downtown will see some diversity in its Christmas Holiday seasonal displays on its towers. Again, OKC is a budding new big city now, so I think it is time to start acting like it instead of just coming up half way. ....

[Architect2010]

Looking south on Harvey Avenue. Great perspective and I love the density of this perspective.



BTW, I'm agnostic and I come across other athiests, agnostic, Buddhist, etc. every day of my life in Oklahoma City. But it is true that the overwhelming majority are Christian, but I've never been persecuted for being a non-believer. Not yet anyways.

[Dylan Leblanc]

that is a pretty good density shot for OKC!

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by Architect2010

BTW, I'm agnostic and I come across other athiests, agnostic, Buddhist, etc. every day of my life in Oklahoma City. But it is true that the overwhelming majority are Christian, but I've never been persecuted for being a non-believer. Not yet anyways.

I totally agree with what you're saying Architect, but I am just saying that I can see why outsiders to OKC could look at pics or visit town and come away with stereotypical impressions of ultraconservatism (ie Bible Belt) that OKC does well to showcase for some reason. The city DOESNT do a good job to show its true colors of an actual rather diverse and very tolerant city.

In fact, I think like you - that despite the overwhelming dominance of christian STRUCTURES or Symbols in OKC - it really isn't as conservative and definitely not bible thumping. But again, the city doesn't do a good job to show it's acceptability, at least on the surface. This is something I hope will change along with many of the other improvements which have taken place.

I'd imagine if people came to visit or saw pictures of Seattle and we had crosses on four sides of two prominent skyscrapers, people might immediately consider us to be quite ultra-conservative too despite reality. Just sayin.

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

midrise?

I am certain those two OKC "midrises" with the crosses would be called skyscrapers in Portland's stubby skyline. ...

However, I do agree somewhat with your point that the overkill of crosses does cheapen the message or make the city threatening to many. It would be better if one of them did a different cymbol, like a christmas tree or lit itself green/red. ....

Yeah. Portland is kinda "stubby", but we dont measure how urban we are with high rise phallic symbols to make up what we lack in "urbanity". Portland is FAR MORE "urban" and has a much more lively city feel to it than Oklahoma City and for that matter MOST cities in the US. And btw, the three tallest buildings in Portland are taller than anything in Oklahoma city before Devon. Just because Dubai has many skyscrapers taller than the Empire State building does it in fact have a more big city feel to it than New York? No. Oklahoma City is essentially like any big sprawl city in the southwest and clings to the "lets live in the far flung suburbs and commute by freeway to an urban core"ideal. And this urban core is essentially dead save for 9AM till 5PM. And I was not saying that private companies have no right to display lighted crosses on buildings. But if you look at it say from an "outsider", who has no negative views on Christianity, this display just tends to cheapen the view of the religion.

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by Architect2010

Looking south on Harvey Avenue. Great perspective and I love the density of this perspective.



BTW, I'm agnostic and I come across other athiests, agnostic, Buddhist, etc. every day of my life in Oklahoma City. But it is true that the overwhelming majority are Christian, but I've never been persecuted for being a non-believer. Not yet anyways.

Tell everyone you are a gay Muslim in Oklahoma City and see how persecuted you will be...LOL "Density"? There is one huge tall building and 3 in front of it maybe 10-15 stories each(maybe)? Density? Okay no more on this topic unless goaded..promise. LOL Yeah the large and burgeoning Buddhist community in Oklahoma City..too funny.

[dmoor82]

Originally Posted by JoePDX

Yeah. Portland is kinda "stubby", but we dont measure how urban we are with high rise phallic symbols to make up what we lack in "urbanity". Portland is FAR MORE "urban" and has a much more lively city feel to it than Oklahoma City and for that matter MOST cities in the US. And btw, the three tallest buildings in Portland are taller than anything in Oklahoma city before Devon. Just because Dubai has many skyscrapers taller than the Empire State building does it in fact have a more big city feel to it than New York? No. Oklahoma City is essentially like any big sprawl city in the southwest and clings to the "lets live in the far flung suburbs and commute by freeway to an urban core"ideal. And this urban core is essentially dead save for 9AM till 5PM. And I was not saying that private companies have no right to display lighted crosses on buildings. But if you look at it say from an "outsider", who has no negative views on Christianity, this display just tends to cheapen the view of the religion.

I agree with everything you say about Portland,it is a great city but let's not compare OKC and Portland because there is a 900k difference in metro pop. and the cities were built and designed differently,so it's really not fair!That would be like comparing Boston(where my entire family is from) to Portland,or comparing Boston to NYC,it's just not possible!You can however come onto this thread and give SOME praise to OKC?

[dmoor82]

Only three cities in ALL OF AMERICA built up their cores more than their fringes or suburbs,and Holy cow OKC is one of them!This might not be suprising to those of us who live here and SEE it, but for others it probably is mindblowing!http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/weekinreview/12burbs.html

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by dmoor82

I agree with everything you say about Portland,it is a great city but let's not compare OKC and Portland because there is a 900k difference in metro pop. and the cities were built and designed differently,so it's really not fair!That would be like comparing Boston(where my entire family is from) to Portland,or comparing Boston to NYC,it's just not possible!You can however come onto this thread and give SOME praise to OKC?

Yes, Devon is a nice building and I'm sure it will create more interest and development in the central city area. This is a good thing, not bad.

[dmoor82]

Qoute from the NYTimes article above:Of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, only three — Boston, Providence, and Oklahoma City — saw their core cities grow faster than their suburbs. And the growth is hardly the mono-dimensional suburbia of hoary stereotype.

[dmoor82]

Originally Posted by JoePDX

Yes, Devon is a nice building and I'm sure it will create more interest and development in the central city area. This is a good thing, not bad.

The central area or core,is undergoing a boom right now to say the least!The streetcar will be even more of a spur here within 5 years!

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by dmoor82

Only three cities in ALL OF AMERICA built up their cores more than their fringes or suburbs,and Holy cow OKC is one of them!This might not be suprising to those of us who live here and SEE it, but for others it probably is mindblowing!http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/weekinreview/12burbs.html

This sounds good on tbe face of it, but what does the "core" constitute in Oklahoma City? Does this mean everything inside the city limits is the "core"? The land area is huge and OK City has a average density of 923 people per square mile. My hometown of Lynchburg, Va has 1500 people per square mile. It has a dense small urban downtown but the rest of the city is very "suburban" like. So, unless the "core" is defined as a small area in the center of the city this study really does nothing to defuse the idea that OK city is still built on the "sprawl" platform. Yes, and the streetcars and better mass transit may promote this center city urban growth more.

[dmoor82]

^^LOL,do you actually believe that there is 580k residents spread over 600+ sq miles?You could de annex 1/3rd of OKC's undeveloped areas and another 1/3rd of it's partially developed areas,and end up with 200+sq miles and still have 450-500k!Believe it or not OKC's core is built up just as much as alot of cities!The "core" of OKC is downtown,Midtown,Medical district,Deep Deuce,Bricktown,Automobile alley,Film row and other neighborhoods and districts making up between 5-10 square miles!

[dmoor82]

Most of the construction boom that is taking place is in Automobile Alley,Midtown,Deep Deuce,CBD,all of which are basicaly the dt core!

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by dmoor82

^^LOL,do you actually believe that there is 580k residents spread over 600+ sq miles?You could de annex 1/3rd of OKC's undeveloped areas and another 1/3rd of it's partially developed areas,and end up with 200+sq miles and still have 450-500k!Believe it or not OKC's core is built up just as much as alot of cities!The "core" of OKC is downtown,Midtown,Medical district,Deep Deuce,Bricktown,Automobile alley,Film row and other neighborhoods and districts making up between 5-10 square miles!

No, I just looked it up and the "urban density" is 2300 people per square mile. Still pretty suburban like. Anyway, these developments sound positive.

[dmoor82]

Originally Posted by JoePDX

This sounds good on tbe face of it, but what does the "core" constitute in Oklahoma City? Does this mean everything inside the city limits is the "core"? The land area is huge and OK City has a average density of 923 people per square mile. My hometown of Lynchburg, Va has 1500 people per square mile. It has a dense small urban downtown but the rest of the city is very "suburban" like. So, unless the "core" is defined as a small area in the center of the city this study really does nothing to defuse the idea that OK city is still built on the "sprawl" platform. Yes, and the streetcars and better mass transit may promote this center city urban growth more.

^^You are correct about OKC being a car centric city thats lacks urbanity,but this aricle wasnt trying to diffuse the sprawl issue,the author was commenting on numbers alone.I see sprawl kinda like drug addiction or really any vice,once your used to a certain way and dont want to change you never will,but if you want to better yourself and prosper then CHANGE.Once you've hit rock bottom(endless sprawl)theres only one way back up,and OKC is sprinting upward with change!

[dmoor82]

Originally Posted by JoePDX

No, I just looked it up and the "urban density" is 2300 people per square mile. Still pretty suburban like. Anyway, these developments sound positive.

^^This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City is where you got your info from.That 2,300k/ sq mile is for the Urbanized density of the entire city's urbanized area, not for the "core" density!OKC's urbanized area stretches from NW expressway all the way down to Moore and includes Edmond,Midwes and Del cities an other suburbs,which is hardly the "core"!I'm not saying OKC is dense by any stretch of the means,but it is hardly the vaste nothingness that some might believe!

[dmoor82]

JoePDX,here is link that shows every single zip code in OKC with stats that include population and pop. density for each zip code.My zip code which is in the core and downtown(73102)has well over 5,000 ppl/square mile.This link also shows the entire city limits or boundaries outlined in red,which again you can slice into thirds-developed,partialy developed,undeveloped.Most of the "core" of OKC is between 3,000 and 5,500 ppl/square mile,the wiki stat you qouted is for the entire OKC metro urbanized area,which I might add has more density that alot of cities ahead of it!Take a look: http://www.city-data.com/zipmaps/Oklahoma-City-Oklahoma.html BTW,Portland's most dense zip code has well over 16,000 ppl/square mile WOW!

[Architect2010]

Dmoor. Just let it go. Mr. JoePDX is obviously a troll that spends too much time demeaning other cities that don't stand up to his very BIASED perspective of the glorious P-Town. Lmao. He doesn't know very much about Oklahoma City, but he pretends to. He's only making you feed into him.

It's funny how rude people really can be. Some, like him, spend way too much time on development forums and for some reason develop a "holier than thou" attitude and also don't realize they're projecting very personal opinions as incorrect facts such as: my city is better, more livable, friendly, whatever. When in fact, Portland is hardly any model. It has sprawling suburbs as well, just as us, and while being more urban than OKC, it is still a typical American city. This is why he picks on OKC though, because in comparison to his glorious[SIC] city, we are the much smaller [LITERALLY] kid that's prone to be picked on by bullies. He's quick to point out information like our 600 square mile city land area as if our population is actually spread evenly throughout. Proof he knows nothing about OKC other than what the internet can partially let him experience.

Stop attacking cities personally and get over yourself loser.