Devon Energy building new skyscraper downtown! (Oklahoma City, Tulsa: apartment complexes, house, living in) - (OK) - Page 13 - City-Data Forum

premiersalesse · 01-29-2009, 03:39 PM

who is the general contractor and do you have any contact info for the devon project?

fciman · 03-12-2009, 09:39 PM

Having lived in both cities, I find it amusing that the people in okc cannot stand for Tulsa to have something bigger or better than okc...So what, that Tulsa's skyscrapers has taller buildings. NOW that the BOK center is open it makes the Ford center look bland. AND to the person stating Tulsa will not be building anymore is humorous. If Tulsa counted there population from a 700 mile square area, populations would be much closer. Just look 800 people per square mile in okc compared to 2700 in Tulsa. I love the way okc has redone there downtown, but why have to have the biggest buildings, the most people, on and on. OUR country is in two wars currently, why not spend your time praying for our nation and troops who are fighting.

okcpulse · 03-13-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fciman

If Tulsa counted there population from a 700 mile square area, populations would be much closer. Just look 800 people per square mile in okc compared to 2700 in Tulsa.

That is actually VERY incorrect and VERY inaccurate. This is where I stress a need for an urban geography course in college or high school.

Oklahoma City's urbanized area is 243 contiguous square miles, to be exact. If Oklahoma City were to shed the rest, its population would drop from 547,000 to 510,000. not a big difference at all. That would place our population density at nearly 2100 per square mile. A simple glance at a wall map would quickly prove my point. Much of OKC's area will never be developed. Some of it will go underwater when the proposed Elm Creek Reservior is built.

So, Oklahoma City does not have over 500,000 BECAUSE we have 608 square miles of land area. Our land area is of no consequence, and to assume that only 800 people live in the square mile area of, say, Hefner/N.W. 122nd/MacArthur/Rockwell is a bad assumption.

Now, you accuse OKC of not being able to stand the fact that Tulsa has taller buildings. That is also very inaccurate. OKC doesn't care that Tulsa has taller buildings. Tulsa cares that Tulsa has taller buildings, and they love to rub it in OKC's face every chance they get.

The fact that Devon Tower will be the tallest in the state is not to satisfy any competition with Tulsa. Larry Nichols just wanted an icon for OKC, and he got one. No need to read deep into it.

And the Ford Center isn't being remodeled to "look better" that Tulsa's roll of duct tape. We are remodeling because we knew we had a bare-bones arena and needed a better facility for ourselves to enjoy, and to accomodate the NBA.

Please don't put words into OKC's mouth, especially when you are no Rembrandt of urban analysis.

Synopsis · 03-13-2009, 08:57 AM

I'm curious okcpulse. Is there a density map of Oklahoma city available online where one can prove that OkC is not benefitting from the mass of square miles within it's city limits?

I think that if we could post some facts about this it would lay to rest the whole "urbanized" and "unurbanized" speculation.

I'd welcome something of this nature so we can put this whole thing to bed. It would need to be from a reputable source, and not something like wikipedia, where opinions abound.

The fact is, OkC is one of the largest cities in land area of the US. If the city is benefitting from this large land area population wise, then the city also has to take the bad with the good.

However, if OkC is truly 90 percent concentrated within the urbanized area, I think that should be documented in some manner and not just speculated upon.

Also, if you want to pick and choose what areas of your city are dense or less dense, it goes against logic. One could say that four square miles in Tulsa has 5000 people per square mile but that wouldn't make it a fact. I'm not trying to be argumentative here but facts are facts; OkC is a large, even uber-large metropolitan area land-wise. The benefits of the large land area are an increased population base, and until someone can show me some kind of population density map from a reputable source that says 90 percent of OkC's population is within a small, confined area I will always be skeptical.

PS. That giant roll of duct tape in Tulsa is iconic. IMO, it is the best venue in the state bar none.

Synopsis · 03-13-2009, 09:25 AM

BTW, I'm not trying to start another flame war with Tulsa against OkC. I'm a big fan of what OkC has done over the last 15 years; the city is to be applauded for what it has done to turn around. If not for OkC, Tulsa wouldn't be instituting the things it has done to make the city better.

fciman · 03-13-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fciman

Having lived in both cities, I find it amusing that the people in okc cannot stand for Tulsa to have something bigger or better than okc...So what, that Tulsa's skyscrapers has taller buildings. NOW that the BOK center is open it makes the Ford center look bland. AND to the person stating Tulsa will not be building anymore is humorous. If Tulsa counted there population from a 700 mile square area, populations would be much closer. Just look 800 people per square mile in okc compared to 2700 in Tulsa. I love the way okc has redone there downtown, but why have to have the biggest buildings, the most people, on and on. OUR country is in two wars currently, why not spend your time praying for our nation and troops who are fighting.

okcpulse, OH how wrong you are. If you start at the beginning of post a couple of people said they envied T towns downtown because it was larger. I could care less which is bigger, just stating what waqs written, m However, I stand correct on my population stats, please read the fack before you stasrt balbalbalbaling.

okcpulse · 03-13-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fciman

okcpulse, OH how wrong you are. If you start at the beginning of post a couple of people said they envied T towns downtown because it was larger. I could care less which is bigger, just stating what waqs written, m However, I stand correct on my population stats, please read the fack before you stasrt balbalbalbaling.

I don't base OKC's opinions on message board posts from a few people. However, to those that did post that, I do stand corrected on your opening, and I don't agree with their envy.

I based my opinions on hundreds of people I've spoken with face to face over the years from OKC and Tulsa, and the general opinion has been...

Tulsa: We're better because we have taller buildings unlike OKC

OKC: We just want a better downtown

okcpulse · 03-13-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synopsis

I'm curious okcpulse. Is there a density map of Oklahoma city available online where one can prove that OkC is not benefitting from the mass of square miles within it's city limits?

I think that if we could post some facts about this it would lay to rest the whole "urbanized" and "unurbanized" speculation.

I'd welcome something of this nature so we can put this whole thing to bed. It would need to be from a reputable source, and not something like wikipedia, where opinions abound.

The fact is, OkC is one of the largest cities in land area of the US. If the city is benefitting from this large land area population wise, then the city also has to take the bad with the good.

However, if OkC is truly 90 percent concentrated within the urbanized area, I think that should be documented in some manner and not just speculated upon.

Also, if you want to pick and choose what areas of your city are dense or less dense, it goes against logic. One could say that four square miles in Tulsa has 5000 people per square mile but that wouldn't make it a fact. I'm not trying to be argumentative here but facts are facts; OkC is a large, even uber-large metropolitan area land-wise. The benefits of the large land area are an increased population base, and until someone can show me some kind of population density map from a reputable source that says 90 percent of OkC's population is within a small, confined area I will always be skeptical.

PS. That giant roll of duct tape in Tulsa is iconic. IMO, it is the best venue in the state bar none.

There are three reliable sources, Synopsis...

Here...

STI: ERsys - Oklahoma City, OK (Density)

Here...

http://www.city-data.com/city/Oklaho...-Oklahoma.html

(Somewhere in city-data's massive profile page I happened across a section that listed population in the urbanized and rural areas of OKC)

And only if I can track down a screenshot of a wallmap of OKC in its entirety.

BTW... I know the BOK is iconic to many, but it is not my taste of design. Just a personal preference. Though the floodlights at night are pretty cool. Ford Center will be much nicer when complete, but even that is not my taste of architecture.

Synopsis · 03-13-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okcpulse

There are three reliable sources, Synopsis...

Here...

STI: ERsys - Oklahoma City, OK (Density)

Here...

http://www.city-data.com/city/Oklaho...-Oklahoma.html

(Somewhere in city-data's massive profile page I happened across a section that listed population in the urbanized and rural areas of OKC)

And only if I can track down a screenshot of a wallmap of OKC in its entirety.

BTW... I know the BOK is iconic to many, but it is not my taste of design. Just a personal preference. Though the floodlights at night are pretty cool. Ford Center will be much nicer when complete, but even that is not my taste of architecture.

Please provide some concrete examples. I'm not saying I disbelieve you, I would just like something to compare.

As for BOK being iconic, I think Caesar Pelli has a reputation that precedes him. To each his or her own, but that arena is a site to behold, and I think if it was put up for a vote, it would be considered iconic by many across the world.

Inside and out it is a superior arena to the Ford Center, which houses my favorite team in the NBA, the OkC Thunder.

http://www.manhattanconstructiongroup.com/wp-content/gallery/20090204020256/2926_bok_center_final_d.jpg (broken link)

happytown · 03-13-2009, 10:57 AM

Density is going to vary with a city that has over 600sq miles. Lets not be ignorant and think that the population would be distributed evenly across the board. The term urban density does exist and is used for development etc.

Here are some links...
Population Density

Population density is an often reported and commonly compared statistic for places around the world. Population density is the measure of the number per unit area. It is commonly represented as people per square mile (or square kilometer), which is derived simply by dividing...
total area population / land area in square miles (or square kilometers)

For example, Canada's population of 33 million, divided by the land area of 3,559,294 square miles yields a density of 9.27 people per square mile. While this number would seem to indicate that 9.27 people live on each square mile of Canadian land area, the density within the country varies dramatically - a vast majority lives in the southern part of the country. Density is only a raw gauge to measure a population's disbursement across the land.

On another note the BOK kicks a$$, but the ford will eventually be the premiere venue in the state after the renovations. The BOK will always be a better looking arena of course.